Comparison of treatment strategies for femoro‐popliteal disease: A network meta‐analysis
Objectives We sought to compare treatment strategies in a Bayesian network meta‐analysis of randomized controlled trials. Background Peripheral artery disease (PAD) is a prevalent morbidity that is treated with various strategies. Methods We performed a MEDLINE search for randomized studies comparin...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions 2018-06, Vol.91 (7), p.1320-1328 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 1328 |
---|---|
container_issue | 7 |
container_start_page | 1320 |
container_title | Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions |
container_volume | 91 |
creator | Koifman, Edward Lipinski, Michael J. Buchanan, Kyle Yu Kang, Won Escarcega, Ricardo O. Waksman, Ron Bernardo, Nelson L. |
description | Objectives
We sought to compare treatment strategies in a Bayesian network meta‐analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Background
Peripheral artery disease (PAD) is a prevalent morbidity that is treated with various strategies.
Methods
We performed a MEDLINE search for randomized studies comparing at least 2 treatment strategies, including bypass surgery, percutaneous transluminal angioplasty (PTA) balloons, stents, covered stents, drug‐eluting stents (DES), and drug‐coated balloons (DCB), in patients with native femoro‐popliteal disease. Mixed treatment comparison model generation was performed to directly and indirectly compare the strategies in terms of restenosis and target lesion revascularization (TLR) presented as odds ratios (OR, [95% credible intervals]).
Results
Twenty‐nine studies with 4,820 patients were included in the present study. PTA was the largest group with 1,900 patients, followed by DCB (n = 1,343), bare metal stents (n = 941), covered stents (n = 304), DES (n = 236), and bypass (n = 92). Mean age was 68 ± 9 years, 64% were male, 37% diabetic, and 55% smokers. Mean lesion length was 77 ± 44 mm, and 39% were total occlusions. Bayesian hierarchical random‐effects model demonstrated all treatments were significantly better than, or had a trend toward superiority over, PTA, with DCB ranking well in both restenosis (OR = 0.29, [0.17‐0.47]) and TLR (OR = 0.31, [0.20‐0.46]). Nonetheless, none of the therapies showed superiority in terms of survival or amputations.
Conclusion
Treatment of femoro‐popliteal disease has significantly evolved in recent years, with higher rates of patency and freedom from TLR. However, the utility of these treatment strategies in terms of reduction of amputations and overall survival remains in question. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1002/ccd.27484 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1989587710</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2053563699</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4194-99777a276a8c452c11dd4266b8f87668a6e1a738a388fdc2dfd2aafbcb184b193</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kMtq3DAUhkVoaS7tIi9QBN00i0kk2dalu-DmBoFuWsgiII7lo-LEthxJQ5hdHiHP2CeJk5lkUcjqnMXHx89HyD5nh5wxceRceyhUqcstssMrIRZKyKsPm5-bUm6T3ZRuGGNGCvOJbAtTFKLg1Q65rsMwQexSGGnwNEeEPOCYacoRMv7tMFEfIvU4hBj-PTxOYeq7jNDTtksICX_QYzpivg_xlg6YYWZghH6VuvSZfPTQJ_yyuXvkz-nJ7_p8cfnr7KI-vly4cl63MEYpBUJJ0K6shOO8bUshZaO9VlJqkMhBFRoKrX3rROtbAeAb13BdNtwUe-T72jvFcLfElO3QJYd9DyOGZbLcaFNppTib0W__oTdhGee9yQpWFZUspHkWHqwpF0NKEb2dYjdAXFnO7HNyOye3L8ln9uvGuGwGbN_I18YzcLQG7rseV--bbF3_XCufAOsyjOI</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2053563699</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Comparison of treatment strategies for femoro‐popliteal disease: A network meta‐analysis</title><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><creator>Koifman, Edward ; Lipinski, Michael J. ; Buchanan, Kyle ; Yu Kang, Won ; Escarcega, Ricardo O. ; Waksman, Ron ; Bernardo, Nelson L.</creator><creatorcontrib>Koifman, Edward ; Lipinski, Michael J. ; Buchanan, Kyle ; Yu Kang, Won ; Escarcega, Ricardo O. ; Waksman, Ron ; Bernardo, Nelson L.</creatorcontrib><description>Objectives
We sought to compare treatment strategies in a Bayesian network meta‐analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Background
Peripheral artery disease (PAD) is a prevalent morbidity that is treated with various strategies.
