Neuromuscular Electrical Stimulation for Intermittent Claudication (NESIC): multicentre, randomized controlled trial.

METHODS: This was an open, multicentre, randomized controlled trial. Patients with intermittent claudication attending vascular surgery outpatient clinics were randomized (1:1) to receive either neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) or not in addition to local standard care available at study centres (best medical therapy alone or plus supervised exercise therapy (SET)). The objective of this trial was to investigate the clinical efficacy of an NMES device in addition to local standard care in improving walking distances in patients with claudication. The primary outcome was change in absolute walking distance, measured by a standardized treadmill test at 3 months. Secondary outcomes included intermittent claudication (IC) distance, adherence, quality of life, and haemodynamic changes. RESULTS: Of 200 participants randomized, 160 were included in the primary analysis (intention to treat, Tobit regression model). The square root of absolute walking distance was analysed (due to a right-skewed distribution) and, although adjunctive NMES improved it at 3 months, no statistically significant effect was observed. SET as local standard care seemed to improve distance compared to best medical therapy at 3 months (3.29 units; 95 per cent c.i., 1.77 to 4.82; P < 0.001). Adjunctive NMES improved distance in mild claudication (2.88 units; 95 per cent c.i., 0.51 to 5.25; P = 0.02) compared to local standard care at 3 months. No serious adverse events relating to the device were reported. CONCLUSION: Supervised exercise therapy is effective and NMES may provide further benefit in mild IC.This trial was supported by a grant from the Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation Program, a Medical Research Council and National Institute for Health and Care Research partnership. Trial registration: ISRCTN18242823.

Patients with intermittent claudication experience pain in their legs during walking or exercise which ends with rest. This severely impairs physical activity and quality of life. Treatment for such patients typically involves best medical therapy, which includes exercise advice. This study aimed to determine whether a neuromuscular electrical stimulation device improved the walking distance of patients with intermittent claudication compared to local standard care available (which may include supervised exercise therapy) in a trial. Supervised exercise improved walking distances but there was no difference in those that received a device in this patient group.

Validation of a Standardised Duplex Ultrasound Classification System for the Reporting and Grading of Peripheral Arterial Disease.

OBJECTIVE: Duplex ultrasound (DUS), a non-invasive means of arterial mapping, allows for the reliable diagnosis of peripheral arterial disease (PAD). One of the authors (C.P.O.), developed a standardised DUS based scoring system, devised for rapid detection and reporting of PAD. The purpose of this study was to validate this system, and to determine the diagnostic performance both overall and per disease severity. METHODS: In total, 250 participants were recruited, based on diagnosis of (n = 125) or absence of PAD (n = 125) from general practice registers. Right and left legs per subject were handled as independent readings, determining actual PAD status via ankle brachial pressure index (ABPI) < 0.9, and then further grading disease severity using suggested ABPI ranges. Data were excluded if no corresponding ABPI value was obtained per DUS determination or if the ABPI reading was > 1.4, owing to the risk of false negatives due to incompressible vessels. Diagnostic sensitivity and specificity were obtained overall, and per severity classification. Furthermore, inter-rater agreement between ABPI and DUS determined PAD severity was determined by linear weighted Cohen's kappa. RESULTS: The sensitivity and specificity in the detection of disease overall was 81.0% (95% confidence interval [CI] 73.4 - 87.2) and 86.3% (95% CI 82.3 - 89.8), respectively. From mild to severe PAD, sensitivity increased from 71.1% (95% CI 55.7 - 83.6) to 89.3% (95% CI 71.8 - 97.7). Furthermore, a Cohen's kappa value of 0.63 (95% CI 0.57 - 0.69) was obtained, indicating moderate agreement between the two diagnostic methods. CONCLUSION: The findings of this study validate the diagnostic performance of the standardised DUS scoring system, as well as its capacity to grade severity of disease, offering a potential tool for the identification of PAD in community/research settings following initial screening methods. Confirmatory work could include a comparison of DUS determined disease with gold standard methods of non-invasive angiography, and novel tools such as toe flex near infrared spectroscopy and multisite photoplethysmography.

Combined intermittent pneumatic leg compression and pharmacological prophylaxis for prevention of venous thromboembolism.

BACKGROUND: It is generally assumed by practitioners and guideline authors that combined modalities (methods of treatment) are more effective than single modalities in preventing venous thromboembolism (VTE), defined as deep vein thrombosis (DVT) or pulmonary embolism (PE), or both. This is the second update of the review first published in 2008. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this review was to assess the efficacy of combined intermittent pneumatic leg compression (IPC) and pharmacological prophylaxis compared to single modalities in preventing VTE. SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist searched the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and AMED databases, and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov trials registers to 18 January 2021. We searched the reference lists of relevant articles for additional studies.  SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or controlled clinical trials (CCTs) of combined IPC and pharmacological interventions used to prevent VTE compared to either intervention individually. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We independently selected studies, applied Cochrane's risk of bias tool, and extracted data. We resolved disagreements by discussion. We performed fixed-effect model meta-analyses with odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We used a random-effects model when there was heterogeneity. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. The outcomes of interest were PE, DVT, bleeding and major bleeding. MAIN RESULTS: We included a total of 34 studies involving 14,931 participants, mainly undergoing surgery or admitted with trauma. Twenty-five studies were RCTs (12,672 participants) and nine were CCTs (2259 participants). Overall, the risk of bias was mostly unclear or high. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence and this was downgraded due to the risk of bias, imprecision or indirectness. The addition of pharmacological prophylaxis to IPC compared with IPC alone reduced the incidence of symptomatic PE from 1.34% (34/2530) in the IPC group to 0.65% (19/2932) in the combined group (OR 0.51, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.91; 19 studies, 5462 participants, low-certainty evidence). The incidence of DVT was 3.81% in the IPC group and 2.03% in the combined group showing a reduced incidence of DVT in favour of the combined group (OR 0.51, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.72; 18 studies, 5394 participants, low-certainty evidence). The addition of pharmacological prophylaxis to IPC, however, increased the risk of any bleeding compared to IPC alone: 0.95% (22/2304) in the IPC group and 5.88% (137/2330) in the combined group (OR 6.02, 95% CI 3.88 to 9.35; 13 studies, 4634 participants, very low-certainty evidence). Major bleeding followed a similar pattern: 0.34% (7/2054) in the IPC group compared to 2.21% (46/2079) in the combined group (OR 5.77, 95% CI 2.81 to 11.83; 12 studies, 4133 participants, very low-certainty evidence). Tests for subgroup differences between orthopaedic and non-orthopaedic surgery participants were not possible for PE incidence as no PE events were reported in the orthopaedic subgroup. No difference was detected between orthopaedic and non-orthopaedic surgery participants for DVT incidence (test for subgroup difference P = 0.19).  The use of combined IPC and pharmacological prophylaxis modalities compared with pharmacological prophylaxis alone reduced the incidence of PE from 1.84% (61/3318) in the pharmacological prophylaxis group to 0.91% (31/3419) in the combined group (OR 0.46, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.71; 15 studies, 6737 participants, low-certainty evidence). The incidence of DVT was 9.28% (288/3105) in the pharmacological prophylaxis group and 5.48% (167/3046) in the combined group (OR 0.38, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.70; 17 studies; 6151 participants, high-certainty evidence). Increased bleeding side effects were not observed for IPC when it was added to anticoagulation (any bleeding: OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.35, 6 studies, 1314 participants, very low-certainty evidence; major bleeding: OR 1.21, 95% CI 0.35 to 4.18, 5 studies, 908 participants, very low-certainty evidence). No difference was detected between the orthopaedic and non-orthopaedic surgery participants for PE incidence (test for subgroup difference P = 0.82) or for DVT incidence (test for subgroup difference P = 0.69). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Evidence suggests that combining IPC with pharmacological prophylaxis, compared to IPC alone reduces the incidence of both PE and DVT (low-certainty evidence). Combining IPC with pharmacological prophylaxis, compared to pharmacological prophylaxis alone, reduces the incidence of both PE (low-certainty evidence) and DVT (high-certainty evidence). We downgraded due to risk of bias in study methodology and imprecision. Very low-certainty evidence suggests that the addition of pharmacological prophylaxis to IPC increased the risk of bleeding compared to IPC alone, a side effect not observed when IPC is added to pharmacological prophylaxis (very low-certainty evidence), as expected for a physical method of thromboprophylaxis. The certainty of the evidence for bleeding was downgraded to very low due to risk of bias in study methodology, imprecision and indirectness. The results of this update agree with current guideline recommendations, which support the use of combined modalities in hospitalised people (limited to those with trauma or undergoing surgery) at risk of developing VTE. More studies on the role of combined modalities in VTE prevention are needed to provide evidence for specific patient groups and to increase our certainty in the evidence.

