Serruys 2000.
Methods | RCT, parallel design | |
Participants |
Total number of randomized participants: 406 Inclusion criteria: stable or unstable angina pectoris who were scheduled to undergo elective directional coronary atherectomy of a single native primary coronary stenosis Exclusion criteria: contraindications to carvedilol (bradycardia < 50 bpm, 2nd‐ or 3rd‐degree atrioventricular block, obstructive airway disease, insulin‐dependent diabetes): contraindications to a discontinuation of existing beta‐blocker therapy; ineligibility for directional coronary atherectomy. Concomittant treatment with beta‐blockers, alpha‐blockers, anti‐arrhythmics, antioxidants, antiproliferative agents, drugs that influence the pharmacodynamics or kinetics of carvedilol, or anticoagulants was not allowed during the trial Type of surgery: elective directional coronary atherectomy Baseline characteristics (reported for 324 participants) Intervention group (carvedilol)
Control group (placebo)
Countries: Austria; Belgium; France; Germany; Netherlands; Portugal; Spain; Sweden Setting: hospitals; multicentre |
|
Interventions |
Intervention group (carvedilol)
Control group (placebo)
|
|
Outcomes |
Outcomes measured/reported by study authors: success of surgery; major adverse events (mortality, MI, need for CABG, repeat procedure. Measured at 7 months postoperatively); adverse events (bradycardia; hypotension ‐ not defined). Study follow‐up at 1, 5, 6, and 7 months Outcomes relevant to the review: mortality; MI; hypotension; bradycardia |
|
Notes |
Funding/declarations of interest: educational grant from Boehringer Mannheim, Germany Study dates: December 1994‐February 1997 |
|
Risk of bias | ||
Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
Random sequence generation (selection bias) | Unclear risk | Not specified |
Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | Not specified |
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes | Low risk | Described as double‐blinded study; we assumed that clinicians were not aware of group allocation |
Blinding of outcome assessors (detection bias) All outcomes | Unclear risk | Not specified |
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes | High risk | Loss of 20% participants. Reasons for losses were not reported by group, and it was not feasible to assess whether the reasons were balanced between groups |
Selective reporting (reporting bias) | Unclear risk | Study authors did not report prospective clinical trial registration or publication of a protocol. It was not feasible to effectively assess risk of reporting bias |
Other bias | Low risk | Not detected |