• Paul Bachoo, P A Thorpe, Heather Maxwell, and Karen Welch.
• Ward 36, Vascular Surgery, Aberdeen Royal infirmary, Foresterhill, Aberdeen, Scotland, UK.
• Cochrane Db Syst Rev. 2010 Jan 20; 2010 (1): CD003228CD003228.

BackgroundEndovascular stents have been suggested as a means to improve the patency of arteries after angioplasty in patients with intermittent claudication. This is an update of a Cochrane review published in 2002.ObjectivesThe null hypothesis to be tested by this review is that for individuals with claudication the use of an endovascular stent, in addition to percutaneous transluminal angioplasty, does not improve symptoms of life-style limiting claudication when compared to percutaneous angioplasty alone.Search StrategyFor this update the Cochrane Peripheral Vascular Diseases Group searched their Specialised Register (last searched August 2009) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library (last searched 2009, Issue 3).Selection CriteriaRandomised trials comparing angioplasty alone versus angioplasty with endovascular stents in patients with intermittent claudication.Data Collection And AnalysisTwo authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted the data. Only published trial data were used but unpublished data were sought for the update. Effectiveness was measured by the pre-defined primary outcome measures restenosis or reocclusion rates and maximum walking distance.Main ResultsTwo studies were included involving a total of 104 participants. Both studies included only individuals with femoro-popliteal disease. They compared angioplasty and stenting with the Palmaz stent against angioplasty alone. Although one study showed a slight statistical advantage in arterial patency after angioplasty alone, this was not found when the two studies were combined. No differences in the secondary outcomes were detected in either study.Authors' ConclusionsThe small number of relevant studies identified together with the small sample sizes and methodological weaknesses severely limit the usefulness of this review in guiding practice. The results from larger multicentre trials are needed.

9 keywords...

hide…