Interventions for great saphenous vein incompetence.

BACKGROUND: Great saphenous vein (GSV) incompetence, causing varicose veins and venous insufficiency, makes up the majority of lower-limb superficial venous diseases. Treatment options for GSV incompetence include surgery (also known as high ligation and stripping), laser and radiofrequency ablation, and ultrasound-guided foam sclerotherapy. Newer treatments include cyanoacrylate glue, mechanochemical ablation, and endovenous steam ablation. These techniques avoid the need for a general anaesthetic, and may result in fewer complications and improved quality of life (QoL). These treatments should be compared to inform decisions on treatment for varicosities in the GSV. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2011. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of endovenous laser ablation (EVLA), radiofrequency ablation (RFA), endovenous steam ablation (EVSA), ultrasound-guided foam sclerotherapy (UGFS), cyanoacrylate glue, mechanochemical ablation (MOCA) and high ligation and stripping (HL/S) for the treatment of varicosities of the great saphenous vein (GSV). SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist searched the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and AMED databases, and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov trials registers to 2 November 2020. We undertook reference checking to identify additional studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) treating participants for varicosities of the GSV using EVLA, RFA, EVSA, UGFS, cyanoacrylate glue, MOCA or HL/S. Key outcomes of interest are technical success, recurrence, complications and QoL. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected trials, applied Cochrane's risk of bias tool, and extracted data. We calculated odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 11 new RCTs for this update. Therefore, we included 24 RCTs with 5135 participants. Duration of follow-up ranged from five weeks to eight years. Five comparisons included single trials. For comparisons with more than one trial, we could only pool data for 'technical success' and 'recurrence' due to heterogeneity in outcome definitions and time points reported. All trials had some risk of bias concerns. Here we report the clinically most relevant comparisons. EVLA versus RFA Technical success was comparable up to five years (OR 0.98, 95% CI 0.41 to 2.38; 5 studies, 780 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); over five years, there was no evidence of a difference (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.30 to 2.41; 1 study, 291 participants; low-certainty evidence). One study reported recurrence, showing no clear difference at three years (OR 1.53, 95% CI 0.78 to 2.99; 291 participants; low-certainty evidence), but a benefit for RFA may be seen at five years (OR 2.77, 95% CI 1.52 to 5.06; 291 participants; low-certainty evidence). EVLA versus UGFS Technical success may be better in EVLA participants up to five years (OR 6.13, 95% CI 0.98 to 38.27; 3 studies, 588 participants; low-certainty evidence), and over five years (OR 6.47, 95% CI 2.60 to 16.10; 3 studies, 534 participants; low-certainty evidence). There was no clear difference in recurrence up to three years and at five years (OR 0.68, 95% CI 0.20 to 2.36; 2 studies, 443 participants; and OR 1.08, 95% CI 0.40 to 2.87; 2 studies, 418 participants; very low-certainty evidence, respectively). EVLA versus HL/S Technical success may be better in EVLA participants up to five years (OR 2.31, 95% CI 1.27 to 4.23; 6 studies, 1051 participants; low-certainty evidence). No clear difference in technical success was seen at five years and beyond (OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.50; 5 studies, 874 participants; low-certainty evidence). Recurrence was comparable within three years and at 5 years (OR 0.78, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.29; 7 studies, 1459 participants; and OR 1.09, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.76; 7 studies, 1267 participants; moderate-certainty evidence, respectively). RFA versus MOCA There was no clear difference in technical success (OR 1.76, 95% CI 0.06 to 54.15; 3 studies, 435 participants; low-certainty evidence), or recurrence (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.21 to 4.81; 3 studies, 389 participants; low-certainty evidence). Long-term data are not available. RFA versus HL/S No clear difference in technical success was detected up to five years (OR 5.71, 95% CI 0.64 to 50.81; 2 studies, 318 participants; low-certainty evidence); over five years, there was no evidence of a difference (OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.29 to 2.69; 1 study, 289 participants; low-certainty evidence). No clear difference in recurrence was detected up to three years (OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.51; 4 studies, 546 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); but a possible long-term benefit for RFA was seen (OR 0.41, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.75; 1 study, 289 participants; low-certainty evidence). UGFS versus HL/S Meta-analysis showed a possible benefit for HL/S compared with UGFS in technical success up to five years (OR 0.32, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.94; 4 studies, 954 participants; low-certainty evidence), and over five years (OR 0.09, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.30; 3 studies, 525 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). No clear difference was detected in recurrence up to three years (OR 1.81, 95% CI 0.87 to 3.77; 3 studies, 822 participants; low-certainty evidence), and after five years (OR 1.24, 95% CI 0.57 to 2.71; 3 studies, 639 participants; low-certainty evidence). Complications were generally low for all interventions, but due to different definitions and time points, we were unable to draw conclusions (very-low certainty evidence). Similarly, most studies evaluated QoL but used different questionnaires at variable time points. Rates of QoL improvement were comparable between interventions at follow-up (moderate-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Our conclusions are limited due to the relatively small number of studies for each comparison and differences in outcome definitions and time points reported. Technical success was comparable between most modalities. EVLA may offer improved technical success compared to UGFS or HL/S. HL/S may have improved technical success compared to UGFS. No evidence of a difference was detected in recurrence, except for a possible long-term benefit for RFA compared to EVLA or HL/S. Studies which provide more evidence on the breadth of treatments are needed. Future trials should seek to standardise clinical terminology of outcome measures and the time points at which they are measured.

Effect of testing for cancer on cancer- or venous thromboembolism (VTE)-related mortality and morbidity in people with unprovoked VTE.

