Dapagliflozin vs. metolazone in heart failure resistant to loop diuretics.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: To examine the decongestive effect of the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor dapagliflozin compared to the thiazide-like diuretic metolazone in patients hospitalized for heart failure and resistant to treatment with intravenous furosemide. METHODS AND RESULTS: A multi-centre, open-label, randomized, and active-comparator trial. Patients were randomized to dapagliflozin 10 mg once daily or metolazone 5-10 mg once daily for a 3-day treatment period, with follow-up for primary and secondary endpoints until day 5 (96 h). The primary endpoint was a diuretic effect, assessed by change in weight (kg). Secondary endpoints included a change in pulmonary congestion (lung ultrasound), loop diuretic efficiency (weight change per 40 mg of furosemide), and a volume assessment score. 61 patients were randomized. The mean (±standard deviation) cumulative dose of furosemide at 96 h was 977 (±492) mg in the dapagliflozin group and 704 (±428) mg in patients assigned to metolazone. The mean (±standard deviation) decrease in weight at 96 h was 3.0 (2.5) kg with dapagliflozin compared to 3.6 (2.0) kg with metolazone [mean difference 0.65, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.12,1.41 kg; P = 0.11]. Loop diuretic efficiency was less with dapagliflozin than with metolazone [mean 0.15 (0.12) vs. 0.25 (0.19); difference -0.08, 95% CI -0.17,0.01 kg; P = 0.10]. Changes in pulmonary congestion and volume assessment score were similar between treatments. Decreases in plasma sodium and potassium and increases in urea and creatinine were smaller with dapagliflozin than with metolazone. Serious adverse events were similar between treatments. CONCLUSION: In patients with heart failure and loop diuretic resistance, dapagliflozin was not more effective at relieving congestion than metolazone. Patients assigned to dapagliflozin received a larger cumulative dose of furosemide but experienced less biochemical upset than those assigned to metolazone. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04860011.

Endothelin-1, Outcomes in Patients With Heart Failure and Reduced Ejection Fraction, and Effects of Dapagliflozin: Findings From DAPA-HF.

BACKGROUND: ET-1 (endothelin-1) is implicated in the pathophysiology of heart failure and renal disease. Its prognostic importance and relationship with kidney function in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction receiving contemporary treatment are uncertain. We investigated these and the efficacy of dapagliflozin according to ET-1 level in the DAPA-HF trial (Dapagliflozin and Prevention of Adverse Outcomes in Heart Failure). METHODS: We investigated the incidence of the primary outcome (cardiovascular death or worsening heart failure), change in kidney function, and the effect of dapagliflozin according to baseline ET-1 concentration, adjusting in Cox models for other recognized prognostic variables in heart failure including NT-proBNP (N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide). We also examined the effect of dapagliflozin on ET-1 level. RESULTS: Overall, 3048 participants had baseline ET-1 measurements: tertile 1 (T1; ≤3.28 pg/mL; n=1016); T2 (>3.28-4.41 pg/mL; n=1022); and T3 (>4.41 pg/mL; n=1010). Patients with higher ET-1 were more likely male, more likely obese, and had lower left ventricular ejection fraction, lower estimated glomerular filtration rate, worse functional status, and higher NT-proBNP and hs-TnT (high-sensitivity troponin-T). In the adjusted Cox models, higher baseline ET-1 was independently associated with worse outcomes and steeper decline in kidney function (adjusted hazard ratio for primary outcome of 1.95 [95% CI, 1.53-2.50] for T3 and 1.36 [95% CI, 1.06-1.75] for T2; both versus T1; estimated glomerular filtration rate slope: T3, -3.19 [95% CI, -3.66 to -2.72] mL/min per 1.73 m2 per y, T2, -2.08 [95% CI, -2.52 to -1.63] and T1 -2.35 [95% CI, -2.79 to -1.91]; P=0.002). The benefit of dapagliflozin was consistent regardless of baseline ET-1, and the placebo-corrected decrease in ET-1 with dapagliflozin was 0.13 pg/mL (95% CI, 0.25-0.01; P=0.029). CONCLUSIONS: Higher baseline ET-1 concentration was independently associated with worse clinical outcomes and more rapid decline in kidney function. The benefit of dapagliflozin was consistent across the range of ET-1 concentrations measured, and treatment with dapagliflozin led to a small decrease in serum ET-1 concentration. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov; Unique identifier: NCT03036124.

Relationship of Dapagliflozin With Serum Sodium: Findings From the DAPA-HF Trial.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to assess the prognostic importance of hyponatremia and the effects of dapagliflozin on serum sodium in the DAPA-HF (Dapagliflozin And Prevention of Adverse outcomes in Heart Failure) trial. BACKGROUND: Hyponatremia is common and prognostically important in hospitalized patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, but its prevalence and importance in ambulatory patients are uncertain. METHODS: We calculated the incidence of the primary outcome (cardiovascular death or worsening heart failure) and secondary outcomes according to sodium category (≤135 and >135 mmol/L). Additionally, we assessed: 1) whether baseline serum sodium modified the treatment effect of dapagliflozin; and 2) the effect of dapagliflozin on serum sodium. RESULTS: Of 4,740 participants with a baseline measurement, 398 (8.4%) had sodium ≤135 mmol/L. Participants with hyponatremia were more likely to have diabetes, be treated with diuretics, and have lower systolic blood pressure, left ventricular ejection fraction, and estimated glomerular filtration rate. Hyponatremia was associated with worse outcomes even after adjustment for predictive variables (adjusted HRs for the primary outcome 1.50 [95% CI: 1.23-1.84] and all-cause death 1.59 [95% CI: 1.26-2.01]). The benefits of dapagliflozin were similar in patients with and without hyponatremia (HR for primary endpoint: 0.83 [95% CI: 0.57-1.19] and 0.73 [95% CI: 0.63-0.84], respectively, P for interaction = 0.54; HR for all-cause death: 0.85 [95% CI: 0.56-1.29] and 0.83 [95% CI: 0.70-0.98], respectively, P for interaction = 0.96). Between baseline and day 14, more patients on dapagliflozin developed hyponatremia (11.3% vs 9.4%; P = 0.04); thereafter, this pattern reversed and at 12 months fewer patients on dapagliflozin had hyponatremia (4.6% vs 6.7%; P = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: Baseline serum sodium concentration was prognostically important, but did not modify the benefits of dapagliflozin on morbidity and mortality in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. (Study to Evaluate the Effect of Dapagliflozin on the Incidence of Worsening Heart Failure or Cardiovascular Death in Patients With Chronic Heart Failure [DAPA-HF]: NCT03036124).