Methods
We performed a MEDLINE search for randomized studies comparing at least 2 treatment strategies, including bypass surgery, percutaneous transluminal angioplasty (PTA) balloons, stents, covered stents, drug‐eluting stents (DES), and drug‐coated balloons (DCB), in patients with native femoro‐popliteal disease. Mixed treatment comparison model generation was performed to directly and indirectly compare the strategies in terms of restenosis and target lesion revascularization (TLR) presented as odds ratios (OR, [95% credible intervals]).
Results
Twenty‐nine studies with 4,820 patients were included in the present study. PTA was the largest group with 1,900 patients, followed by DCB (n = 1,343), bare metal stents (n = 941), covered stents (n = 304), DES (n = 236), and bypass (n = 92). Mean age was 68 ± 9 years, 64% were male, 37% diabetic, and 55% smokers. Mean lesion length was 77 ± 44 mm, and 39% were total occlusions. Bayesian hierarchical random‐effects model demonstrated all treatments were significantly better than, or had a trend toward superiority over, PTA, with DCB ranking well in both restenosis (OR = 0.29, [0.17‐0.47]) and TLR (OR = 0.31, [0.20‐0.46]). Nonetheless, none of the therapies showed superiority in terms of survival or amputations.
Conclusion
Treatment of femoro‐popliteal disease has significantly evolved in recent years, with higher rates of patency and freedom from TLR. However, the utility of these treatment strategies in terms of reduction of amputations and overall survival remains in question.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1522-1946</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1522-726X</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1002/ccd.27484</identifier><identifier>PMID: 29332315</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</publisher><subject>Angioplasty ; Bayesian analysis ; Clinical trials ; Diabetes mellitus ; Implants ; Medical equipment ; Medical treatment ; Meta-analysis ; Morbidity ; outcome ; Patients ; peripheral artery disease ; Randomization ; Restenosis ; Stents ; Surgery ; target lesion revascularization ; Vascular diseases</subject><ispartof>Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions, 2018-06, Vol.91 (7), p.1320-1328</ispartof><rights>2018 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4194-99777a276a8c452c11dd4266b8f87668a6e1a738a388fdc2dfd2aafbcb184b193</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4194-99777a276a8c452c11dd4266b8f87668a6e1a738a388fdc2dfd2aafbcb184b193</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-4063-9226</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002%2Fccd.27484$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002%2Fccd.27484$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,1411,27903,27904,45553,45554</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29332315$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Koifman, Edward</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lipinski, Michael J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Buchanan, Kyle</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yu Kang, Won</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Escarcega, Ricardo O.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Waksman, Ron</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bernardo, Nelson L.</creatorcontrib><title>Comparison of treatment strategies for femoro‐popliteal disease: A network meta‐analysis</title><title>Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions</title><addtitle>Catheter Cardiovasc Interv</addtitle><description>Objectives
We sought to compare treatment strategies in a Bayesian network meta‐analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Background
Peripheral artery disease (PAD) is a prevalent morbidity that is treated with various strategies.
Methods
We performed a MEDLINE search for randomized studies comparing at least 2 treatment strategies, including bypass surgery, percutaneous transluminal angioplasty (PTA) balloons, stents, covered stents, drug‐eluting stents (DES), and drug‐coated balloons (DCB), in patients with native femoro‐popliteal disease. Mixed treatment comparison model generation was performed to directly and indirectly compare the strategies in terms of restenosis and target lesion revascularization (TLR) presented as odds ratios (OR, [95% credible intervals]).
