Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Drug‐eluting balloon angioplasty versus uncoated balloon angioplasty for the treatment of in‐stent restenosis of the femoropopliteal arteries

This is not the most recent version

view the current version 26 January 2019

Appendices

Appendix 1. CENTRAL search strategy

#1

MESH DESCRIPTOR Arteriosclerosis

#2

MESH DESCRIPTOR Arteriosclerosis Obliterans

#3

MESH DESCRIPTOR Atherosclerosis

#4

MESH DESCRIPTOR Arterial Occlusive Diseases

#5

MESH DESCRIPTOR Intermittent Claudication

#6

MESH DESCRIPTOR Ischemia

#7

MESH DESCRIPTOR Peripheral Vascular Diseases EXPLODE ALL TREES

#8

MESH DESCRIPTOR Leg EXPLODE ALL TREES WITH QUALIFIERS BS

#9

MESH DESCRIPTOR Iliac Artery

#10

MESH DESCRIPTOR Popliteal Artery

#11

MESH DESCRIPTOR Femoral Artery

#12

MESH DESCRIPTOR Tibial Arteries

#13

(atherosclero* or arteriosclero* or PVD or PAOD or PAD ):TI,AB,KY

#14

((arter* or vascular or vein* or veno* or peripher*) near3 (occlus* or reocclus* or re‐occlus* or steno* or restenos* or obstruct* or lesio* or block* or harden* or stiffen* or obliter*) ):TI,AB,KY

#15

(peripheral near3 dis*):TI,AB,KY

#16

(claudic* or IC):TI,AB,KY

#17

(isch* or CLI):TI,AB,KY

#18

arteriopathic:TI,AB,KY

#19

dysvascular*:TI,AB,KY

#20

leg:TI,AB,KY

#21

(lower limb):TI,AB,KY

#22

(lower extrem*):TI,AB,KY

#23

(above knee):TI,AB,KY

#24

(below knee):TI,AB,KY

#25

(femor* or iliac or popliteal or fempop* or crural or poplite* or infrapopliteal or inguinal or femdist* or infrainquinal or tibial):TI,AB,KY

#26

restenosis:TI,AB,KY

#27

#1 OR #2 OR #3 OR #4 OR #5 OR #6 OR #7 OR #8 OR #9 OR #10 OR #11 OR #12 OR #13 OR #14 OR #15 OR #16 OR #17 OR #18 OR #19 OR #20 OR #21 OR #22 OR #23 OR #24 OR #25 OR #26

#28

MESH DESCRIPTOR Angioplasty EXPLODE ALL TREES

#29

MESH DESCRIPTOR Endovascular Procedures

#30

(angioplas* or percutan* or PTA):TI,AB,KY

#31

valvuloplasty:TI,AB,KY

#32

(recanali* or revascular*):TI,AB,KY

#33

dilat*:TI,AB,KY

#34

(balloon or baloon):TI,AB,KY

#35

endovascular:TI,AB,KY

#36

#28 OR #29 OR #30 OR #31 OR #32 OR #33 OR #34 OR #35

#37

MESH DESCRIPTOR Paclitaxel

#38

(coated or uncoated):TI,AB,KY

#39

(drug and (elut* or releas*)):TI,AB,KY

#40

DEB:TI,AB,KY

#41

POBA:TI,AB,KY

#42

paclitax*:TI,AB,KY

#43

sirolimus:TI,AB,KY

#44

zotarolimus:TI,AB,KY

#45

rapalog:TI,AB,KY

#46

(IN.PACT or MOXY or Paseo or Lutonix or Paccoca or PANTERA or ELUTAX or DIOR or FREEWAY or SeQuent or GENIE):TI,AB,KY

#47

#37 OR #38 OR #39 OR #40 OR #41 OR #42 OR #43 OR #44 OR #45 OR #46

#48

#27 AND #36 AND #47

Table 1. Example summary of findings for the main comparison

Drug‐eluting balloon compared with uncoated balloon angioplasty

Patient or population: people with in‐stent restenosis of the femoropopliteal vessels
Setting: hospital
Intervention: drug‐eluting balloon angioplasty
Comparison: uncoated balloon angioplasty

Outcomes

Anticipated absolute effects* (95% CI)

Relative effect
(95% CI)

№ of participants
(studies)

Quality of the evidence
(GRADE)

Comments

Risk with uncoated balloon angioplasty

Risk with drug‐eluting balloon angioplasty

Amputation

Study population

not estimable

( studies)

0 per 1000

0 per 1000
(0 to 0)

Primary vessel patency

Study population

not estimable

( studies)

0 per 1000

0 per 1000
(0 to 0)

Target lesion revascularization

Study population

not estimable

( studies)

0 per 1000

0 per 1000
(0 to 0)

Binary restenosis

Study population

not estimable

( studies)

0 per 1000

0 per 1000
(0 to 0)

Death

Study population

not estimable

( studies)

0 per 1000

0 per 1000
(0 to 0)

Change in Rutherford category

The mean change in Rutherford category was 0

The mean change in Rutherford category in the intervention group was 0 undefined (0 to 0 )

‐

( studies)

Change in ankle brachial index

The mean change in ankle brachial index was 0

The mean change in ankle brachial index in the intervention group was 0 undefined (0 to 0 )

‐

( studies)

*The risk in the intervention group (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI).

CI: Confidence interval; RR: Risk ratio

GRADE Working Group grades of evidence
High quality: We are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect
Moderate quality: We are moderately confident in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different
Low quality: Our confidence in the effect estimate is limited: The true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect
Very low quality: We have very little confidence in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect

Figures and Tables -
Table 1. Example summary of findings for the main comparison
Navigate to table in Protocol