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.

Rutosides for prevention of post-thrombotic syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Post-thrombotic syndrome (PTS) is a long-term complication of deep venous thrombosis (DVT) that is characterised by pain, swelling, and skin changes in the affected limb. One in three patients with DVT will develop post-thrombotic sequelae within five years. The current standard care for the prevention of PTS following DVT is elastic compression stockings. Rutosides are a group of compounds derived from horse chestnut (Aesculus hippocastanum), a traditional herbal remedy for treating oedema formation in chronic venous insufficiency (CVI). However, it is not known whether rutosides are effective and safe in the prevention of PTS. This is the second update of the review first published in 2013. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness and safety of rutosides for prevention of post-thrombotic syndrome (PTS) in patients with deep vein thrombosis (DVT), compared to placebo, no intervention, or reference medication. 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 21 August 2018. SELECTION CRITERIA: We planned to include trials of rutosides versus any alternative (placebo, no intervention, or reference medication) in the prevention of PTS in patients with DVT. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion and intended to extract information from the trials. MAIN RESULTS: No studies were identified comparing rutosides versus any alternative in the prevention of PTS. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: As there were no studies identified in this review there is currently insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness and safety of rutosides for prevention of PTS in patients with DVT. Some studies suggest that rutosides may provide short-term relief of PTS symptoms. However, there is nothing published on their use as a preventative therapy for PTS. High quality randomised controlled trials of rutoside versus any alternative are required to build the evidence base in this area.

Rutosides for treatment of post-thrombotic syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Post-thrombotic syndrome (PTS) is a long-term complication of deep venous thrombosis (DVT) that is characterised by pain, swelling, and skin changes in the affected limb. One in three patients with DVT will develop post-thrombotic sequelae within five years. Rutosides are a group of compounds derived from horse chestnut (Aesculus hippocastanum), a traditional herbal remedy for treating oedema formation in chronic venous insufficiency (CVI). However, it is not known whether rutosides are effective and safe in the treatment of PTS. This is the second update of the review first published in 2013. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness (improvement or deterioration in symptoms) and safety of rutosides for treatment of post-thrombotic syndrome (PTS) in patients with DVT compared to placebo, no intervention, elastic compression stockings (ECS) or any other treatment. 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 21 August 2018. SELECTION CRITERIA: Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion. Studies were included to allow the comparison of rutosides versus placebo or no treatment, rutosides versus ECS, and rutosides versus any other treatment. Two review authors extracted information from the trials. Disagreements were resolved by discussion. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data were extracted using designated data extraction forms. The Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool was used for all included studies to assist in the assessment of quality. Primary outcome measures were the occurrence of leg ulceration over time (yes or no) and any improvement or deterioration of post-thrombotic syndrome (yes or no). Secondary outcomes included reduction of oedema, pain, recurrence of DVT or pulmonary embolism, compliance with therapy, and adverse effects. All of the outcome measures were analysed using Mantel-Haenzel fixed-effect model odds ratios. The unit of analysis was the number of patients. We used GRADE to assess the quality of the evidence for each outcome. MAIN RESULTS: Ten reports of nine studies were identified following searching and three studies with a total of 233 participants met the inclusion criteria. Overall quality of evidence using the GRADE approach was low, predominantly due to the lack of both participant and researcher blinding in the included studies. The quality of the evidence was further limited as only three small studies contributed to the review findings. A subjective scoring system was used to obtain the symptoms of PTS so it was important that the assessors were blinded to the intervention. One study compared rutosides with placebo, one study compared rutosides with ECS and rutosides plus ECS versus ECS alone, and one study compared rutosides with an alternative venoactive remedy. Occurrence of leg ulceration was not reported in any of the included studies. There was no clear evidence to support a difference in PTS improvement between the rutosides or placebo/no treatment groups (OR 1.29, 95% CI 0.69 to 2.41; 164 participants; 2 studies; low-quality evidence); or between the rutosides and ECS groups (OR 0.80, 95% CI 0.31 to 2.03; 80 participants; 1 study ; low-quality evidence). Results from one small study reported less PTS improvement in the rutosides group compared to an alternative venoactive remedy (OR 0.18, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.94; 29 participants; 1 study; low-quality evidence). There was no clear evidence to support a difference in PTS deterioration when comparing rutosides with placebo/no treatment (OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.19 to 1.90; 80 participants; 1 study); with ECS (OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.19 to 1.90; 80 participants; 1 study); or an alternative venoactive remedy (OR 0.19, 95% CI 0.01 to 4.24; 29 participants; 1 study). No clear evidence of a difference in adverse effects between the rutosides and placebo/no treatment groups was seen ('mild side effects' reported in 7/41 and 5/42 respectively). In the study comparing rutosides with ECS, 2/80 could not tolerate ECS and 6/80 stopped medication due to side effects. The study comparing rutosides with an alternative venoactive remedy did not comment on side effects AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There was no evidence that rutosides were superior to the use of placebo or ECS. Overall, there is currently limited low-quality evidence that 'venoactive' or 'phlebotonic' remedies such as rutosides reduce symptoms of PTS. Mild side effects were noted in one study. The three studies included in this review provide no evidence to support the use of rutosides in the treatment of PTS.