BACKGROUND: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a collective term for two conditions: deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE). A proportion of people with VTE have no underlying or immediately predisposing risk factors and the VTE is referred to as unprovoked. Unprovoked VTE can often be the first clinical manifestation of an underlying malignancy. This has raised the question of whether people with an unprovoked VTE should be investigated for an underlying cancer. Treatment for VTE is different in cancer and non-cancer patients and a correct diagnosis would ensure that people received the optimal treatment for VTE to prevent recurrence and further morbidity. Furthermore, an appropriate cancer diagnosis at an earlier stage could avoid the risk of cancer progression and lead to improvements in cancer-related mortality and morbidity. This is the third update of the review first published in 2015. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether testing for undiagnosed cancer in people with a first episode of unprovoked VTE (DVT of the lower limb or PE) is effective in reducing cancer- or VTE-related mortality and morbidity and to determine which tests for cancer are best at identifying treatable cancers early. SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist searched the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL databases and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov trials registers to 5 May 2021. We also undertook reference checking to identify additional studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised and quasi-randomised trials in which people with an unprovoked VTE were allocated to receive specific tests for identifying cancer or clinically indicated tests only were eligible for inclusion. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected studies, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE criteria. We resolved any disagreements by discussion. The main outcomes of interest were all-cause mortality, cancer-related mortality and VTE-related mortality. MAIN RESULTS: No new studies were identified for this 2021 update. In total, four studies with 1644 participants are included. Two studies assessed the effect of extensive tests including computed tomography (CT) scanning versus tests at the physician's discretion, while the other two studies assessed the effect of standard testing plus positron emission tomography (PET)/CT scanning versus standard testing alone. For extensive tests including CT versus tests at the physician's discretion, the certainty of the evidence, as assessed according to GRADE, was low due to risk of bias (early termination of the studies). When comparing standard testing plus PET/CT scanning versus standard testing alone, the certainty of evidence was moderate due to a risk of detection bias. The certainty of the evidence was downgraded further as detection bias was present in one study with a low number of events. When comparing extensive tests including CT versus tests at the physician's discretion, pooled analysis on two studies showed that testing for cancer was consistent with either benefit or no benefit on cancer-related mortality (odds ratio (OR) 0.49, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.15 to 1.67; 396 participants; 2 studies; low-certainty evidence). One study (201 participants) showed that, overall, malignancies were less advanced at diagnosis in extensively tested participants than in participants in the control group. In total, 9/13 participants diagnosed with cancer in the extensively tested group had a T1 or T2 stage malignancy compared to 2/10 participants diagnosed with cancer in the control group (OR 5.00, 95% CI 1.05 to 23.76; low-certainty evidence). There was no clear difference in detection of advanced stages between extensive tests versus tests at the physician's discretion: one participant in the extensively tested group had stage T3 compared with four participants in the control group (OR 0.25, 95% CI 0.03 to 2.28; low-certainty evidence). In addition, extensively tested participants were diagnosed earlier than control group (mean: 1 month with extensive tests versus 11.6 months with tests at physician's discretion to cancer diagnosis from the time of diagnosis of VTE). Extensive testing did not increase the frequency of an underlying cancer diagnosis (OR 1.32, 95% CI 0.59 to 2.93; 396 participants; 2 studies; low-certainty evidence). Neither study measured all-cause mortality, VTE-related morbidity and mortality, complications of anticoagulation, adverse effects of cancer tests, participant satisfaction or quality of life. When comparing standard testing plus PET/CT screening versus standard testing alone, standard testing plus PET/CT screening was consistent with either benefit or no benefit on all-cause mortality (OR 1.22, 95% CI 0.49 to 3.04; 1248 participants; 2 studies; moderate-certainty evidence), cancer-related mortality (OR 0.55, 95% CI 0.20 to 1.52; 1248 participants; 2 studies; moderate-certainty evidence) or VTE-related morbidity (OR 1.02, 95% CI 0.48 to 2.17; 854 participants; 1 study; moderate-certainty evidence). Regarding stage of cancer, there was no clear difference for detection of early (OR 1.78, 95% 0.51 to 6.17; 394 participants; 1 study; low-certainty evidence) or advanced (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.14 to 7.17; 394 participants; 1 study; low-certainty evidence) stages of cancer. There was also no clear difference in the frequency of an underlying cancer diagnosis (OR 1.71, 95% CI 0.91 to 3.20; 1248 participants; 2 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). Time to cancer diagnosis was 4.2 months in the standard testing group and 4.0 months in the standard testing plus PET/CT group (P = 0.88). Neither study measured VTE-related mortality, complications of anticoagulation, adverse effects of cancer tests, participant satisfaction or quality of life. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Specific testing for cancer in people with unprovoked VTE may lead to earlier diagnosis of cancer at an earlier stage of the disease. However, there is currently insufficient evidence to draw definitive conclusions concerning the effectiveness of testing for undiagnosed cancer in people with a first episode of unprovoked VTE (DVT or PE) in reducing cancer- or VTE-related morbidity and mortality. The results could be consistent with either benefit or no benefit. Further good-quality large-scale randomised controlled trials are required before firm conclusions can be made.

Cilostazol for intermittent claudication.

BACKGROUND: Peripheral arterial disease (PAD) affects between 4% and 12% of people aged 55 to 70 years, and 20% of people over 70 years. A common complaint is intermittent claudication (exercise-induced lower limb pain relieved by rest). These patients have a three- to six-fold increase in cardiovascular mortality.  Cilostazol is a drug licensed for the use of improving claudication distance and, if shown to reduce cardiovascular risk, could offer additional clinical benefits. This is an update of the review first published in 2007. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effect of cilostazol on initial and absolute claudication distances, mortality and vascular events in patients with stable intermittent claudication. SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist searched the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and AMED databases, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov trials registries, on 9 November 2020. SELECTION CRITERIA: We considered double-blind, randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of cilostazol versus placebo, or versus other drugs used to improve claudication distance in patients with stable intermittent claudication. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently assessed trials for selection and independently extracted data. Disagreements were resolved by discussion. We assessed the risk of bias with the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Certainty of the evidence was evaluated using GRADE. For dichotomous outcomes, we used odds ratios (ORs) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and for continuous outcomes we used mean differences (MDs) and 95% CIs. We pooled data using a fixed-effect model, or a random-effects model when heterogeneity was identified. Primary outcomes were initial claudication distance (ICD) and quality of life (QoL). Secondary outcomes were absolute claudication distance (ACD), revascularisation, amputation, adverse events and cardiovascular events. MAIN RESULTS: We included 16 double-blind, RCTs (3972 participants) comparing cilostazol with placebo, of which five studies also compared cilostazol with pentoxifylline. Treatment duration ranged from six to 26 weeks. All participants had intermittent claudication secondary to PAD. Cilostazol dose ranged from 100 mg to 300 mg; pentoxifylline dose ranged from 800 mg to 1200 mg. The certainty of the evidence was downgraded by one level for all studies because publication bias was strongly suspected. Other reasons for downgrading were imprecision, inconsistency and selective reporting. Cilostazol versus placebo Participants taking cilostazol had a higher ICD compared with those taking placebo (MD 26.49 metres; 95% CI 18.93 to 34.05; 1722 participants; six studies; low-certainty evidence). We reported QoL measures descriptively due to insufficient statistical detail within the studies to combine the results; there was a possible indication in improvement of QoL in the cilostazol treatment groups (low-certainty evidence). Participants taking cilostazol had a higher ACD compared with those taking placebo (39.57 metres; 95% CI 21.80 to 57.33; 2360 participants; eight studies; very-low certainty evidence). The most commonly reported adverse events were headache, diarrhoea, abnormal stools, dizziness, pain and palpitations. Participants taking cilostazol had an increased odds of experiencing headache compared to participants taking placebo (OR 2.83; 95% CI 2.26 to 3.55; 2584 participants; eight studies; moderate-certainty evidence).Very few studies reported on other outcomes so conclusions on revascularisation, amputation, or cardiovascular events could not be made. Cilostazol versus pentoxifylline There was no difference detected between cilostazol and pentoxifylline for improving walking distance, both in terms of ICD (MD 20.0 metres, 95% CI -2.57 to 42.57; 417 participants; one study; low-certainty evidence); and ACD (MD 13.4 metres, 95% CI -43.50 to 70.36; 866 participants; two studies; very low-certainty evidence). One study reported on QoL; the study authors reported no difference in QoL between the treatment groups (very low-certainty evidence). No study reported on revascularisation, amputation or cardiovascular events. Cilostazol participants had an increased odds of experiencing headache compared with participants taking pentoxifylline at 24 weeks (OR 2.20, 95% CI 1.16 to 4.17; 982 participants; two studies; low-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Cilostazol has been shown to improve walking distance in people with intermittent claudication. However, participants taking cilostazol had higher odds of experiencing headache. There is insufficient evidence about the effectiveness of cilostazol for serious events such as amputation, revascularisation, and cardiovascular events. Despite the importance of QoL to patients, meta-analysis could not be undertaken because of differences in measures used and reporting. Very limited data indicated no difference between cilostazol and pentoxifylline for improving walking distance and data were too limited for any conclusions on other outcomes.

