Summary of findings for the main comparison. PTA compared with stent for infrapopliteal arterial lesions in chronic limb‐threatening ischaemia.
| PTA compared with stent for infrapopliteal arterial lesions in chronic limb‐threatening ischaemia | ||||||
| Patient or population: people with infrapopliteal arterial lesions in chronic limb‐threatening ischaemia Setting: hospital and outpatient follow‐up Intervention: stent Comparison: PTA | ||||||
| Outcomes | Relative effect (95% CI) | Anticipated absolute effects* (95% CI) | Certainty of the evidence (GRADE) | Comments | ||
| PTA | Stent | Difference | ||||
| Technical success ITT No. of limbs: 476 (5 RCTs) | OR 3.00 (1.14 to 7.93) | Study population | ⊕⊕⊕⊝ MODERATEa | |||
| 93.3% | 97.6% (94.0 to 99.1) | 4.4% more (0.8 more to 5.8 more) | ||||
| Technical success TA No. of limbs: 474 (5 RCTs) | OR 2.78 (1.04 to 7.41) | Study population | ⊕⊕⊕⊝ MODERATEa | |||
| 93.7% | 97.6% (93.9 to 99.1) | 4.0% more (0.2 more to 5.4 more) | ||||
| Procedural complications ITT No. of participants: 360 (5 RCTs) | OR 0.87 (0.01 to 53.60) | Study population | ⊕⊕⊕⊝ MODERATEa | |||
| 7.4% | 6.5% (0.1 to 81.1) | 0.9% fewer (7.3 fewer to 73.7 more) | ||||
| Procedural complications TA No. of participants: 359 (5 RCTs) | OR 0.84 (0.01 to 47.70) | Study population | ⊕⊕⊕⊝ MODERATEa | |||
| 7.4% | 6.3% (0.1 to 79.3) | 1.1% fewer (7.4 fewer to 71.9 more) | ||||
| Primary patency < 6 months ITT No. of lesions: 456 (3 RCTs) | OR 0.88 (0.37 to 2.11) | Study population | ⊕⊕⊕⊝ MODERATEa | |||
| 33.3% | 30.6% (15.6 to 51.3) | 2.8% fewer (17.7 fewer to 18 more) | ||||
| Primary patency < 6 months TA No. of lesions: 309 (3 RCTs) | OR 0.97 (0.32 to 3.00) | Study population | ⊕⊕⊕⊝ MODERATEa | |||
| 45.9% | 45.2% (21.4 to 71.8) | 0.8% fewer (24.6 fewer to 25.9 more) | ||||
| Mortality TA No. of participants: 487 (6 RCTs) | OR 0.70 (0.42 to 1.15) | Study population | ⊕⊕⊕⊝ MODERATEa | |||
| 19.3% | 14.3% (9.1 to 21.5) | 5% fewer (10.2 fewer to 2.3 more) | ||||
| *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; ITT: intention‐to‐treat; OR: odds ratio; PTA: percutaneous transluminal angioplasty; RCT: randomised controlled trial; TA: treatment analysis. | ||||||
| GRADE Working Group grades of evidence. High certainty: we are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect. Moderate certainty: 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 certainty: our confidence in the effect estimate is limited: the true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect. Very low certainty: we have very little confidence in the effect estimate: the true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect. | ||||||
aDowngraded by one level due to inconsistency of results across different studies and imprecision (small numbers and wide confidence intervals).