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.

Secondary prevention of recurrent venous thromboembolism after initial oral anticoagulation therapy in patients with unprovoked venous thromboembolism.

BACKGROUND: Currently, little evidence is available on the length and type of anticoagulation used for extended treatment for prevention of recurrent venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients with unprovoked VTE who have completed initial oral anticoagulation therapy. OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficacy and safety of available oral therapeutic options (aspirin, warfarin, direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs)) for extended thromboprophylaxis in adults with a first unprovoked VTE, to prevent VTE recurrence after completion of an acceptable initial oral anticoagulant treatment period, as defined in individual studies. SEARCH METHODS: For this review, the Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist (CIS) searched the Specialised Register (March 2017) as well as the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2017, Issue 2). We also searched trials registries (March 2017) and reference lists of relevant articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials in which patients with a first, symptomatic, objectively confirmed, unprovoked VTE, who had been initially treated with anticoagulants, were randomised to extended prophylaxis (vitamin K antagonists (VKAs), antiplatelet agents, or DOACs) versus no prophylaxis or placebo. We also included trials that compared one type of extended prophylaxis versus another type of extended prophylaxis. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected studies, assessed quality, and extracted data. We resolved disagreements by discussion. MAIN RESULTS: Six studies with a combined total of 3436 participants met the inclusion criteria. Five studies compared extended prophylaxis versus placebo: three compared warfarin versus placebo, and two compared aspirin versus placebo. One study compared one type of extended prophylaxis (rivaroxaban) versus another type of extended prophylaxis (aspirin). For extended prophylaxis versus placebo, we downgraded the quality of the evidence for recurrent VTE and all-cause mortality to moderate owing to concerns arising from risks of selection and performance bias in individual studies. For all other outcomes in this review, we downgraded the quality of the evidence to low owing to concerns arising from risk of bias for the studies stated above, combined with concerns over imprecision. For extended prophylaxis versus other extended prophylaxis, we downgraded the quality of the evidence for recurrent VTE and major bleeding to moderate owing to concerns over imprecision. Risk of bias in the individual study was low.Meta-analysis showed that extended prophylaxis was no more effective than placebo in preventing VTE-related mortality (odds ratio (OR) 0.98, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.14 to 6.98; 1862 participants; 4 studies; P = 0.98; low-quality evidence), recurrent VTE (OR 0.63, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.03; 2043 participants; 5 studies; P = 0.07; moderate-quality evidence), major bleeding (OR 1.84, 95% CI 0.87 to 3.85; 2043 participants; 5 studies; P = 0.86; low-quality evidence), all-cause mortality (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.57; 2043 participants; 5 studies; P = 0.99; moderate-quality evidence), clinically relevant non-major bleeding (OR 1.78, 95% CI 0.59 to 5.33; 1672 participants; 4 studies; P = 0.30; low-quality evidence), stroke (OR 1.15, 95% CI 0.39 to 3.46; 1224 participants; 2 studies; P = 0.80; low-quality evidence), or myocardial infarction (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.35 to 2.87; 1495 participants; 3 studies; P = 1.00; low-quality evidence).One study showed that the novel oral anticoagulant rivaroxaban was associated with fewer recurrent VTEs than aspirin (OR 0.28, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.54; 1389 participants; P = 0.0001; moderate-quality evidence). Data show no clear differences in the incidence of major bleeding between rivaroxaban and aspirin (OR 3.06, 95% CI 0.37 to 25.51; 1389 participants; P = 0.30; moderate-quality evidence) nor in the incidence of clinically relevant non-major bleeding (OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.94; 1389 participants; 1 study; P = 0.69; moderate-quality evidence). Data on VTE-related mortality, all-cause mortality, stroke, and myocardial infarction were not yet available for participants with unprovoked VTE and will be incorporated in future versions of the review. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Evidence is currently insufficient to permit definitive conclusions concerning the effectiveness and safety of extended thromboprophylaxis in prevention of recurrent VTE after initial oral anticoagulation therapy among participants with unprovoked VTE. Additional good-quality large-scale randomised controlled trials are required before firm conclusions can be reached.

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.

Totally percutaneous versus surgical cut-down femoral artery access for elective bifurcated abdominal endovascular aneurysm repair.