Improving the safety of resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta - Compliant versus semi-compliant balloon systems.

OBJECTIVES: Resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta is an alternative to resuscitative thoracotomy in non-compressible torso haemorrhage. Low-profile, compliant balloon catheter systems have been developed, which can be deployed without the need for fluoroscopy. However, concern exists for over inflation and aortic injury, especially as compliant balloon material can stretch reducing syringe feedback and limiting the effectiveness of a safety valve. An alternative material would be a semi-compliant balloon material, but its performance is unknown. The aim of this study was to compare the inflation characteristics of compliant versus semi-compliant balloon systems and to determine whether a pressure relief safety valve can be practically applied to a semi-compliant balloon catheter as a safety device. METHODS: This was an ex vivo study using porcine segments of thoracic aorta. The study consisted of two phases. The first phase involved intermittent inflation of six compliant balloon and six semi-compliant balloon balloons until balloon or aortic rupture. In the second phase, six semi-compliant balloons with the pressure-relief valve set at 0.45 atmospheres were inflated in the aortas until the valve release, followed by injection with additional 30 mL. Data including pressure, volume, balloon working length, diameter and circumferential stretch ratio were collected. RESULTS: At failure, mean balloon volume was almost double in compliant balloon group vs semi-compliant balloon group - 49.83 mL (±23.25) and 25.16 mL (±8.93), respectively (p = 0.004), with 36% increase in working length in the compliant balloon group - 81.17 mm (±19.11) vs 59.49 (±4.86) for semi-compliant balloon (p = 0.023). When plotted, the relationship pattern between volume and pressure fit a linear model for the compliant balloon, and a quadratic model for the semi-compliant balloon. Following attempted over inflation with the pressure valve, there was no change in parameters before and after attempted over inflation. CONCLUSIONS: The inflation profile differs between balloon designs. In contrast to semi-compliant balloons, compliant balloons will accommodate more volume to mitigate increase in pressure. This does not completely eliminate the risk of over inflation. The inflation characteristics of the semi-compliant balloon permit pairing it with a safety valve, which could lead to a development of a safer balloon technology in the future.

A multicenter randomized controlled study to evaluate whether neuromuscular electrical stimulation improves the absolute walking distance in patients with intermittent claudication compared with best available treatment.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the clinical efficacy of a neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) device to improve the absolute walking distance in patients with intermittent claudication as an adjunct to the local standard care available at the study sites compared with local standard care alone. METHODS: This open, multicenter, randomized controlled trial included eight participating centers in England. Sites are equally distributed between those that provide supervised exercise therapy programs and those that do not. Patients with intermittent claudication meeting the eligibility criteria and providing consent will be randomized, depending on the center type, to either NMES and locally available standard care or standard care alone. The primary end point is change in absolute walking distance at 3 months (the end of the intervention period) by treadmill testing. Secondary outcomes include quality of life, compliance with the interventions, economic evaluation of the NMES device, and lower limb hemodynamic measures to further the understanding of underlying mechanisms. Recruitment commenced in March 2018 and will continue for a total of 15 months. The Neuromuscular Electrical Stimulation Improves the Absolute Walking Distance in Patients with Intermittent Claudication trial is funded by the UK Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation Programme, Medical Research Council, and National Institute for Health Research partnership.

Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis Strategies for People Undergoing Elective Total Hip Replacement: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of venous thromboembolism prophylaxis in people undergoing elective total hip replacement. METHODS: Systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials were conducted for 3 outcomes: deep vein thrombosis (DVT), pulmonary embolism (PE), and major bleeding (MB). MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library (CENTRAL) databases were searched. Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias checklist. Fixed- and random-effects models were fitted and compared. The median relative risk (RR) and odds ratio (OR) compared with no prophylaxis, with their 95% credible intervals (CrIs), rank, and probability of being the best, were calculated. RESULTS: Forty-two (n = 24 374, 26 interventions), 30 (n = 28 842, 23 interventions), and 24 (n = 31 792, 15 interventions) randomized controlled trials were included in the DVT, PE, and MB networks, respectively. Rivaroxaban had the highest probability of being the most effective intervention for DVT (RR 0.06 [95% CrI 0.01-0.29]). Strategy of low-molecular-weight heparin followed by aspirin had the highest probability of reducing the risk of PE and MB (RR 0.0011 [95% CrI 0.00-0.096] and OR 0.37 [95% CrI 0.00-26.96], respectively). The ranking of efficacy estimates across the 3 networks, particularly PE and MB, had very wide CrIs, indicating high degree of uncertainty. CONCLUSIONS: A strategy of low-molecular-weight heparin given for 10 days followed by aspirin for 28 days had the best benefit-risk balance, with the highest probability of being the best on the basis of the results of the PE and MB network meta-analyses. Nevertheless, there is considerable uncertainty around the median ranks of the interventions.

Educational Impact of a Pulsatile Human Cadaver Circulation Model for Endovascular Training.

OBJECTIVES: The face and construct validity of a novel pulsatile human cadaver model (PHCM) was recently demonstrated for endovascular training. This study aimed to assess the model's educational impact. METHODS: Twenty-four endovascular novices were recruited and split into two equal training groups: PHCM and virtual reality simulator (VRS). Each candidate performed eight consecutive training attempts of endovascular renal artery catheterisation on their designated model, and a final crossover attempt on the alternate model. Performances were video recorded and scored using a validated scoring tool by two independent endovascular experts, blinded to the candidate's identity and attempt number. Each participant was given a task specific checklist score (TSC), global rating score (GRS), and overall procedure score (OPS). RESULTS: In the PHCM group average OPS improved gradually from 19.42 (TSC 8.58, GRS 10.83) to 39.50 (TSC 15.00, GRS 24.5) over eight attempts (p < .0005). In the VRS group OPS improved from 20.54 (TSC 10.29, GRS 10.25) to 36.04 (TSC 14.21, GRS 21.88) between the first and eighth attempts (p < .0005), with limited improvement after the second attempt. PHCM training significantly improved OPS on their VRS crossover attempt (p ≤ .0001), achieving a similar OPS to candidates who had completed VRS training (p = .398). VRS training significantly improved OPS on PHCM (p < 0.05); however, OPS was significantly worse than candidates who had completed PHCM training (p ≤ .001). CONCLUSIONS: PHCM training has a longer learning curve, with gradual improvement, reflecting the enhanced difficulty of a more realistic model. These results support the use of PHCM preceded by VRS training, prior to performing endovascular surgery on patients.

