Meta-analysis of transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt creation with or without intravascular ultrasound guidance.

OBJECTIVE: To conduct a meta-analysis to assess the efficacy of intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) during transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) creation. METHODS: MEDLINE and Embase databases were queried until July 2022 for comparative studies reporting procedure metrics for TIPS creation with or without IVUS guidance. Meta-analysis was performed with random-effects modelling for total procedural time, time to portal venous access, fluoroscopy time, iodinated contrast volume use, air kerma, dose area product, and number of needle passes. Intraoperative procedure-related complications were also reviewed. RESULTS: Of 95 unique records initially identified, 6 were eligible for inclusion. A total of 194 and 240 patients underwent TIPS with and without IVUS guidance. Pooled analyses indicated that IVUS guidance was associated with reduced total procedure time (SMD -0.76 [95% CI -1.02, -0.50] P < .001), time to portal venous access (SMD -0.41 [95% CI -0.67, -0.15] P = .002), fluoroscopy time (SMD, -0.54 [95% CI -1.02, -0.07]; P = .002), contrast volume use (SMD, -0.89 [95% CI -1.16, -0.63]; P < .001), air kerma (SMD, -0.75 [95% CI -1.11, -0.38]; P < .001) and dose area product (SMD, -0.98 [95% CI -1.77, -0.20]; P = .013). A total of 4.2 and 7.8 needle passes were required in the IVUS and non-IVUS group, respectively (SMD, -0.60 [95% CI -1.42, 0.21]; P = .134). Pooled complication rates were 15.2% (12/79) and 21.4% (28/131), respectively. CONCLUSION: IVUS guidance during TIPS creation improves procedural metrics including procedural time, contrast usage, and radiation exposure. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: (1) The use of IVUS during TIPS is associated with shorter procedural time, lower contrast usage, and radiation exposure. (2)The use of IVUS is not associated with higher complication rates.

Rigid forceps and excimer laser use for complex inferior cava filter retrieval: a preliminary quantitative analysis of available evidence.

PURPOSE: The present study aims to evaluate the safety and efficacy of advanced inferior vena cava filter (IVCF) retrieval using laser assistance compared with forceps via systematic review and quantitative aggregation of available data. METHODS: Pubmed and Embase were queried from establishment to September 2021. Original studies with a sample size ≥ 5 that reported at least one primary outcome of patients who underwent laser- or forceps-assisted IVCF retrieval were included. Primary outcomes included technical success and complication rates. Baseline characteristics were extracted: age, sex, presence of filter thrombus, strut penetration, previous retrieval attempt, filter dwell time, fluoroscopy time, and filter type. Complications were categorized by type and severity. Categorical data was pooled and evaluated with chi-square or Fisher exact tests. RESULTS: From the 16 included studies, a total of 673 and 368 patients underwent laser- and forceps-assisted IVCF retrieval, respectively. Successful retrieval was achieved in 98.1 and 93.7% patients from the laser and forceps groups, respectively (p < 0.001). Major complication rates (1.6 vs 2.1%, p = 0.629) and risk of injury to cava or adjacent organs (1.0 vs 1.4%, p = 0.534) were similar between the two groups. A higher proportion of filters from the laser arm were closed-cell design (75.4 vs 68.1%, p = 0.020). CONCLUSION: Based on limited available evidence, forceps- and laser-assisted complex IVCF retrievals were equally safe. The use of laser sheath is associated with a higher retrieval rate than forceps alone, though the baseline characteristics of two cohorts were not controlled. Future large-scale case-controlled comparative studies with longer clinical follow-up are warranted.