BACKGROUND: Abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) are a vascular condition with significant risk attached, particularly if they rupture. It is, therefore, critical to identify and repair these as an elective procedure before they rupture and require emergency surgery. Repair has traditionally been an open surgical technique that required a large incision across the abdomen. Endovascular abdominal aortic aneurysm repairs (EVARs) are now a common alternative. In this procedure, the common femoral artery is exposed via a cut-down approach and a graft introduced to the aneurysm in this way. This review examines a totally percutaneous approach to EVAR. This technique gives a minimally invasive approach to femoral artery access that may reduce groin wound complication rates and improve recovery time. The technique may, however, be less applicable in people with, for example, groin scarring or arterial calcification. This is an update of the review first published in 2014. OBJECTIVES: This review aims to compare the clinical outcomes of percutaneous access with surgical cut-down femoral artery access in elective bifurcated abdominal endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). SEARCH METHODS: For this update the Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist (CIS) searched their Specialised Register (last searched October 2016) and CENTRAL (2016, Issue 9). We also searched clinical trials registries and checked the reference lists of relevant retrieved articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: We considered only randomised controlled trials. The primary intervention was a totally percutaneous endovascular repair. We considered all device types. We compared this against surgical cut-down femoral artery access endovascular repair. We only considered studies investigating elective repairs. We excluded studies reporting emergency surgery for a ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm and those reporting aorto-uni-iliac repairs. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently collected all data. Owing to the small number of trials identified we did not conduct any formal sensitivity analysis. Heterogeneity was not significant for any outcome. MAIN RESULTS: Two studies with a total of 181 participants met the inclusion criteria, 116 undergoing the percutaneous technique and 65 treated by cut-down femoral artery access. One study had a small sample size and did not adequately report method of randomisation, allocation concealment or pre-selected outcomes. The second study was a larger study with few sources of bias and good methodology.We observed no significant difference in mortality between groups, with only one mortality occurring overall, in the totally percutaneous group (risk ratio (RR) 1.50; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.06 to 36.18; 181 participants; moderate-quality evidence). Only one study reported aneurysm exclusion. In this study we observed only one failure of aneurysm exclusion in the surgical cut-down femoral artery access group (RR 0.17, 95% CI 0.01 to 4.02; 151 participants; moderate-quality evidence). No wound infections occurred in the cut-down femoral artery access group or the percutaneous group across either study (moderate-quality evidence).There was no difference in major complication rate between cut-down femoral artery access and percutaneous groups (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.20 to 1.68; 181 participants; moderate-quality evidence); or in bleeding complications and haematoma (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.31 to 2.82; 181 participants; high-quality evidence).Only one study reported long-term complication rates at six months, with no differences between the percutaneous and cut-down femoral artery access group (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.34 to 3.15; 134 participants; moderate-quality evidence).We detected differences in surgery time, with percutaneous approach being significantly faster than cut-down femoral artery access (mean difference (MD) -31.46 minutes; 95% CI -47.51 minutes to -15.42 minutes; 181 participants; moderate-quality evidence). Only one study reported duration of ITU (intensive treatment unit) and hospital stay, with no difference found between groups. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review shows moderate-quality evidence of no difference between the percutaneous approach compared with cut-down femoral artery access group for short-term mortality, aneurysm exclusion, major complications, wound infection and long-term (six month) complications, and high-quality evidence for no difference in bleeding complications and haematoma. There was a difference in operating time, with moderate-quality evidence showing that the percutaneous approach was faster than the cut-down femoral artery access technique. We downgraded the quality of the evidence to moderate as a result of the limited number of studies, low event numbers and imprecision. As the number of included studies were limited, further research into this technique would be beneficial. The search identified one ongoing study, which may provide an improved evidence base in the future.

Rutosides for prevention of post-thrombotic syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Post-thrombotic syndrome (PTS) is a long-term complication of deep venous thrombosis (DVT) that is characterised by pain, swelling, and skin changes in the affected limb. One in three patients with DVT will develop post-thrombotic sequelae within five years. The current standard care for the prevention of PTS following DVT is elastic compression stockings. Rutosides are a group of compounds derived from horse chestnut (Aesculus hippocastanum), a traditional herbal remedy for treating oedema formation in chronic venous insufficiency (CVI). However, it is not known whether rutosides are effective and safe in the prevention of post-thrombotic syndrome. This is an update of the review first published in 2013. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness and safety of rutosides for prevention of PTS in patients with DVT, compared to placebo, no intervention, or reference medication. SEARCH METHODS: For this update the Cochrane Vascular Group Trials Search Co-ordinator searched the Specialised Register (last searched September 2015) and the Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS) ((CENTRAL) 2015, Issue 8). Clinical trials databases were searched for details of ongoing and unpublished studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We planned to include trials of rutosides versus any alternative (placebo, no intervention, or reference medication) in the prevention of PTS in patients with DVT. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion and intended to extract information from the trials. MAIN RESULTS: No studies were identified comparing rutosides versus any alternative in the prevention of PTS. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: As there were no studies identified in this review there is currently insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness and safety of rutosides for prevention of PTS in patients with DVT. Some studies suggest that rutosides may provide short-term relief of PTS symptoms. However, there is nothing published on their use as a preventative therapy for PTS. High quality randomised controlled trials of rutoside versus any alternative are required to build the evidence base in this area.