Effect of testing for cancer on cancer- or venous thromboembolism (VTE)-related mortality and morbidity in people with unprovoked VTE.

BACKGROUND: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a collective term for two conditions: deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE). A proportion of people with VTE have no underlying or immediately predisposing risk factors and the VTE is referred to as unprovoked. Unprovoked VTE can often be the first clinical manifestation of an underlying malignancy. This has raised the question of whether people with an unprovoked VTE should be investigated for an underlying cancer. Treatment for VTE is different in cancer and non-cancer patients and a correct diagnosis would ensure that people received the optimal treatment for VTE to prevent recurrence and further morbidity. Furthermore, an appropriate cancer diagnosis at an earlier stage could avoid the risk of cancer progression and lead to improvements in cancer-related mortality and morbidity. This is an update of a review first published in 2015. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether testing for undiagnosed cancer in people with a first episode of unprovoked VTE (DVT of the lower limb or PE) is effective in reducing cancer or VTE-related mortality and morbidity and to determine which tests for cancer are best at identifying treatable cancers early. SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist searched the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL databases and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov trials registers to 11 July 2018. We also undertook reference checking to identify additional studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised and quasi-randomised trials in which people with an unprovoked VTE were allocated to receive specific tests for identifying cancer or clinically indicated tests only were eligible for inclusion. Primary outcomes included all-cause mortality, cancer-related mortality and VTE-related mortality. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected studies, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. We resolved any disagreements by discussion. MAIN RESULTS: No new studies were identified for this 2018 update. In total, four studies with 1644 participants are included. Two studies assessed the effect of extensive tests including computed tomography (CT) scanning versus tests at the physician's discretion, while the other two studies assessed the effect of standard testing plus positron emission tomography (PET)/CT scanning versus standard testing alone. For extensive tests including CT versus tests at the physician's discretion, the quality of the evidence, as assessed according to GRADE, was low due to risk of bias (early termination of the studies). When comparing standard testing plus PET/CT scanning versus standard testing alone, the quality of evidence was moderate due to a risk of detection bias. The quality of the evidence was downgraded further as detection bias was present in one study with a low number of events.When comparing extensive tests including CT versus tests at the physician's discretion, pooled analysis on two studies showed that testing for cancer was consistent with either benefit or no benefit on cancer-related mortality (odds ratio (OR) 0.49, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.15 to 1.67; 396 participants; 2 studies; P = 0.26; low-quality evidence). One study (201 participants) showed that, overall, malignancies were less advanced at diagnosis in extensively tested participants than in participants in the control group. In total, 9/13 participants diagnosed with cancer in the extensively tested group had a T1 or T2 stage malignancy compared to 2/10 participants diagnosed with cancer in the control group (OR 5.00, 95% CI 1.05 to 23.76; P = 0.04; low-quality evidence). There was no clear difference in detection of advanced stages between extensive tests versus tests at the physician's discretion: one participant in the extensively tested group had stage T3 compared with four participants in the control group (OR 0.25, 95% CI 0.03 to 2.28; P = 0.22; low-quality evidence). In addition, extensively tested participants were diagnosed earlier than control group (mean: 1 month with extensive tests versus 11.6 months with tests at physician's discretion to cancer diagnosis from the time of diagnosis of VTE). Extensive testing did not increase the frequency of an underlying cancer diagnosis (OR 1.32, 95% CI 0.59 to 2.93; 396 participants; 2 studies; P = 0.50; low-quality evidence). Neither study measured all-cause mortality, VTE-related morbidity and mortality, complications of anticoagulation, adverse effects of cancer tests, participant satisfaction or quality of life.When comparing standard testing plus PET/CT screening versus standard testing alone, standard testing plus PET/CT screening was consistent with either benefit or no benefit on all-cause mortality (OR 1.22, 95% CI 0.49 to 3.04; 1248 participants; 2 studies; P = 0.66; moderate-quality evidence), cancer-related mortality (OR 0.55, 95% CI 0.20 to 1.52; 1248 participants; 2 studies; P = 0.25; moderate-quality evidence) or VTE-related morbidity (OR 1.02, 95% CI 0.48 to 2.17; 854 participants; 1 study; P = 0.96; moderate-quality evidence). Regarding stage of cancer, there was no clear difference for detection of early (OR 1.78, 95% 0.51 to 6.17; 394 participants; 1 study; P = 0.37; low-quality evidence) or advanced (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.14 to 7.17; 394 participants; 1 study; P = 1.00; low-quality evidence) stages of cancer. There was also no clear difference in the frequency of an underlying cancer diagnosis (OR 1.71, 95% CI 0.91 to 3.20; 1248 participants; 2 studies; P = 0.09; moderate-quality evidence). Time to cancer diagnosis was 4.2 months in the standard testing group and 4.0 months in the standard testing plus PET/CT group (P = 0.88). Neither study measured VTE-related mortality, complications of anticoagulation, adverse effects of cancer tests, participant satisfaction or quality of life. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Specific testing for cancer in people with unprovoked VTE may lead to earlier diagnosis of cancer at an earlier stage of the disease. However, there is currently insufficient evidence to draw definitive conclusions concerning the effectiveness of testing for undiagnosed cancer in people with a first episode of unprovoked VTE (DVT or PE) in reducing cancer- or VTE-related morbidity and mortality. The results could be consistent with either benefit or no benefit. Further good-quality large-scale randomised controlled trials are required before firm conclusions can be made.

Gene therapy for peripheral arterial disease.

