Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33592208›Full record

ReviewProgress in cardiovascular diseases

Femoral-popliteal peripheral artery disease: From symptom presentation to management and treatment controversies.

Anna K Krawisz, Aishwarya Raja, Eric A Secemsky

Open access · greenAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Progress in cardiovascular diseases. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 25% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Anna K KrawiszRichard A. and Susan F. Smith Center for Outcomes Research in Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA; Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA; Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA.
Aishwarya RajaRichard A. and Susan F. Smith Center for Outcomes Research in Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA.
Eric A SecemskyRichard A. and Susan F. Smith Center for Outcomes Research in Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA; Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA; Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA. Electronic address: esecemsk@bidmc.harvard.edu.
Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center · USHarvard University · US

Funding

Shared Decision-Making to Improve the Health Status of Patients with Claudication: Developing and Implementing Strategies to Individualize Treatment DecisionsK23HL150290 · NHLBI · BETH ISRAEL DEACONESS MEDICAL CENTER · PI SECEMSKY, ERIC ALEXANDER · 2020 to 2024
$851k
NHLBI NIH HHS K23 HL150290
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Peripheral artery disease (PAD) is a common condition with increasing prevalence domestically and worldwide. Patients with PAD have a poor prognosis, as PAD is associated with high rates of myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, and cardiovascular disease death. The primary symptom of PAD, claudication, significantly reduces quality of life and functional status and is associated with depression. In addition to several advances in medications for PAD over the last decade, endovascular device therapy has seen a significant breakthrough in the form of paclitaxel-coated devices (PCDs), which significantly reduce rates of restenosis relative to non-PCDs, a finding which has been demonstrated in numerous randomized clinical trials. After their introduction to the market in 2012 (paclitaxel-eluting stents) and 2014 (paclitaxel-coated balloons) their use surged as they replaced non-PCDs and were designated the first-line endovascular therapy by society guidelines. This trend was abruptly reversed, however, after a meta-analysis of summary-level data was published in December of 2018 that reported an elevated mortality associated with PCDs compared with non-PCDs 2-5 years after treatment. This meta-analysis has been criticized for considerable methodological flaws. The Food and Drug Administration conducted a review and concluded that insufficient data existed to make a definitive statement regarding the safety of PCDs. They called for restriction of the use of PCDs to the highest-risk patient populations. At the same time, the FDA deemed pursuing new RCTs to better evaluate PCDs unfeasible due to the high numbers of patients and long follow-up time that would be required. In this setting, real-world data emerged as a powerful source of information for the evaluation of PCDs. Real-world data offers advantages over randomized-controlled trials including expeditious access to and analysis of data and the availability of large numbers of patients. Several retrospective observational studies demonstrate no difference in long-term all-cause mortality in patients treated with PCDs relative to those treated with non-PCDs. This paclitaxel controversy has illustrated the critical role that real-world data is assuming in long-term safety monitoring of medical devices.

Indexed as

Coated Materials, BiocompatibleDrug-Eluting StentsFemoral ArteryPopliteal ArteryCardiovascular AgentsEndovascular ProceduresHumansIncidenceIntermittent ClaudicationPaclitaxelPeripheral Arterial DiseaseRisk AssessmentRisk FactorsSeverity of Illness IndexTreatment OutcomeVascular PatencyCardiovascular AgentsCoated Materials, BiocompatiblePaclitaxelEndovascular revascularizationPaclitaxel-coated devicesPeripheral artery diseaseReal-world data

Identifiers

PMID33592208
PMCPMC8169531
OpenAlexW3132194819

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.