Division of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, Cardiovascular Department, University Hospital of Trieste ASUGI, Trieste, Italy.
Department of Vascular Surgery, University Hospital and Trust of Verona, Verona, Italy.
Ann Vasc Surg. 2024 Apr;101:164-178. doi: 10.1016/j.avsg.2023.11.024. Epub 2023 Dec 26.
The aims of this study were: i) to assess fragility indices (FIs) of individual randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared paclitaxel-based drug-coated balloons (DCBs) or drug-eluting stents (DESs) versus standard endovascular devices, and ii) to meta-analyze mid-term and long-term safety and efficacy outcomes from available RCT data while also estimating the FI of pooled results.
This systematic review has been registered in the PROSPERO public database (CRD42022304326 http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO). A query of PubMed (Medline), EMBASE (Excerpta Medical Database), Scopus, and CENTRAL (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) databases was performed to identify eligible RCTs. Rates of primary patency (PP) and target lesion revascularization (TLR) were assessed as efficacy outcomes, while lower limb amputation (LLA) consisting of major amputation that is. below or above the knee and all-cause mortality were estimated as safety outcomes. All outcomes were pooled with a random effects model to account for any clinical and study design heterogeneity. The analyses were performed by dividing the RCTs according to their maximal follow-up length (mid-term was defined as results up to 2-3 years, while long-term was defined as results up to 4-5 years). For each individual outcome, the FI and reverse fragility index (RFI) were calculated according to whether the outcome results were statistically significant or not, respectively. The fragility quotient (FQ) and reverse fragility quotient (RFQ), which are the FI or RFI divided by the sample size, were also calculated.
A total of 2,337 patients were included in the systematic review and meta-analysis. There were 2 RCTs examining DES devices and 14 RCTs evaluating different DCBs. For efficacy outcomes, there was evidence that paclitaxel-based endovascular therapy increased the PP rate and reduced the TLR rate at mid-term, with a calculated pooled risk ratio (RR) of 1.66 for patency (95% CI, 1.55-1.86; P < 0.001), with a corresponding number needed-to-treat (NNT) of 3 patients (95% CI, 2.9-3.8) and RR of 0.44 for TLR (95% CI, 0.35-0.54; P = 0.027), respectively. Similarly, there was evidence that paclitaxel-based endovascular therapy both increased PP and decreased TLR rates at long-term, with calculated pooled RR values of 1.73 (95% CI, 1.12-2.61; P = 0.004) and 0.53 (95% CI, 0.45-0.62; P = 0.82), respectively. For safety outcomes, there was evidence that paclitaxel-based endovascular therapy increased all-cause mortality at mid-term, with a calculated pooled RR of 2.05 (95% CI, 1.21-3.24). However, there was no difference between treatment arms in LLA at mid-term (95% CI, 0.1-2.7; P = 0.68). Similarly, neither all-cause mortality nor LLA at long-term differed between treatment arms, with a calculated pooled RR of 0.66, 1.02 (95% CI, 0.31-3.42) and 1.02 (95% CI, 0.30-5.21; P = 0.22), respectively. The pooled estimates of PP at mid-term were robust (FI = 28 and FQ = 1.9%) as were pooled rates of TLR (FI = 18 and FQ = 0.9%). However, when safety outcomes were analyzed, the robustness of the meta-analysis decreased significantly. In fact, the relationship between the use of paclitaxel-coated devices and all-cause mortality at mid-term showed very low robustness (FI = 4 and FQ = 0.2%). At 5 years, only the benefit of paclitaxel-based devices to reduce TLR remained robust, with an FI of 32 and an FQ of 3.1%.
The data supporting clinical efficacy endpoints of RCTs that examined paclitaxel-based devices in the treatment of femoral-popliteal arterial occlusive disease were robust; however, the pooled safety endpoints were highly fragile and prone to bias due to loss of patient follow-up in the original studies. These findings should be considered in the ongoing debate concerning the safety of paclitaxel-based devices.
本研究的目的为:i)评估比较紫杉醇药物涂层球囊(DCB)或药物洗脱支架(DES)与标准血管内设备的随机对照试验(RCT)的脆弱性指数(FI),ii)对现有 RCT 数据进行中期和长期安全性和有效性结果的荟萃分析,同时估计汇总结果的 FI。
本系统评价已在 PROSPERO 公共数据库(CRD42022304326 http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO)中注册。对 PubMed(Medline)、EMBASE(医学文摘数据库)、Scopus 和 CENTRAL(Cochrane 对照试验中心注册库)数据库进行检索,以确定符合条件的 RCT。主要通畅率(PP)和靶病变血运重建率(TLR)作为有效性结局进行评估,而下肢截肢(LLA)包括膝下和膝上的主要截肢作为安全性结局进行评估。所有结局均采用随机效应模型进行汇总,以解释任何临床和研究设计的异质性。分析根据 RCT 的最长随访时间进行分组(中期定义为 2-3 年的结果,长期定义为 4-5 年的结果)。对于每个单独的结局,根据结果是否具有统计学意义,分别计算 FI 和反向脆弱性指数(RFI)。脆弱性商数(FQ)和反向脆弱性商数(RFQ)分别为 FI 或 RFI 除以样本量。
共纳入 2337 名患者进行系统评价和荟萃分析。有 2 项 RCT 检查了 DES 设备,14 项 RCT 评估了不同的 DCB。对于有效性结局,有证据表明紫杉醇药物涂层血管内治疗增加了中期的通畅率,降低了 TLR 率,计算的汇总风险比(RR)为 1.66(95%CI,1.55-1.86;P<0.001),相应的需要治疗人数(NNT)为 3 人(95%CI,2.9-3.8),RR 为 0.44(95%CI,0.35-0.54;P=0.027)。同样,有证据表明紫杉醇药物涂层血管内治疗在长期也增加了通畅率和降低了 TLR 率,计算的汇总 RR 值分别为 1.73(95%CI,1.12-2.61;P=0.004)和 0.53(95%CI,0.45-0.62;P=0.82)。对于安全性结局,有证据表明紫杉醇药物涂层血管内治疗在中期增加了全因死亡率,计算的汇总 RR 为 2.05(95%CI,1.21-3.24)。然而,治疗组之间在中期的 LLA 无差异(95%CI,0.1-2.7;P=0.68)。同样,在长期时,全因死亡率和 LLA 在治疗组之间也没有差异,计算的汇总 RR 分别为 0.66、1.02(95%CI,0.31-3.42)和 1.02(95%CI,0.30-5.21;P=0.22)。中期通畅率的汇总估计是稳健的(FI=28,FQ=1.9%),TLR 发生率的汇总也很稳健(FI=18,FQ=0.9%)。然而,当分析安全性结局时,荟萃分析的稳健性显著降低。实际上,紫杉醇涂层器械的使用与中期全因死亡率之间的关系显示出非常低的稳健性(FI=4,FQ=0.2%)。在 5 年时,只有紫杉醇药物涂层器械降低 TLR 的益处仍然稳健,FI 为 32,FQ 为 3.1%。
支持检查紫杉醇药物涂层器械治疗股腘动脉闭塞性疾病的 RCT 临床有效性结局的数据是稳健的;然而,汇总的安全性结局是高度脆弱的,容易受到原始研究中患者随访丢失的偏倚影响。这些发现应在关于紫杉醇药物涂层器械安全性的持续辩论中考虑。