BACKGROUND: Peripheral arterial disease (PAD), caused by narrowing of the arteries in the limbs, is increasing in incidence and prevalence as our population is ageing and as diabetes is becoming more prevalent. PAD can cause pain in the limbs while walking, known as intermittent claudication, or can be more severe and cause pain while at rest, ulceration, and ultimately gangrene and limb loss. This more severe stage of PAD is known as 'critical limb ischaemia'. Treatments for PAD include medications that help to reduce the increased risk of cardiovascular events and help improve blood flow, as well as endovascular or surgical repair or bypass of the blocked arteries. However, many people are unresponsive to medications and are not suited to surgical or endovascular treatment, leaving amputation as the last option. Gene therapy is a novel approach in which genetic material encoding for proteins that may help increase revascularisation is injected into the affected limbs of patients. This type of treatment has been shown to be safe, but its efficacy, especially regarding ulcer healing, effects on quality of life, and other symptomatic outcomes remain unknown. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of gene therapy for symptomatic peripheral arterial disease. SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist searched Cochrane CENTRAL, the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register, MEDLINE Ovid, Embase Ovid, CINAHL, and AMED, along with trials registries (all searched 27 November 2017). We also checked reference lists of included studies and systematic reviews for further studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised and quasi-randomised studies that evaluated gene therapy versus no gene therapy in people with PAD. We excluded studies that evaluated direct growth hormone treatment or cell-based treatments. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected studies, performed quality assessment, and extracted data from the included studies. We collected pertinent information on each study, as well as data for the outcomes of amputation-free survival, ulcer healing, quality of life, amputation, all-cause mortality, ankle brachial index, symptom scores, and claudication distance. MAIN RESULTS: We included in this review a total of 17 studies with 1988 participants (evidence current until November 2017). Three studies limited their inclusion to people with intermittent claudication, 12 limited inclusion to people with varying levels of critical limb ischaemia, and two included people with either condition. Study investigators evaluated many different types of gene therapies, using different protocols. Most studies evaluated growth factor-encoding gene therapy, with six studies using vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF)-encoding genes, four using hepatocyte growth factor (HGF)-encoding genes, and three using fibroblast growth factor (FGF)-encoded genes. Two studies evaluated hypoxia-inducible factor 1-alpha (HIF-1α) gene therapy, one study used a developmental endothelial locus-1 gene therapy, and the final study evaluated a stromal cell-derived factor-1 (SDF-1) gene therapy. Most studies reported outcomes after 12 months of follow-up, but follow-up ranged from three months to two years.Overall risk of bias varied between studies, with many studies not providing sufficient detail for adequate determination of low risk of bias for many domains. Two studies did not utilise a placebo control, leading to risk of performance bias. Several studies reported in previous protocols or in their Methods sections that they would report on certain outcomes for which no data were then reported, increasing risk of reporting bias. All included studies reported sponsorships from corporate entities that led to unclear risk of other bias. The overall quality of evidence ranged from moderate to very low, generally as the result of heterogeneity and imprecision, with few or no studies reporting on outcomes.Evidence suggests no clear differences for the outcomes of amputation-free survival, major amputation, and all-cause mortality between those treated with gene therapy and those not receiving this treatment (all moderate-quality evidence). Low-quality evidence suggests improvement in complete ulcer healing with gene therapy (odds ratio (OR) 2.16, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.02 to 4.59; P = 0.04). We could not combine data on quality of life and can draw no conclusions at this time regarding this outcome (very low-quality evidence). We included one study in the meta-analysis for ankle brachial index, which showed no clear differences between treatments, but we can draw no overall association (low-quality evidence). We combined in a meta-analysis pain symptom scores as assessed by visual analogue scales from two studies and found no clear differences between treatment groups (very low-quality evidence). We carried out extensive subgroup analyses by PAD classification, dosage schedule, vector type, and gene used but identified no substantial differences. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Moderate-quality evidence shows no clear differences in amputation-free survival, major amputation, and all-cause mortality between those treated with gene therapy and those not receiving gene therapy. Some evidence suggests that gene therapy may lead to improved complete ulcer healing, but this outcome needs to be explored with improved reporting of the measure, such as decreased ulcer area in cm², and better description of ulcer types and healing. Further standardised data that are amenable to meta-analysis are needed to evaluate other outcomes such as quality of life, ankle brachial index, symptom scores, and claudication distance.

A Pulsatile Fresh Frozen Human Cadaver Circulation Model for Endovascular Training: A Trial of Face Validity.

BACKGROUND: The authors have published their design of a pulsatile fresh frozen human cadaver circulation model (PHCM) for endovascular training the face validity of the PHCM for training endovascular practitioners was subsequently assessed. METHODS: Twelve endovascular clinicians performed the same 2 procedures (catheterization of the left renal artery and left subclavian artery) on PHCM and Simbionix angiomentor virtual reality simulator (SVR). They were randomized to begin on either the PHCM or SVR. A pretrial questionnaire determined participants' endovascular experience. After training, participants rated statements relating to their experience on a numerical scale from 1 to 5, with 1 representing the strongest agreement with the statement. RESULTS: When participants were asked to compare the realism of training modalities with live patients, PHCM scored significantly higher than SVR on statements regarding "realism of vascular access" (P = 0.002), "guide-wire manipulation" (P = 0.001), and "vessel catheterization" (P = 0.004). Candidates again favored PHCM as "a valuable learning exercise" (P = 0.016) and strongly favored PHCM as a "useful training model" compared to SVR (P = 0.004). CONCLUSIONS: This is the first published trial in world literature to assess the validity of a PHCM for training endovascular practitioners. The PHCM demonstrates good face validity when compared to both real patients and the SVR model and holds exciting potential.

Evaluating the Construct Validity of a Pulsatile Fresh Frozen Human Cadaver Circulation Model for Endovascular Training.

BACKGROUND: We recently described a pulsatile fresh frozen human cadaver model (PHCM) for training endovascular practitioners. This present study aims to assess the construct validity of PHCM; its ability to differentiate between participants of varying expertise. METHODS: Twenty-three participants with varying endovascular experience (12 novice, 4 intermediate, and 7 expert) were recruited. Each attempted catheterization of the left renal artery on PHCM within 10 min under exam conditions. Performances were video recorded and scored using a validated scoring tool by 2 independent endovascular experts, blinded to performer status. Each participant was given a task-specific checklist score (TSC), global rating score (GRS), and overall procedure score (OPS). Finally, examiners were asked whether they would be happy to supervise the participant in theater, with each participant graded as "fail", "borderline," or "pass". RESULTS: All expert and intermediate participants completed the index procedure within the allotted 10 min; however, only one of the 12 novice participants achieved this (P < 0.0005). Endovascular novices had significantly lower TSC, GRS, and OPS than both intermediate participants and endovascular experts. There were no significant differences in TSC, GRS, or OPS between intermediate participants and endovascular experts. When participants were graded as "fail", "borderline," or "pass," there were significant differences between groups (P = 0.001). All of the intermediate and expert participants received a pass. Out of the 12 novice participants, 2 received a pass, 6 received a borderline, and 4 were failed. CONCLUSIONS: The PHCM demonstrates construct validity. Further work is required to determine its educational impact in endovascular training.

Pharmacological treatment of vascular risk factors for reducing mortality and cardiovascular events in patients with abdominal aortic aneurysm.

BACKGROUND: Pharmacological prophylaxis has been proven to reduce the risk of cardiovascular events in individuals with atherosclerotic occlusive arterial disease. However, the role of prophylaxis in individuals with abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) remains unclear. Several studies have shown that despite successful repair, those people with AAA have a poorer rate of survival than healthy controls. People with AAA have an increased prevalence of coronary heart disease and risk of cardiovascular events. Despite this association, little is known about the effectiveness of pharmacological prophylaxis in reducing cardiovascular risk in people with AAA. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2014. OBJECTIVES: To determine the long-term effectiveness of antiplatelet, antihypertensive or lipid-lowering medication in reducing mortality and cardiovascular events in people with abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA). SEARCH METHODS: For this update the Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist (CIS) searched the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register (14 April 2016). In addition, the CIS searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2016, Issue 3) and trials registries (14 April 2016) and We also searched the reference lists of relevant articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials in which people with AAA were randomly allocated to one prophylactic treatment versus another, a different regimen of the same treatment, a placebo, or no treatment were eligible for inclusion in this review. Primary outcomes included all-cause mortality and cardiovascular mortality. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected studies for inclusion, and completed quality assessment and data extraction. We resolved any disagreements by discussion. Only one study met the inclusion criteria of the review, therefore we were unable to perform meta-analysis. MAIN RESULTS: No new studies met the inclusion criteria for this update. We included one randomised controlled trial in the review. A subgroup of 227 participants with AAA received either metoprolol (N = 111) or placebo (N = 116). There was no clear evidence that metoprolol reduced all-cause mortality (odds ratio (OR) 0.17, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.02 to 1.41), cardiovascular death (OR 0.20, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.76), AAA-related death (OR 1.05, 95% CI 0.06 to 16.92) or increased nonfatal cardiovascular events (OR 1.44, 95% CI 0.58 to 3.57) 30 days postoperatively. Furthermore, at six months postoperatively, estimated effects were compatible with benefit and harm for all-cause mortality (OR 0.71, 95% CI 0.26 to 1.95), cardiovascular death (OR 0.73, 95% CI 0.23 to 2.39) and nonfatal cardiovascular events (OR 1.41, 95% CI 0.59 to 3.35). Adverse drug effects were reported for the whole study population and were not available for the subgroup of participants with AAA. We considered the study to be at a generally low risk of bias. We downgraded the quality of the evidence for all outcomes to low. We downgraded the quality of evidence for imprecision as only one study with a small number of participants was available, the number of events was small and the result was consistent with benefit and harm. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Due to the limited number of included trials, there is insufficient evidence to draw any conclusions about the effectiveness of cardiovascular prophylaxis in reducing mortality and cardiovascular events in people with AAA. Further good-quality randomised controlled trials that examine many types of prophylaxis with long-term follow-up are required before firm conclusions can be made.

