12 research outputs found
Main characteristics and baselines of the included studies.
Main characteristics and baselines of the included studies.</p
Search terms used in the literature search on different platforms.
Search terms used in the literature search on different platforms.</p
Fig 2 -
Forest plot of ISR-free survival (random effects model, P = 0.058) (A); Sensitivity analysis of the model assuming that each study is omitted separately [ln (HR)] (B); Funnel plot with pseudo 95% confidence limits (C). Abbreviations: HR, hazard ratio; CI, confidence interval; REML, restricted maximum likelihood; BMSI, bare metal stent implantation; DESI, drug-eluting stent implantation; ISR, in-stent restenosis.</p
Definitions of the outcomes during follow up extracted from the included studies.
Definitions of the outcomes during follow up extracted from the included studies.</p
Fig 5 -
Forest plot of ACD survival (random effects model with high heterogeneity) (A); Forest plot of CB survival (random effects model with high heterogeneity) (B). Abbreviations: HR, hazard ratio; CI, confidence interval; REML, restricted maximum likelihood; BMSI, bare metal stent implantation; DESI, drug-eluting stent implantation; ACD, all-cause death; CB, clinical benefit.</p
PRISMA flowchart.
ObjectiveIn recent years, studies of drug-eluting stent (DES) for femoropopliteal artery diseases (FPADs) have been gradually published. To explore whether this type of stent is superior to the traditional bare metal stent (BMS), we performed this study.MethodsA systematic search for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in Excerpta Medica Database (Embase), PubMed, Web of Science (WOS), and Cochrane Library was performed on November 29, 2022. We innovatively adopted the hazard ratio (HR), the most appropriate indicator, as a measure of the outcomes that fall under the category of time-to-event data. The HRs was extracted directly or indirectly. Then, the meta-analyses using random effects model were performed. The bias risks of included papers were assessed by the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 tool. This study was registered on the PROSPER platform (CRD42023391944) and not funded.ResultsSeven RCTs involving 1,889 participants were found. After pooled analyses, we obtained results without propensity on each of the following 3 outcomes of interest: in-stent restenosis (ISR) -free survival, primary patency (PP) survival, and target lesion revascularization (TLR) -free survival (P >0.05, respectively). Because the results of pooled analyses of the other two outcomes of interest (all-cause death free survival and clinical benefit survival) had high heterogeneity both, they were not accepted by us.ConclusionFor FPADs, the DES has not yet demonstrated superiority or inferiority to BMS, in the ability to maintain PP, avoid ISR and TLR.</div
Patient selection during data extraction from the Zilver PTX trial [16].
Patient selection during data extraction from the Zilver PTX trial [16].</p
Fig 4 -
Forest plot of TLR-free survival (random effects model, P = 0.089) (A); Sensitivity analysis of the model assuming that each study is omitted separately [ln (HR)] (B); Funnel plot with pseudo 95% confidence limits (C). Abbreviations: HR, hazard ratio; CI, confidence interval; REML, restricted maximum likelihood; BMSI, bare metal stent implantation; DESI, drug-eluting stent implantation; TLR, target lesion revascularization.</p
PRISMA checklist.
ObjectiveIn recent years, studies of drug-eluting stent (DES) for femoropopliteal artery diseases (FPADs) have been gradually published. To explore whether this type of stent is superior to the traditional bare metal stent (BMS), we performed this study.MethodsA systematic search for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in Excerpta Medica Database (Embase), PubMed, Web of Science (WOS), and Cochrane Library was performed on November 29, 2022. We innovatively adopted the hazard ratio (HR), the most appropriate indicator, as a measure of the outcomes that fall under the category of time-to-event data. The HRs was extracted directly or indirectly. Then, the meta-analyses using random effects model were performed. The bias risks of included papers were assessed by the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 tool. This study was registered on the PROSPER platform (CRD42023391944) and not funded.ResultsSeven RCTs involving 1,889 participants were found. After pooled analyses, we obtained results without propensity on each of the following 3 outcomes of interest: in-stent restenosis (ISR) -free survival, primary patency (PP) survival, and target lesion revascularization (TLR) -free survival (P >0.05, respectively). Because the results of pooled analyses of the other two outcomes of interest (all-cause death free survival and clinical benefit survival) had high heterogeneity both, they were not accepted by us.ConclusionFor FPADs, the DES has not yet demonstrated superiority or inferiority to BMS, in the ability to maintain PP, avoid ISR and TLR.</div
Risk bias assessment results of included studies.
ObjectiveIn recent years, studies of drug-eluting stent (DES) for femoropopliteal artery diseases (FPADs) have been gradually published. To explore whether this type of stent is superior to the traditional bare metal stent (BMS), we performed this study.MethodsA systematic search for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in Excerpta Medica Database (Embase), PubMed, Web of Science (WOS), and Cochrane Library was performed on November 29, 2022. We innovatively adopted the hazard ratio (HR), the most appropriate indicator, as a measure of the outcomes that fall under the category of time-to-event data. The HRs was extracted directly or indirectly. Then, the meta-analyses using random effects model were performed. The bias risks of included papers were assessed by the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 tool. This study was registered on the PROSPER platform (CRD42023391944) and not funded.ResultsSeven RCTs involving 1,889 participants were found. After pooled analyses, we obtained results without propensity on each of the following 3 outcomes of interest: in-stent restenosis (ISR) -free survival, primary patency (PP) survival, and target lesion revascularization (TLR) -free survival (P >0.05, respectively). Because the results of pooled analyses of the other two outcomes of interest (all-cause death free survival and clinical benefit survival) had high heterogeneity both, they were not accepted by us.ConclusionFor FPADs, the DES has not yet demonstrated superiority or inferiority to BMS, in the ability to maintain PP, avoid ISR and TLR.</div