Summary of findings 2. PTFE compared to Dacron for above‐knee femoro‐popliteal bypass surgery.
| PTFE compared to Dacron 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: PTFE Comparison: Dacron | ||||||
| Outcomes | Anticipated absolute effects* (95% CI) | Relative effect (95% CI) | № of limbs (studies) | Quality of the evidence (GRADE) | Comments | |
| Risk with Dacron | Risk with PTFE | |||||
| Primary patency (24 months) |
Study population | OR 1.23 (0.92 to 1.65) | 764 (4 RCTs) | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ LOW 1 2 | Our confidence in the effect is limited and this may differ substantially from the estimate of the effect | |
| 404 per 1000 | 454 per 1000 (384 to 528) | |||||
| Primary patency (60 months) |
Study population | OR 1.67 (0.96 to 2.90) | 247 (2 RCTs) | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ LOW 1 2 | Our confidence in the effect is limited and this may differ substantially from the estimate of the effect | |
| 606 per 1000 | 720 per 1000 (597 to 817) | |||||
| Secondary patency (24 months) |
Study population | OR 1.54 (1.04 to 2.28) | 528 (2 RCTs) | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ LOW 1 2 | 81 more PTFE grafts per 1000 (7 to 168 per 1000) suffer from failed secondary patency by 24 months compared to Dacron | |
| 212 per 1000 | 293 per 1000 (219 to 380) | |||||
| Limb salvage (24 months) |
Study population | OR 0.82 (0.27 to 2.48) | 322 (1 RCT) | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ LOW 1 2 | Our confidence in the effect is limited and this may differ substantially from the estimate of the effect | |
| 44 per 1000 | 37 per 1000 (12 to 103) | |||||
| *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;PTFE: polytetrafluoroethylene | ||||||
| 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 because of serious risk of bias due to lack of blinding and poor randomisation techniques 2 Downgraded due to imprecision because of the low number of participants and events