Results
Twenty‐nine studies with 4,820 patients were included in the present study. PTA was the largest group with 1,900 patients, followed by DCB (n = 1,343), bare metal stents (n = 941), covered stents (n = 304), DES (n = 236), and bypass (n = 92). Mean age was 68 ± 9 years, 64% were male, 37% diabetic, and 55% smokers. Mean lesion length was 77 ± 44 mm, and 39% were total occlusions. Bayesian hierarchical random‐effects model demonstrated all treatments were significantly better than, or had a trend toward superiority over, PTA, with DCB ranking well in both restenosis (OR = 0.29, [0.17‐0.47]) and TLR (OR = 0.31, [0.20‐0.46]). Nonetheless, none of the therapies showed superiority in terms of survival or amputations.
Conclusion
Treatment of femoro‐popliteal disease has significantly evolved in recent years, with higher rates of patency and freedom from TLR. However, the utility of these treatment strategies in terms of reduction of amputations and overall survival remains in question.</description><subject>Angioplasty</subject><subject>Bayesian analysis</subject><subject>Clinical trials</subject><subject>Diabetes mellitus</subject><subject>Implants</subject><subject>Medical equipment</subject><subject>Medical treatment</subject><subject>Meta-analysis</subject><subject>Morbidity</subject><subject>outcome</subject><subject>Patients</subject><subject>peripheral artery disease</subject><subject>Randomization</subject><subject>Restenosis</subject><subject>Stents</subject><subject>Surgery</subject><subject>target lesion revascularization</subject><subject>Vascular diseases</subject><issn>1522-1946</issn><issn>1522-726X</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2018</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp1kMtq3DAUhkVoaS7tIi9QBN00i0kk2dalu-DmBoFuWsgiII7lo-LEthxJQ5hdHiHP2CeJk5lkUcjqnMXHx89HyD5nh5wxceRceyhUqcstssMrIRZKyKsPm5-bUm6T3ZRuGGNGCvOJbAtTFKLg1Q65rsMwQexSGGnwNEeEPOCYacoRMv7tMFEfIvU4hBj-PTxOYeq7jNDTtksICX_QYzpivg_xlg6YYWZghH6VuvSZfPTQJ_yyuXvkz-nJ7_p8cfnr7KI-vly4cl63MEYpBUJJ0K6shOO8bUshZaO9VlJqkMhBFRoKrX3rROtbAeAb13BdNtwUe-T72jvFcLfElO3QJYd9DyOGZbLcaFNppTib0W__oTdhGee9yQpWFZUspHkWHqwpF0NKEb2dYjdAXFnO7HNyOye3L8ln9uvGuGwGbN_I18YzcLQG7rseV--bbF3_XCufAOsyjOI</recordid><startdate>20180601</startdate><enddate>20180601</enddate><creator>Koifman, Edward</creator><creator>Lipinski, Michael J.</creator><creator>Buchanan, Kyle</creator><creator>Yu Kang, Won</creator><creator>Escarcega, Ricardo O.</creator><creator>Waksman, Ron</creator><creator>Bernardo, Nelson L.</creator><general>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</general><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7T5</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4063-9226</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20180601</creationdate><title>Comparison of treatment strategies for femoro‐popliteal disease: A network meta‐analysis</title><author>Koifman, Edward ; Lipinski, Michael J. ; Buchanan, Kyle ; Yu Kang, Won ; Escarcega, Ricardo O. ; Waksman, Ron ; Bernardo, Nelson L.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4194-99777a276a8c452c11dd4266b8f87668a6e1a738a388fdc2dfd2aafbcb184b193</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2018</creationdate><topic>Angioplasty</topic><topic>Bayesian analysis</topic><topic>Clinical trials</topic><topic>Diabetes mellitus</topic><topic>Implants</topic><topic>Medical equipment</topic><topic>Medical treatment</topic><topic>Meta-analysis</topic><topic>Morbidity</topic><topic>outcome</topic><topic>Patients</topic><topic>peripheral artery disease</topic><topic>Randomization</topic><topic>Restenosis</topic><topic>Stents</topic><topic>Surgery</topic><topic>target lesion revascularization</topic><topic>Vascular diseases</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Koifman, Edward</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lipinski, Michael J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Buchanan, Kyle</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yu Kang, Won</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Escarcega, Ricardo O.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Waksman, Ron</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bernardo, Nelson L.