Rutosides for treatment of post-thrombotic syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Post-thrombotic syndrome (PTS) is a long-term complication of deep venous thrombosis (DVT) that is characterised by pain, swelling, and skin changes in the affected limb. One in three patients with DVT will develop post-thrombotic sequelae within five years. Rutosides are a group of compounds derived from horse chestnut (Aesculus hippocastanum), a traditional herbal remedy for treating oedema formation in chronic venous insufficiency (CVI). However, it is not known whether rutosides are effective and safe in the treatment of PTS. This is an update of the review first published in 2013. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness (improvement or deterioration in symptoms) and safety of rutosides for treatment of post-thrombotic syndrome (PTS) in patients with DVT compared to placebo, no intervention, elastic compression stockings (ECS) or any other treatment. SEARCH METHODS: For this update the Cochrane Vascular Group Trials Search Co-ordinator searched the Specialised Register (last searched September 2015) and the Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS) (CENTRAL (2015, Issue 8)). Clinical trials databases were searched for details of ongoing and unpublished studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Two review authors (JM and DNK) independently assessed studies for inclusion. Studies were included to allow the comparison of rutosides versus placebo or no treatment, rutosides versus ECS, and rutosides versus any other treatment. Two review authors (JM and SEY) extracted information from the trials. Disagreements were resolved by discussion. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data were extracted using designated data extraction forms. The Cochrane risk of bias tool was used for all included studies to assist in the assessment of quality. Primary outcome measures were the occurrence of leg ulceration over time (yes or no) and any improvement or deterioration of post-thrombotic syndrome (yes or no). Secondary outcomes included reduction of oedema, pain, recurrence of deep venous thrombosis or pulmonary embolism, compliance with therapy, and adverse effects. All of the outcome measures were analysed using Mantel-Haenzel fixed-effect model odds ratios. The unit of analysis was the number of patients. MAIN RESULTS: Ten reports of nine studies were identified following searching and three studies with a total of 233 participants met the inclusion criteria. Overall quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach was low or very low, predominantly due to the lack of both participant and researcher blinding in the included studies. The quality of the evidence was further limited as only three small studies contributed to the review findings. A subjective scoring system was used to obtain the symptoms of PTS so it was important that the assessors were blinded to the intervention. One study compared rutoside with placebo, one study compared rutosides with ECS and rutosides plus ECS versus ECS alone, and one study compared rutosides with an alternative venoactive remedy. Occurrence of leg ulceration was not reported in any of the included studies. There was a 29% odds of an improvement in PTS in the rutoside treated group versus placebo or no treatment, and lower rates of improvement in PTS in the rutoside treated group when compared with ECS, however these were statistically non-significant. Lower rates of improvement in PTS were shown in the rutoside treated group when compared with an alternative venoactive remedy. More PTS deterioration was shown in the placebo or no treatment group when compared with rutosides but this was not statistically significant. Compared with ECS, rutosides showed higher odds of PTS deterioration but this was also not statistically significant. One study reported on adverse effects showing higher odds of mild adverse effects in the rutoside treated group compared to placebo but this was not statistically significant. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There was no evidence that rutosides were superior to the use of placebo or ECS. Overall, there is currently limited and low or very low quality evidence that 'venoactive' or 'phlebotonic' remedies such as rutosides reduce symptoms of PTS. Mild side effects were noted in one study. The three studies included in this review provide no evidence for the use of rutosides in the treatment of PTS.

Effect of testing for cancer on cancer- and venous thromboembolism (VTE)-related mortality and morbidity in patients 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 patients 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 patients 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 patients 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. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether testing for undiagnosed cancer in patients with a first episode of unprovoked VTE (DVT or PE) is effective in reducing cancer and VTE-related mortality and morbidity and to establish which tests for cancer are most useful. SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane Peripheral Vascular Diseases Group Trials Search Co-ordinator searched the Specialised Register (last searched January 2015) and the Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS) (2014, Issue 12). Clinical trials databases were searched. The reference lists of relevant articles were also checked. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised and quasi-randomised trials in which patients 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: Selection of the studies, quality assessment and data extraction were completed independently by two review authors. Any disagreements were resolved by discussion. MAIN RESULTS: Two studies with a combined total of 396 patients met the inclusion criteria for this review. Both studies assessed the effect of testing for cancer versus clinically indicated tests only in patients with an unprovoked VTE. The quality of the evidence was moderate because although the studies were judged to be at low or unclear risk of bias, there was concern that the studies were small as reflected in the wide confidence intervals (CIs). Pooled analysis showed that testing for cancer was consistent with either a benefit or no benefit on cancer-related mortality (odds ratio (OR) 0.49, 95% CI 0.15 to 1.67, P = 0.26). One study showed that, overall, malignancies were less advanced in patients belonging to the extensive screening group than in patients of the control group (64% versus 20%, P = 0.047) and that tested patients were diagnosed earlier than untested patients (mean 1 month versus 11.6 months to cancer diagnosis from the time of diagnosis of VTE). Standard deviations were not provided for time to diagnosis, so it was not possible to perform an independent statistical analysis on this association. Neither study measured all-cause mortality, VTE-related morbidity and mortality, side effects of anticoagulation, side effects of cancer tests or patient satisfaction. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Testing for cancer in patients with idiopathic VTE leads 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 patients with a first episode of unprovoked VTE (DVT or PE) in reducing cancer and VTE-related morbidity and mortality. The results are imprecise and could be consistent with either harm or benefit. Further good-quality large-scale randomised controlled trials are required before firm conclusions can be made.

Balloon angioplasty, with and without stenting, versus medical therapy for hypertensive patients with renal artery stenosis.

