MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405396225 · doi:10.1177/17085381241307765

Comparison of safety and efficacy of femoropopliteal arterial disease using different dose drug-coated balloons: Systematic review and meta-analysis

2024· review· en· W4405396225 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueVascular · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPeripheral Artery Disease Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRestenosisAngioplastyPopliteal arteryCritical limb ischemiaAmputationBalloonMeta-analysisSurgeryRandomized controlled trialPercutaneousArterial diseaseInternal medicineUrologyStentVascular disease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Endovascular therapy with balloon percutaneous angioplasty (PTA) in the femoro-popliteal segment is frequently performed, however, long-term favorable outcomes and patency remain challenging, with restenosis rates reaching 60% post-standard balloon angioplasty. Drug-coated balloons (DCBs) have shown promise in improving these outcomes; Paclitaxel, used in DCBs, inhibits hyperplasia and smooth muscle cell proliferation, reducing restenosis; however, the optimal dose of Paclitaxel remains unclear, with high-dose (HD-DCB [>3 mg/mm 2 ]) and low-dose (LD-DCB [<2.0 mg/mm 2 ]) options available. This meta-analysis aims to compare the efficacy and safety of HD-DCB and LD-DCB in treating femoropopliteal arterial disease. Methods We followed PRISMA guidelines and conducted a comprehensive search of PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, Scopus, and Mendeley up to May 27, 2024. We included randomized controlled trials and cohort studies comparing HD-DCB and LD-DCB in patients with femoropopliteal arterial disease. Data were extracted on baseline characteristics, outcomes, and study quality. The Newcastle–Ottawa Scale and ROB2 tool were used for bias assessment. Outcomes included overall survival (OS), limb salvage (LS), freedom from clinically driven target lesion revascularization (CD-TLR), and major amputation. Results Six studies comprising 2563 patients were included. HD-DCB showed a significant benefit in limb salvage at 6 months (RR = 0.38, 95% CI = 0.18-0.78, p = .009) but not at 12 months (RR = 3.08, 95% CI = 0.14–67.13, p = .47). No significant difference was observed in overall survival between HD-DCB and LD-DCB at either 6 months (RR = 1.53, 95% CI = 0.25–9.57, p = .65) or 12 months (RR = 1.21, 95% CI = 0.17–8.84, p = .85). HD-DCB was associated with an increased risk of perioperative complications (RR = 1.90, 95% CI = 1.14–3.17, p = .01) and a higher, though not statistically significant, risk of major amputation (RR = 4.73, 95% CI = 0.54–41.52, p = .16). Conclusion HD-DCB may offer advantages in limb salvage over LD-DCB in the short term, but this comes with an increased risk of perioperative complications. These findings underscore the need for careful patient selection when considering HD-DCB for femoropopliteal artery disease.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.693
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0140.004
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.096
GPT teacher head0.387
Teacher spread0.291 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it