Forskning
Udskriv Udskriv
Switch language
Region Hovedstaden - en del af Københavns Universitetshospital
Udgivet

Eversion technique versus conventional endarterectomy with patch angioplasty in carotid surgery: protocol for a systematic review with meta-analyses and trial sequential analysis of randomised clinical trials

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

DOI

Vis graf over relationer

INTRODUCTION: Traditional carotid endarterectomy is considered to be the standard technique for prevention of a new stroke in patients with a symptomatic carotid stenosis. Use of patch angioplasty to restore the arterial wall after longitudinal endarterectomy is, to date, not unequivocally proven to be superior to eversion technique. A systematic review is needed for evaluation of benefits and harms of the eversion technique versus the traditional endarterectomy with patch angioplasty in patients with symptomatic carotid stenosis.

METHODS AND OUTCOMES: The review will be conducted according to this protocol following the recommendations of the 'Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews' and reported according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. Randomised clinical trials comparing eversion technique versus endarterectomy with patch angioplasty in patients with a symptomatic stenosis of the internal carotid artery will be included. Primary outcomes are all-cause mortality rate, health-related quality of life and serious adverse events. Secondary outcomes are 30-day stroke and mortality rate, symptomatic arterial restenosis or occlusion and non-serious adverse events. The databases Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed/MEDLINE and EMBASE will be searched (November 2019). We will primarily base our conclusions on meta-analyses of trials with overall low-risk of bias. We will use trial sequential analysis to assist the evaluation of imprecision in Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation. However, if pooled point estimates of all trials are similar to pooled point estimates of trials with overall low risk of bias and there is lack of a statistical significant interaction between estimates from trials with overall high risk of bias and trials with overall low risk of bias we will consider the trial sequential analysis adjusted precision of the estimate achieved in all trials as the result of our meta-analyses.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The proposed systematic review will collect and analyse data from published studies, therefore, ethical approval is not required. The results of the review will be disseminated by publication in a peer-review journal and submitted for presentation at conferences.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42019119361.

OriginalsprogEngelsk
TidsskriftBMJ Open
Vol/bind10
Udgave nummer4
Sider (fra-til)e030503
ISSN2044-6055
DOI
StatusUdgivet - 19 apr. 2020

Bibliografisk note

© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

ID: 59736287