BACKGROUND: Atherosclerotic renal artery stenosis is the most common cause of secondary hypertension. Balloon angioplasty with stenting is widely used for the treatment of hypertensive patients with renal artery stenosis but the effectiveness of this procedure in treating hypertension, improving renal function and preventing adverse cardiovascular and renal events remains uncertain. This is an update, to include the results of recent, important large trials, of a review first published in 2003. OBJECTIVES: To compare the effectiveness of balloon angioplasty (with and without stenting) with medical therapy for the treatment of atherosclerotic renal artery stenosis in patients with hypertension. The following outcomes were compared: blood pressure control, renal function, frequency of cardiovascular and renal adverse events, presence or absence of restenosis of the renal artery, side effects of medical therapy, numbers and defined daily doses of antihypertensive drugs. SEARCH METHODS: For this update the Cochrane Peripheral Vascular Diseases Group Trials Search Co-ordinator searched the Specialised Register (last searched May 2014) and CENTRAL (2014, Issue 4). Bibliographies were also reviewed and trial authors were contacted for more information. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing balloon angioplasty with medical therapy in hypertensive patients with haemodynamically significant renal artery stenosis (greater than 50% reduction in luminal diameter) and with a minimum follow-up of six months. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data were extracted independently on trial design, participants, interventions and outcome measures. A formal meta-analysis was completed to assess the effect on blood pressure, renal function and cardiovascular and renal adverse events. Peto's odds ratios (ORs) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI) for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences (MD) and corresponding 95% CIs for continuous variables were calculated. MAIN RESULTS: Eight RCTs involving 2222 participants with renal artery stenosis were included in the review. The overall quality of evidence included in this review was moderate. Limited pooling of results was possible due to the variable presentation of some of the trial outcomes. Meta-analysis of the four studies reporting change in diastolic blood pressure (BP) found a small improvement in diastolic BP in the angioplasty group (MD -2.00 mmHg; 95% CI -3.72 to -0.27) whilst the meta-analysis of the five studies reporting change in systolic BP did not find any evidence of significant improvement (MD -1.07 mmHg; 95% CI -3.45 to 1.30). There was no significant effect on renal function as measured by serum creatinine (MD -7.99 µmol/L; 95% CI -22.6 to 6.62). Meta-analysis of the three studies that reported the mean number of antihypertensive drugs found a small decrease in antihypertensive drug requirements for the angioplasty group (MD -0.18; 95% CI -0.34 to -0.03). Repeat angiography was only performed on a small number of participants in a single trial and it was therefore not possible to comment on restenosis of the renal artery following balloon angioplasty. Based on the results of the seven studies that reported cardiovascular and renal clinical outcomes there were no differences in cardiovascular (OR 0.91; 95% CI 0.75 to 1.11) or renal adverse events (OR 1.02; 95% CI 0.75 to 1.38) between the angioplasty and medical treatment groups. A small number of procedural complications of balloon angioplasty were reported (haematoma at the site of catheter insertion (6.5%), femoral artery pseudoaneurysm (0.7%), renal artery or kidney perforation or dissection (2.5%) as well as peri-procedural deaths (0.4%)). No side effects of medical therapy were reported. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The available data are insufficient to conclude that revascularisation in the form of balloon angioplasty, with or without stenting, is superior to medical therapy for the treatment of atherosclerotic renal artery stenosis in patients with hypertension. However, balloon angioplasty results in a small improvement in diastolic blood pressure and a small reduction in antihypertensive drug requirements. Balloon angioplasty appears safe and results in similar numbers of cardiovascular and renal adverse events to medical therapy.

Totally percutaneous versus standard femoral artery access for elective bifurcated abdominal endovascular aneurysm repair.

BACKGROUND: Abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAAs) are a vascular condition with significant risk attached, particularly if they rupture. It is, therefore, critical to identify and repair these as an elective procedure before they rupture and require emergency surgery. Repair has traditionally been an open surgical technique that required a large incision across the abdomen. More recently endovascular aneurysm repairs (EVARs) have become a common alternative. In this procedure, the common femoral artery is exposed via a cut-down approach and a graft is introduced to the aneurysm in this way. This review examines a totally percutaneous approach to EVAR. This technique gives a minimally invasive approach to femoral artery access that may reduce groin wound complication rates and improve recovery time. The technique may, however, be less applicable in patients with, for example, groin scarring or arterial calcification. OBJECTIVES: This review aims to compare the clinical outcomes of percutaneous access with standard femoral artery access in elective bifurcated abdominal endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane Peripheral Vascular Diseases Group Trials Search Co-ordinator searched their Specialised Register (last searched July 2013), CENTRAL (2013, Issue 6) and clinical trials databases. Reference lists of retrieved articles were checked. SELECTION CRITERIA: Only randomised controlled trials were considered. The primary intervention was a totally percutaneous endovascular repair. All device types were considered. This was compared against standard femoral artery endovascular repair. Only studies investigating elective repairs were considered. Studies reporting emergency surgery for a ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (rAAA) and those reporting aorto-uni-iliac repairs were excluded. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: All data were collected independently by two review authors. Owing to the small number of trials identified, no formal assessment of heterogeneity or sensitivity analysis was conducted. MAIN RESULTS: Only one trial met the inclusion criteria, involving a total of 30 participants, 15 undergoing the percutaneous technique and 15 treated by the standard femoral cut-down approach. There were no significant differences between the two groups at baseline.No mortality or failure of aneurysm exclusion was observed in either group. Three wound infections occurred in the standard femoral cut-down group, whereas none were observed in the percutaneous group. This was not statistically significant. Only one major complication was observed in the study, a conversion to the cut-down technique in the percutaneous access group. No long-term outcomes were reported. One episode of a bleeding complication was reported in the percutaneous group. Significant differences were detected in surgery time (percutaneous 86.7 ± 27 minutes versus conventional 107.8 ± 38.5 minutes; P < 0.05).The included study had a small sample size and failed to report adequately the method of randomisation, allocation concealment and the pre-selected outcomes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Only one small study was identified, which did not provide adequate evidence to determine the efficacy and safety of the percutaneous approach compared with endovascular aneurysm repairs. This review has identified a clear need for further research into this potentially beneficial technique. One ongoing study was identified in the search, which may provide an improved evidence base in the future.

