ReviewDer Internist2019
[Recommended interventions for the treatment of peripheral artery disease : Keep the patients moving].
Review in Der Internist, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPeripheral artery disease (PAD) is often diagnosed in an advanced stage. Accordingly, revascularization is also performed late.
objectivesIn this paper, the authors describe the progression to critical limb ischemia and cardiovascular risk. Revascularization for secondary prevention is explained. Revascularization strategies according to lesion location and complexity of the stenosis or occlusion are discussed. MATERIALS AND
methodsThe current guidelines and randomized controlled studies and meta-analyses are analyzed.
resultsPAD is associated with a considerable level of suffering and a high cardiovascular risk. Up to 20% of patients with claudicants will progress to critical limb ischemia. Progression and risk of mortality increase during the course of the disease. Improvement of walking ability by revascularization is a major goal of secondary prevention. In the femoropopliteal segment, drug-coated balloon (DCB) angioplasty and bare-metal stent (BMS) implantation are the methods of choice. In long lesions, spot-stenting should be preferred. For treatment of in-stent restenosis, DCB have proven their effectiveness. In severely calcified or dissected lesions, BMS are well suited. Infrapopliteal lesions should be revascularized to provide in-line flow to the foot through the target arterial path. According to current evidence, DCB or drug-eluting stents are more effective than plain old balloon angioplasty or BMS.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31667527What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.