Effect of testing for cancer on cancer- and venous thromboembolism (VTE)-related mortality and morbidity in people with unprovoked VTE.

BACKGROUND: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a collective term for two conditions: deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE). A proportion of people with VTE have no underlying or immediately predisposing risk factors and the VTE is referred to as unprovoked. Unprovoked VTE can often be the first clinical manifestation of an underlying malignancy. This has raised the question of whether people with an unprovoked VTE should be investigated for an underlying cancer. Treatment for VTE is different in cancer and non-cancer patients and a correct diagnosis would ensure that people received the optimal treatment for VTE to prevent recurrence and further morbidity. Furthermore, an appropriate cancer diagnosis at an earlier, potentially curative stage could avoid the risk of cancer progression and thus lead to improvements in cancer-related mortality and morbidity. This is an update of a review first published in 2015. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether testing for undiagnosed cancer in people with a first episode of unprovoked VTE (DVT of the lower limb or PE) is effective in reducing cancer and VTE-related mortality and morbidity and to determine which tests for cancer are best at identifying treatable cancers early. SEARCH METHODS: For this update, the Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist (CIS) searched the Specialised Register (16 February 2017). In addition, the CIS searched the Cochrane Register of Studies CENTRAL (2017, Issue 1). We searched trials registries (February 2017) and checked the reference lists of relevant articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised and quasi-randomised trials in which people with an unprovoked VTE were allocated to receive specific tests for cancer or clinically indicated tests only were eligible for inclusion in this review. Primary outcomes included all-cause mortality, cancer-related mortality and VTE-related mortality. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected studies, assessed quality and extracted data. We resolved any disagreements by discussion. MAIN RESULTS: Four studies with 1644 participants met the inclusion criteria (two studies in the original review and two in this update). Two studies assessed the effect of extensive tests versus tests at the physician's discretion) while the other two studies assessed the effect of standard testing plus positron emission tomography (PET)/computed tomography (CT) scanning versus standard testing alone. For extensive tests versus tests at the physician's discretion, the quality of the evidence was low due to risk of bias (early termination of the studies). When comparing standard testing plus PET/CT scanning versus standard testing alone, the quality of evidence was moderate due to a risk of detection bias. The quality of the evidence was downgraded further when detection bias was present in one study with a low number of events.When comparing extensive tests versus tests at the physician's discretion, pooled analysis on two studies showed that testing for cancer was consistent with either a benefit or no benefit on cancer-related mortality (odds ratio (OR) 0.49, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.15 to 1.67; 396 participants; 2 studies; P = 0.26; low quality evidence). One study (201 participants) showed that, overall, malignancies were less advanced in extensively tested participants than in participants in the control group. In total, 9/13 participants diagnosed with cancer in the extensively tested group had a T1 or T2 stage malignancy compared to 2/10 participants diagnosed with cancer in the control group (OR 5.00, 95% CI 1.05 to 23.76; P = 0.04; low quality evidence). There was no clear difference in detection of advanced stages between extensive tests versus tests at the physician's discretion: one participant in the extensively tested group had stage T3 compared with four participants in the control group (OR 0.25, 95% CI 0.03 to 2.28; P = 0.22; low quality evidence). In addition, extensively tested participants were diagnosed earlier than control group (mean: 1 month with extensive tests versus 11.6 months with tests at physician's discretion to cancer diagnosis from the time of diagnosis of VTE). Extensive testing did not increase the frequency of an underlying cancer diagnosis (OR 1.32, 95% CI 0.59 to 2.93; 396 participants; 2 studies; P = 0.50; low quality evidence). Neither study measured all-cause mortality, VTE-related morbidity and mortality, complications of anticoagulation, adverse effects of cancer tests, participant satisfaction or quality of life.When comparing standard testing plus PET/CT screening versus standard testing alone, standard testing plus PET/CT screening was consistent with either a benefit or no benefit on all-cause mortality (OR 1.22, 95% CI 0.49 to 3.04; 1248 participants; 2 studies; P = 0.66; moderate quality evidence), cancer-related mortality (OR 0.55, 95% CI 0.20 to 1.52; 1248 participants; 2 studies; P = 0.25; moderate quality evidence) or VTE-related morbidity (OR 1.02, 95% CI 0.48 to 2.17; 854 participants; 1 study; P = 0.96; moderate quality evidence). With regards to stage of cancer, there was no clear difference for detection of early (OR 1.78, 95% 0.51 to 6.17; 394 participants; 1 study; P = 0.37; low quality evidence) or advanced (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.14 to 7.17; 394 participants; 1 study; P = 1.00; low quality evidence) stages of cancer. There was also no clear difference in the frequency of an underlying cancer diagnosis (OR 1.71, 95% CI 0.91 to 3.20; 1248 participants; 2 studies; P = 0.09; moderate quality evidence). Time to cancer diagnosis was 4.2 months in the standard testing group and 4.0 months in the standard testing plus PET/CT group (P = 0.88). Neither study measured VTE-related mortality, complications of anticoagulation, adverse effects of cancer tests, participant satisfaction or quality of life. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Testing for cancer in people with unprovoked VTE may lead to earlier diagnosis of cancer at an earlier stage of the disease. However, there is currently insufficient evidence to draw definitive conclusions concerning the effectiveness of testing for undiagnosed cancer in people with a first episode of unprovoked VTE (DVT or PE) in reducing cancer and VTE-related morbidity and mortality. The results could be consistent with either benefit or no benefit. Further good-quality large-scale randomised controlled trials are required before firm conclusions can be made.

Design of a Pulsatile Fresh Frozen Human Cadaver Circulation Model for Endovascular Training.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this project was to create a model capable of training endovascular skills using a freshly frozen human cadaver (HC). We present the results of our experience creating a cadaveric model for endovascular skills training. We undertook a unique cadaver laboratory-based research project. METHODS: We favor a minimally invasive surgical technique with inflow into the right common carotid artery and outflow through the left common femoral and right superficial femoral arteries. Endovascular access was through the right common femoral artery. RESULTS: Through this technique, the arch, thoracic, abdominal, and iliac vessels are all accessible. We perfuse the model through an open pulsatile flow circuit at varying rates to maximize angiographic image capture while minimizing cadaveric edema thus expanding the models longevity. CONCLUSIONS: A fresh frozen pulsatile human cadaver training model is a feasible and credible training model that has exciting potential for endovascular skills training.