18F-fluoride positron emission tomography for identification of ruptured and high-risk coronary atherosclerotic plaques: a prospective clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: The use of non-invasive imaging to identify ruptured or high-risk coronary atherosclerotic plaques would represent a major clinical advance for prevention and treatment of coronary artery disease. We used combined PET and CT to identify ruptured and high-risk atherosclerotic plaques using the radioactive tracers (18)F-sodium fluoride ((18)F-NaF) and (18)F-fluorodeoxyglucose ((18)F-FDG). METHODS: In this prospective clinical trial, patients with myocardial infarction (n=40) and stable angina (n=40) underwent (18)F-NaF and (18)F-FDG PET-CT, and invasive coronary angiography. (18)F-NaF uptake was compared with histology in carotid endarterectomy specimens from patients with symptomatic carotid disease, and with intravascular ultrasound in patients with stable angina. The primary endpoint was the comparison of (18)F-fluoride tissue-to-background ratios of culprit and non-culprit coronary plaques of patients with acute myocardial infarction. FINDINGS: In 37 (93%) patients with myocardial infarction, the highest coronary (18)F-NaF uptake was seen in the culprit plaque (median maximum tissue-to-background ratio: culprit 1·66 [IQR 1·40-2·25] vs highest non-culprit 1·24 [1·06-1·38], p<0·0001). By contrast, coronary (18)F-FDG uptake was commonly obscured by myocardial uptake and where discernible, there were no differences between culprit and non-culprit plaques (1·71 [1·40-2·13] vs 1·58 [1·28-2·01], p=0·34). Marked (18)F-NaF uptake occurred at the site of all carotid plaque ruptures and was associated with histological evidence of active calcification, macrophage infiltration, apoptosis, and necrosis. 18 (45%) patients with stable angina had plaques with focal (18)F-NaF uptake (maximum tissue-to-background ratio 1·90 [IQR 1·61-2·17]) that were associated with more high-risk features on intravascular ultrasound than those without uptake: positive remodelling (remodelling index 1·12 [1·09-1·19] vs 1·01 [0·94-1·06]; p=0·0004), microcalcification (73% vs 21%, p=0·002), and necrotic core (25% [21-29] vs 18% [14-22], p=0·001). INTERPRETATION: (18)F-NaF PET-CT is the first non-invasive imaging method to identify and localise ruptured and high-risk coronary plaque. Future studies are needed to establish whether this method can improve the management and treatment of patients with coronary artery disease. FUNDING: Chief Scientist Office Scotland and British Heart Foundation.

Non-pharmacological interventions for preventing venous insufficiency in a standing worker population.

BACKGROUND: Chronic venous insufficiency (CVI) is a common problem, affecting up to 50% of the population in industrialised countries. It is a chronic condition which, if untreated, can progress to serious complications that in turn can interfere with working ability. Standing at work is a known risk factor for CVI, yet the true effect of non-pharmacological preventive strategies remains unknown. This is an update of a review first published in 2012. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy of non-pharmacological strategies and devices to prevent CVI in a standing worker population. SEARCH METHODS: For this update the Cochrane Peripheral Vascular Diseases Group Trials Search Co-ordinator searched the Specialised Register (last searched September 2013) and CENTRAL (2013, Issue 8). We also handsearched reference lists of relevant studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised and non-randomised controlled trials that recruited standing workers to evaluate non-pharmacological devices or strategies used to prevent CVI were eligible for inclusion. Trials had to report an objective measure of clinical features of CVI or complaints associated with this condition in order to be included. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Selection of the trials, quality assessment and data abstraction were completed independently by two review authors. We resolved disagreements by discussion. Only one trial was eligible for inclusion in the review so we did not perform meta-analyses. MAIN RESULTS: The primary outcomes of this review were clinical features of CVI and its associated symptoms. No new included studies were identified for this update. One prospective cross-over trial was included in this review. It measured the effect of no compression followed by two phases with different gradients of compression stockings on symptoms in 19 female flight attendants who were required to stand, almost continuously, for long periods of time. The included study provided some evidence that compression stockings improved symptoms of leg fatigue in standing workers. However, the strength of the evidence in this review is weak as it is based on only one very small trial which was at high risk of bias. The included study did not address any of the secondary outcomes including quality of life or economic impact of the interventions. Nor did the study report the length of time that the population were required to stand at work. Furthermore, no trials were found which measured the effectiveness of other non-pharmacological interventions or strategies aimed at preventing CVI in standing workers. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Due to the extremely limited number of trials, there is insufficient evidence to draw any conclusions about the effectiveness of non-pharmacological interventions for preventing CVI in standing workers. Further large-scale studies examining all possible non-pharmacological interventions and outcomes are required.

