Summary of findings for the main comparison. Autologous vein compared to other graft types for above‐knee femoro‐popliteal bypass surgery.
| Autologous vein compared to other graft types for above‐knee femoro‐popliteal bypass surgery | ||||||
| Patient or population: people with peripheral vascular disease requiring above‐knee femoro‐popliteal bypass surgery Setting: hospital Intervention: autologous vein Comparison: other graft types | ||||||
| Outcomes | Anticipated absolute effects* (95% CI) | Relative effect (95% CI) | № of limbs (studies) | Quality of the evidence (GRADE) | Comments | |
| Risk with other graft types | Risk with autologous vein | |||||
| Primary patency (24 months) |
Study population | OR 0.59 (0.37 to 0.94) | 422 (4 RCTs) | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ LOW 1 2 | 92 fewer autologous vein grafts per 1000 (10 to 152 grafts per 1000) lose primary patency by 24 months compared to other grafts studied | |
| 275 per 1000 | 183 per 1000 (123 to 263) | |||||
| Primary patency (60 months) |
Study population | OR 0.47 (0.28 to 0.80) | 269 (3 RCTs) | ⊕⊕⊕⊝ MODERATE 3 | 172 fewer autologous vein grafts per 1000 (54 to 264 grafts per 1000) lose primary patency by 60 months compared to other grafts studied | |
| 451 per 1000 | 279 per 1000 (187 to 397) | |||||
| Secondary patency (60 months) |
Study population | OR 0.41 (0.22 to 0.74) | 176 (2 RCTs) | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ LOW 1 2 | 213 fewer autologous vein grafts per 1000 (75 to 330 grafts per 1000) lose secondary patency by 60 months compared to other grafts studied | |
| 526 per 1000 | 313 per 1000 (196 to 451) | |||||
| Limb salvage | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | No studies of these graft types reported on this outcome |
| *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; OR: Odds 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 | ||||||
1 Downgraded due to serious risk of bias resulting from lack of blinding and poor randomisation techniques 2 Downgraded due to imprecision because results based on small trials with few participants and events 3 Downgraded due to risk of bias resulting from lack of blinding and poor randomisation techniques. We did not downgrade further for imprecision because the effect was large and highly consistent between studies