A Prospective, Randomized, Multicenter Clinical Trial on the Safety and Efficacy of a Ready-to-Use Fibrin Sealant as an Adjunct to Hemostasis during Vascular Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Anastomotic or "stitch hole" bleeding is common during vascular surgery with synthetic material such as Dacron or polytetrafluoroethylene. Hemostatic adjuncts such as fibrin sealant (FS) may reduce blood loss and operating time in such circumstances. We evaluated the safety and the hemostatic effectiveness of a ready-to-use human plasma-derived FS in vascular surgery. METHODS: Patients with mild/moderate suture line bleeding during elective, open, vascular surgery using synthetic grafts or patches were studied. In an initial Exploratory Study, all patients were treated with FS Grifols, and in a subsequent Primary Study were randomized in a 2:1 ratio to FS Grifols or manual compression (MC). The primary efficacy end point was time to hemostasis (TTH), assessed at defined intervals from the start of treatment application, during a 10-min observational period. Safety end points (in Exploratory + Primary Studies) included adverse events (AEs), vital signs, physical assessments, common clinical laboratory tests (coagulation, complete blood count, serum clinical chemistry parameters, microscopic urinalysis), viral markers, and immunogenicity. RESULTS: In the Primary Study, the proportion of patients who achieved hemostasis at the 3-min time point was higher in the FS Grifols group (46.4%, n = 51/110) than in the MC group (26.3%, n = 15/57) (P < 0.05). The benefit was maintained at successive time intervals: 69 FS Grifols patients (62.7%) and 18 MC patients (31.6%) at 4 min; 82 FS Grifols patients (74.5%) and 28 MC patients (49.1%) at 5 min. The differences between the groups persisted for TTH ≤ 7 min and TTH ≤ 10 min. Treatment failure was reported for 13 FS Grifols patients (11.8%) and 16 MC patients (28.1%). TTH was shorter after FS Grifols application than after MC application. Differences were statistically significant in favor of FS Grifols for each TTH category and for the overall comparison (P < 0.001) as well as for each TTH category (cumulative) and for treatment failure (P = 0.016). Overall, AE experience and types of AEs reported were those expected in this patient population and were similar between the 2 treatment groups. The most frequently reported AEs were procedural pain (59.9% and 69.2% of patients in the FS Grifols [n = 72 + 111] and MC [n = 57] groups, respectively) and nausea (23.5% and 19.2% of patients, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: FS Grifols was efficacious and safe as an adjunct to anastomotic hemostasis in patients undergoing arterial surgery using prosthetic material with mild to moderate bleeding.

Combined intermittent pneumatic leg compression and pharmacological prophylaxis for prevention of venous thromboembolism.

BACKGROUND: It is generally assumed by practitioners and guideline authors that combined modalities (methods of treatment) are more effective than single modalities in preventing venous thromboembolism (VTE), defined as deep vein thrombosis (DVT) or pulmonary embolism (PE), or both. This is an update of the review first published in 2008. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this review was to assess the efficacy of combined intermittent pneumatic leg compression (IPC) and pharmacological prophylaxis versus single modalities in preventing venous thromboembolism. SEARCH METHODS: For this update the Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist (CIS) searched the Specialised Register (May 2016). In addition the CIS searched the Cochrane Register of Studies (CENTRAL (2016, Issue 4)). Clinical trials databases were searched for details of ongoing or unpublished studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or controlled clinical trials (CCTs) of combined IPC and pharmacological interventions used to prevent VTE. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We independently selected trials and extracted data. Disagreements were resolved by discussion. We performed fixed-effect model meta-analyses with odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We used a random-effects model when there was heterogeneity. MAIN RESULTS: We included a total of 22 trials (9137 participants) of which 15 were randomized trials (7762 participants). The overall risk of bias was mostly unclear or high due to selection and performance bias. We used GRADE to assess the quality of the evidence and this was downgraded from high to moderate or very low due to the risk of bias, imprecision or indirectness.The rate of PE in the studies comparing IPC alone with combined IPC and pharmacological prophylaxis was low, underpowering the analyses. The incidence of symptomatic PE was 0.79% with IPC, but ranged between 0.1 to 1% with combined IPC and pharmacological prophylaxis (OR 0.49, 95% CI 0.18 to 1.34; 12 studies, 3017 participants, moderate quality evidence). The incidence of DVT was 4.10% in the IPC group and 2.19% in the combined group showing a reduced incidence of DVT in favour of the combined group (OR 0.52, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.82; 11 studies, 2934 participants, moderate quality evidence). The addition of an anticoagulant to IPC, however, increased the risk of any bleeding compared to IPC alone; 0.66% (7/1053) in the IPC group and 4.0% (44/1102) in the combined group (OR 5.04, 95% CI 2.36 to 10.77; 7 studies, 2155 participants, moderate quality evidence). Major bleeding followed a similar pattern; 0.1% (1/1053) in the IPC group to 1.5% (17/1102) in the combined group (OR 6.81, 95% CI 1.99 to 23.28; 7 studies, 2155 participants, moderate quality evidence).We detected no difference between the type of surgery subgroups such as orthopedic and non-orthopedic participants for DVT incidence (P = 0.16). Tests for differences between type of surgery subgroups were not possible for PE incidence.Compared with pharmacological prophylaxis alone, the use of combined IPC and pharmacological prophylaxis modalities reduced the incidence of symptomatic PE from 2.92% to 1.20% (OR 0.39, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.64; 10 studies, 3544 participants, moderate quality evidence). The incidence of DVT was 6.2% in the pharmacological prophylaxis group and 2.9% in the combined group showing no difference between the combined and pharmacological prophylaxis groups (OR 0.42, 95% CI 0.18 to 1.03; 11 studies, 2866 participants, moderate quality evidence). Increased bleeding side effects were not observed for IPC when it was added to anticoagulation (bleeding: OR 0.80, 95% CI 0.30 to 2.14, very low quality evidence; major bleeding: OR 1.21, 95% CI 0.35 to 4.18, very low quality evidence, 3 studies, 244 participants).No difference was detected between the type of surgery subgroups for PE incidence (P = 0.68) or for DVT incidence (P = 0.10). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Moderate quality evidence suggests that combining IPC and pharmacological prophylaxis, compared with IPC or pharmacological prophylaxis alone, decreases the incidence of DVT when compared to compression, and incidence of PE when compared to anticoagulation. Moderate quality evidence suggests that there is no difference between combined and single modalities in the incidence of PE when compared with compression alone and DVT when compared with anticoagulation alone. The quality of evidence for PE or DVT was downgraded to moderate due to imprecision or risk of bias in study methodology, highlighting the need for further research. Moderate quality evidence suggests the addition of pharmacological prophylaxis to IPC, increased the risk of bleeding compared to IPC alone, a side effect not observed for IPC when added to pharmacological prophylaxis (very low quality evidence), as expected for a physical method of thromboprophylaxis. The quality of evidence for bleeding was downgraded to moderate due to indirectness or very low due to risk of bias in study methodology, indirectness and imprecision highlighting the need for further research. Nevertheless, the results of the current review agree with current guideline recommendations, which support the use of combined modalities in hospitalised patients (limited to those with trauma or undergoing surgery) at risk of developing VTE. More studies on the role of combined modalities in VTE prevention are needed.