ReviewCardiovascular and interventional radiology2026
Comparative Efficacy of Endovascular Interventions for Peripheral Artery Disease: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.
Review in Cardiovascular and interventional radiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo compare the long-term efficacy of percutaneous transluminal angioplasty (PTA), bare-metal stents (BMS), drug-coated balloons (DCB), and drug-eluting stents (DES) for femoropopliteal peripheral artery disease (PAD). MATERIALS AND
methodsA systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing BMS, DES, DCB, and PTA for femoropopliteal PAD was performed. MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and INAHTA were searched from inception to February 2024. Primary outcomes were target lesion revascularization (TLR) and primary patency. Odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated.
resultsThirty-three RCTs involving 7132 participants were included. At 12 months, DCB (OR: 0.27 [95% CI 0.19-0.38]), BMS (OR: 0.28 [95% CI 0.14-0.56]), and DES (OR: 0.30 [95% CI 0.14-0.62]) reduced the odds of TLR compared with PTA. Similar reductions were observed at 24 months. At 36 months, DCB (OR: 0.50 [95% CI 0.25-0.97]) and DES (OR: 0.33 [95% CI 0.14-0.75]) reduced the odds of TLR compared with PTA. Primary patency followed a comparable trend, with DES producing the highest odds of patency at 12 months (OR: 3.81 [95% CI 2.21-6.57]), followed by DCB and BMS compared to PTA, and all three remained significant through 36 months.
conclusionsFor femoropopliteal PAD, DES, DCB, and BMS reduced the odds of TLR and improved the odds of primary patency compared with PTA. Drug-based technologies showed the most durable efficacy signal; however, long-term DES estimates should be interpreted cautiously because direct DES-versus-PTA evidence was sparse and several comparisons relied on indirect evidence. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 1, Systematic Reviews.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42618659What 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.