Rutosides for treatment of post-thrombotic syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Post-thrombotic syndrome (PTS) is a long-term complication of deep venous thrombosis (DVT) that is characterised by pain, swelling, and skin changes in the affected limb. One in three patients with DVT will develop post-thrombotic sequelae within five years. Rutosides are a group of compounds derived from horse chestnut (Aesculus hippocastanum), a traditional herbal remedy for treating oedema formation in chronic venous insufficiency (CVI). However, it is not known whether rutosides are effective and safe in the treatment of PTS. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness and safety of rutosides for treatment of PTS in patients with DVT compared to placebo, no intervention, elastic compression stockings (ECS) or any other treatment. SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane Peripheral Vascular Diseases Group Trials Search Co-ordinator searched the Specialised Register (last searched October 2012) and CENTRAL (2012, Issue 9). Clinical trials databases were searched for details of ongoing and unpublished studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Two authors (JM and DNK) independently assessed studies for inclusion. Studies were included to allow the comparison of rutosides versus placebo or no treatment, rutosides versus ECS, and rutosides versus any other treatment. Two authors (JM and SEY) extracted information from the trials. Disagreements were resolved by discussion. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data were extracted using designated data extraction forms. The Cochrane risk of bias tool was used for all included studies to assist in the assessment of quality. Primary outcome measures were the occurrence of leg ulceration over time (yes or no) and any improvement or deterioration of post-thrombotic syndrome (yes or no). Secondary outcomes included reduction of oedema, pain, recurrence of deep venous thrombosis or pulmonary embolism, compliance with therapy, and adverse effects. All of the outcome measures were analysed using Mantel-Haenzel fixed-effect model odds ratios. The unit of analysis was the number of patients. MAIN RESULTS: Ten reports of nine studies were identified following searching and three studies with a total of 233 participants met the inclusion criteria. One study compared rutoside with placebo, one study compared rutosides with ECS and rutosides plus ECS versus ECS alone, and one study compared rutosides with an alternative venoactive remedy. Occurrence of leg ulceration was not reported in any of the included studies. There was a 29% odds of an improvement in PTS in the rutoside treated group versus placebo or no treatment, and lower rates of improvement in PTS in the rutoside treated group when compared with ECS, however these were statistically non-significant. Lower rates of improvement in PTS were shown in the rutoside treated group when compared with an alternative venoactive remedy. More PTS deterioration was shown in the placebo or no treatment group when compared with rutosides but this was not statistically significant. Compared with ECS, rutosides showed higher odds of PTS deterioration but this was also not statistically significant. One study reported on adverse effects showing higher odds of mild adverse effects in the rutoside treated group compared to placebo but this was not statistically significant. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There was no evidence that rutosides were superior to the use of placebo or ECS. Overall, there is currently limited evidence that 'venoactive' or 'phlebotonic' remedies such as rutosides reduce symptoms of PTS. Mild side effects were noted in one study. The three studies included in this review provide no evidence for the use of rutosides in the treatment of PTS.

Rutosides for prevention of post-thrombotic syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Post-thrombotic syndrome (PTS) is a long-term complication of deep venous thrombosis (DVT) that is characterised by pain, swelling, and skin changes in the affected limb. One in three patients with DVT will develop post-thrombotic sequelae within five years. The current standard care for the prevention of PTS following DVT is elastic compression stockings. Rutosides are a group of compounds derived from horse chestnut (Aesculus hippocastanum), a traditional herbal remedy for treating oedema formation in chronic venous insufficiency (CVI). However, it is not known whether rutosides are effective and safe in the prevention of post-thrombotic syndrome. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness and safety of rutosides for prevention of PTS in patients with DVT, compared to placebo, no intervention, or reference medication. SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane Peripheral Vascular Diseases Group Trials Search Co-ordinator searched the Specialised Register (last searched October 2012) and CENTRAL (2012, Issue 9). Clinical trials databases were searched for details of ongoing and unpublished studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We planned to include trials of rutosides versus any alternative (placebo, no intervention, or reference medication) in the prevention of PTS in patients with DVT. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently assessed studies for inclusion and intended to extract information from the trials. MAIN RESULTS: No studies were identified comparing rutosides versus any alternative in the prevention of PTS. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: As there were no studies identified in this review it is not possible to support the use of rutosides in the prevention of PTS. Some studies suggest that rutosides may provide short-term relief of PTS symptoms. However, there is nothing published on their use as a preventative therapy for PTS. High quality randomised controlled trials of rutoside versus any alternative are required to build the evidence base in this area.

Non-pharmacological interventions for preventing venous insufficiency in a standing worker population.

BACKGROUND: Chronic venous insufficiency (CVI) is a common problem, affecting up to 50% of the population in industrialised countries. It is a chronic condition which, if untreated, can progress to serious complications that in turn can interfere with working ability. Standing at work is a known risk factor for CVI, yet the true effect of non-pharmacological preventive strategies remains unknown. OBJECTIVES: To undertake a systematic review of randomised or controlled clinical trials to assess the efficacy of non-pharmacological strategies and devices to prevent CVI in a standing worker population. SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane Peripheral Vascular Diseases (PVD) Group searched their Specialised Register (last searched April 2011) and CENTRAL (Issue 2, 2011). No date or language restrictions were applied. We also handsearched reference lists of relevant studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised and non-randomised controlled trials that recruited standing workers to evaluate non-pharmacological devices or strategies used to prevent CVI were eligible for inclusion. Trials had to report an objective measure of clinical features of CVI or complaints associated with this condition in order to be included. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Selection of the trials, quality assessment and data abstraction were completed independently by two review authors. We resolved disagreements by discussion. Only one trial was eligible for inclusion in the review so we did not perform meta-analyses. MAIN RESULTS: The primary outcomes of this review were clinical features of CVI and its associated symptoms. One prospective cross-over trial was included in this review. It measured the effect of no compression followed by two phases with different gradients of compression stockings on symptoms in 19 female flight attendants who were required to stand, almost continuously, for long periods of time. The included study provided some evidence that compression stockings improved symptoms of leg fatigue in standing workers. However, the strength of the evidence in this review is weak as it is based on only one very small trial which was at high risk of bias. The included study did not address any of the secondary outcomes including quality of life or economic impact of the interventions. Nor did the study report the length of time that the population were required to stand at work. Furthermore, no trials were found which measured the effectiveness of other non-pharmacological interventions or strategies aimed at preventing CVI in standing workers. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Due to the extremely limited number of trials, there is insufficient evidence to draw any conclusions about the effectiveness of non-pharmacological interventions for preventing CVI in standing workers. Further large-scale studies examining all possible non-pharmacological interventions and outcomes are required.