Format

Send to

Choose Destination
See comment in PubMed Commons below
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010 Jan 20;(1):CD003228. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD003228.pub2.

Endovascular stents for intermittent claudication.

Author information

1
Ward 36, Vascular Surgery, Aberdeen Royal infirmary, Foresterhill, Aberdeen, Scotland, UK.

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

Endovascular 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.

OBJECTIVES:

The 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 STRATEGY:

For 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 CRITERIA:

Randomised trials comparing angioplasty alone versus angioplasty with endovascular stents in patients with intermittent claudication.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS:

Two 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 Only published trial data were used but unpublished data were sought for the update.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 RESULTS:

Two 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' CONCLUSIONS:

The 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.

Update of

PMID:
20091540
DOI:
10.1002/14651858.CD003228.pub2
[Indexed for MEDLINE]
PubMed Commons home

PubMed Commons

0 comments
How to join PubMed Commons

    Supplemental Content

    Full text links

    Icon for Wiley
    Loading ...
    Support Center