Cochrane · systematic review · CD009418
Subintimal angioplasty for lower limb arterial chronic total occlusions
Chang, Z, Zheng, J, Liu, Z · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2016 · Cochrane Library
VascularAMSTAR 2: not assessed
SoF tableOnly the outcomes this review put in its Summary of Findings table are listed (the Cochrane Handbook caps them at about seven per comparison). Its other analyses are not shown here.
Questions
16
current version
GRADE rated
12
No studies
0
Included studies
NR
No studies 0 · 0%Ungraded 4 · 25%Very low 0 · 0%Low 12 · 75%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%
Ungraded means an effect was reported without a GRADE rating; it is not a gap. No studies means the review found nothing to answer the question. The six categories are a display order, not a score.
Questions and results
Subintimal angioplasty with stenting versus remote endarterectomy for TASC‐II D femoropopliteal lesions
Population: 95 people with Rutherford 3 to 5 TASC‐II D lesions
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Clinical improvement: Rutherford classification improvement Rutherford classification Subintimal angioplasty with stenting vs remote endarterectomy | RR 0.79 [0.61, 1.03] | 1 study · 95 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision, inconsistency, indirectness |
Clinical improvement: ABI improvement Significant postexercise ABI improvement Subintimal angioplasty with stenting vs remote endarterectomy | RR 0.86 [0.68, 1.08] | 1 study · 95 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision, inconsistency, indirectness |
Technical success rate Subintimal angioplasty with stenting vs remote endarterectomy | RR 0.97 [0.88, 1.07] | 1 study · 95 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision, inconsistency, indirectness |
months' patency rate Subintimal angioplasty with stenting vs remote endarterectomy | RR 0.75 [0.57, 1] | 1 study · 95 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision, inconsistency, indirectness |
months' patency rate Subintimal angioplasty with stenting vs remote endarterectomy | RR 0.74 [0.55, 1] | 1 study · 95 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision, inconsistency, indirectness |
months' patency rate Subintimal angioplasty with stenting vs remote endarterectomy | RR 0.76 [0.52, 1.11] | 1 study · 95 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision, inconsistency, indirectness |
months' limb salvage rate Subintimal angioplasty with stenting vs remote endarterectomy | RR 0.97 [0.9, 1.05] | 1 study · 95 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision, inconsistency, indirectness |
Complications Subintimal angioplasty with stenting vs remote endarterectomy | RR 0.77 [0.14, 4.42] | 1 study · 95 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision, inconsistency, indirectness |
OUTBACK re‐entry catheter versus manual re‐entry for chronic total occlusions in the superficial femoral artery
Population: 52 people with TASC‐II D superficial femoral artery chronic total occlusions
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Clinical improvement OUTBACK re‐entry catheter vs manual re‐entry | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 52 participants | Ungraded |
Technical success rate OUTBACK re‐entry catheter vs manual re‐entry | RR 1 [0.93, 1.08] | 1 study · 52 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision, inconsistency, indirectness |
months' patency rate OUTBACK re‐entry catheter vs manual re‐entry | RR 1.04 [0.94, 1.15] | 1 study · 52 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision, inconsistency, indirectness |
months' patency rate OUTBACK re‐entry catheter vs manual re‐entry | RR 1.09 [0.9, 1.33] | 1 study · 52 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision, inconsistency, indirectness |
months' primary patency rate OUTBACK re‐entry catheter vs manual re‐entry | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 52 participants | Ungraded |
months' primary patency rate OUTBACK re‐entry catheter vs manual re‐entry | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 52 participants | Ungraded |
Limb salvage OUTBACK re‐entry catheter vs manual re‐entry | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 52 participants | Ungraded |
Complications OUTBACK re‐entry catheter vs manual re‐entry | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 52 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision, inconsistency, indirectness |