• J. Vasc. Surg. · Apr 2014

    Review Meta Analysis

    Bayesian network meta-analysis of nitinol stents, covered stents, drug-eluting stents, and drug-coated balloons in the femoropopliteal artery.

    • Konstantinos Katsanos, Stavros Spiliopoulos, Narayan Karunanithy, Miltiadis Krokidis, Tarun Sabharwal, and Peter Taylor.
    • Department of Interventional Radiology, Guy's and St. Thomas' Hospitals, NHS Foundation Trust, King's Health Partners, London, United Kingdom. Electronic address: konstantinos.katsanos@gstt.nhs.uk.
    • J. Vasc. Surg. 2014 Apr 1; 59 (4): 1123-1133.e8.

    ObjectiveSeveral randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have shown the superiority of some of these technologies over balloon angioplasty, but direct comparisons between these treatment options are lacking. The authors conducted a network meta-analysis of RCTs comparing bare nitinol stents, covered nitinol stents, paclitaxel- or sirolimus-eluting stents (PES or SES), and paclitaxel-coated balloons (PCB) with plain balloon angioplasty or with each other in the femoropopliteal artery (PROSPERO registry: CRD42013004845).MethodsSixteen RCTs comprising 2532 patients with 4227 person-years of follow-up were analyzed on an intention-to-treat basis. Bayesian random effects Poisson and binomial models were used for mixed treatment comparisons (WinBUGS). Clinical heterogeneity was accounted for by incorporating a meta-regression model on trial-specific baseline risk. End points included technical success, vascular restenosis, target lesion revascularization, and major amputations. Pairwise odds ratios and rate ratios (ORs and RRs) of absolute treatment effects were calculated, and the probabilities of each treatment being best are reported. Summary estimates are reported as the posterior median and associated credible intervals (CrIs) that serve the same purpose as confidence intervals in the context of the Bayesian framework. Extensive sensitivity, meta-regression, and network consistency analyses were performed to evaluate heterogeneity.ResultsTechnical success was highest with covered stents (pooled OR, 13.6; 95% CrI, 3.3-31.1, probability best 82%) followed by uncovered stents (pooled OR, 7.0; 95% CrI, 2.6-129, probability best 18%) when compared with balloon angioplasty (reference treatment). Vascular restenosis was lowest with PES (RR, 0.43; 95% CrI, 0.16-1.18, probability best 45%) followed by PCB (RR, 0.43; 95% CrI, 0.26-0.67, probability best 42%). Target lesion revascularization was lowest with PCB (RR, 0.36; 95% CrI, 0.23-0.55, probability best 56%) followed by PES (RR, 0.42; 95% CrI, 0.16-1.06, probability best 33%). Major amputations were rare in all treatment and control groups (pooled amputation rate of 0.7 events per 100 person-years).ConclusionsImmediate technical success is better with the use of covered stents, whereas paclitaxel-eluting stents and paclitaxel-coated balloons offer the best long-term results in the femoropopliteal artery.Copyright © 2014 Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.

      Pubmed     Free full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…

What will the 'Medical Journal of You' look like?

Start your free 21 day trial now.

We guarantee your privacy. Your email address will not be shared.