</creatorcontrib><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Immunology Abstracts</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Koifman, Edward</au><au>Lipinski, Michael J.</au><au>Buchanan, Kyle</au><au>Yu Kang, Won</au><au>Escarcega, Ricardo O.</au><au>Waksman, Ron</au><au>Bernardo, Nelson L.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Comparison of treatment strategies for femoro‐popliteal disease: A network meta‐analysis</atitle><jtitle>Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions</jtitle><addtitle>Catheter Cardiovasc Interv</addtitle><date>2018-06-01</date><risdate>2018</risdate><volume>91</volume><issue>7</issue><spage>1320</spage><epage>1328</epage><pages>1320-1328</pages><issn>1522-1946</issn><eissn>1522-726X</eissn><abstract>Objectives
We sought to compare treatment strategies in a Bayesian network meta‐analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Background
Peripheral artery disease (PAD) is a prevalent morbidity that is treated with various strategies.
Methods
We performed a MEDLINE search for randomized studies comparing at least 2 treatment strategies, including bypass surgery, percutaneous transluminal angioplasty (PTA) balloons, stents, covered stents, drug‐eluting stents (DES), and drug‐coated balloons (DCB), in patients with native femoro‐popliteal disease. Mixed treatment comparison model generation was performed to directly and indirectly compare the strategies in terms of restenosis and target lesion revascularization (TLR) presented as odds ratios (OR, [95% credible intervals]).
Results
Twenty‐nine studies with 4,820 patients were included in the present study. PTA was the largest group with 1,900 patients, followed by DCB (n = 1,343), bare metal stents (n = 941), covered stents (n = 304), DES (n = 236), and bypass (n = 92). Mean age was 68 ± 9 years, 64% were male, 37% diabetic, and 55% smokers. Mean lesion length was 77 ± 44 mm, and 39% were total occlusions. Bayesian hierarchical random‐effects model demonstrated all treatments were significantly better than, or had a trend toward superiority over, PTA, with DCB ranking well in both restenosis (OR = 0.29, [0.17‐0.47]) and TLR (OR = 0.31, [0.20‐0.46]). Nonetheless, none of the therapies showed superiority in terms of survival or amputations.
Conclusion
Treatment of femoro‐popliteal disease has significantly evolved in recent years, with higher rates of patency and freedom from TLR. However, the utility of these treatment strategies in terms of reduction of amputations and overall survival remains in question.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</pub><pmid>29332315</pmid><doi>10.1002/ccd.27484</doi><tpages>9</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4063-9226</orcidid></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1522-1946 |
ispartof | Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions, 2018-06, Vol.91 (7), p.1320-1328 |
issn | 1522-1946 1522-726X |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1989587710 |
source | Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete |
subjects | Angioplasty Bayesian analysis Clinical trials Diabetes mellitus Implants Medical equipment Medical treatment Meta-analysis Morbidity outcome Patients peripheral artery disease Randomization Restenosis Stents Surgery target lesion revascularization Vascular diseases |
title | Comparison of treatment strategies for femoro‐popliteal disease: A network meta‐analysis |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-23T10%3A14%3A34IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Comparison%20of%20treatment%20strategies%20for%20femoro%E2%80%90popliteal%20disease:%20A%20network%20meta%E2%80%90analysis&rft.jtitle=Catheterization%20and%20cardiovascular%20interventions&rft.au=Koifman,%20Edward&rft.date=2018-06-01&rft.volume=91&rft.issue=7&rft.spage=1320&rft.epage=1328&rft.pages=1320-1328&rft.issn=1522-1946&rft.eissn=1522-726X&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002/ccd.27484&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2053563699%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2053563699&rft_id=info:pmid/29332315&rfr_iscdi=true |