Pharmacological interventions for asymptomatic carotid stenosis.

BACKGROUND: Carotid artery stenosis is narrowing of the carotid arteries. Asymptomatic carotid stenosis is when this narrowing occurs in people without a history or symptoms of this disease. It is caused by atherosclerosis; that is, the build-up of fats, cholesterol, and other substances in and on the artery walls. Atherosclerosis is more likely to occur in people with several risk factors, such as diabetes, hypertension, hyperlipidaemia, and smoking. As this damage can develop without symptoms, the first symptom can be a fatal or disabling stroke, known as ischaemic stroke. Carotid stenosis leading to ischaemic stroke is most common in men older than 70 years. Ischaemic stroke is a worldwide public health problem. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of pharmacological interventions for the treatment of asymptomatic carotid stenosis in preventing neurological impairment, ipsilateral major or disabling stroke, death, major bleeding, and other outcomes. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group trials register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, two other databases, and three trials registers from their inception to 9 August 2022. We also checked the reference lists of any relevant systematic reviews identified and contacted specialists in the field for additional references to trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs), irrespective of publication status and language, comparing a pharmacological intervention to placebo, no treatment, or another pharmacological intervention for asymptomatic carotid stenosis. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. Two review authors independently extracted the data and assessed the risk of bias of the trials. A third author resolved disagreements when necessary. We assessed the evidence certainty for key outcomes using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: We included 34 RCTs with 11,571 participants. Data for meta-analysis were available from only 22 studies with 6887 participants. The mean follow-up period was 2.5 years. None of the 34 included studies assessed neurological impairment and quality of life. Antiplatelet agent (acetylsalicylic acid) versus placebo Acetylsalicylic acid (1 study, 372 participants) may result in little to no difference in ipsilateral major or disabling stroke (risk ratio (RR) 1.08, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.47 to 2.47), stroke-related mortality (RR 1.40, 95% CI 0.54 to 3.59), progression of carotid stenosis (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.71), and adverse events (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.59), compared to placebo (all low-certainty evidence). The effect of acetylsalicylic acid on major bleeding is very uncertain (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.06 to 15.53; very low-certainty evidence). The study did not measure neurological impairment or quality of life. Antihypertensive agents (metoprolol and chlorthalidone) versus placebo The antihypertensive agent, metoprolol, may result in no difference in ipsilateral major or disabling stroke (RR 0.14, 95% CI 0.02 to1.16; 1 study, 793 participants) and stroke-related mortality (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.17 to 1.94; 1 study, 793 participants) compared to placebo (both low-certainty evidence). However, chlorthalidone may slow the progression of carotid stenosis (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.91; 1 study, 129 participants; low-certainty evidence) compared to placebo. Neither study measured neurological impairment, major bleeding, adverse events, or quality of life. Anticoagulant agent (warfarin) versus placebo The evidence is very uncertain about the effects of warfarin (1 study, 919 participants) on major bleeding (RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.46; very low-certainty evidence), but it may reduce adverse events (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.99; low-certainty evidence) compared to placebo. The study did not measure neurological impairment, ipsilateral major or disabling stroke, stroke-related mortality, progression of carotid stenosis, or quality of life. Lipid-lowering agents (atorvastatin, fluvastatin, lovastatin, pravastatin, probucol, and rosuvastatin) versus placebo or no treatment Lipid-lowering agents may result in little to no difference in ipsilateral major or disabling stroke (atorvastatin, lovastatin, pravastatin, and rosuvastatin; RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.09 to 1.53; 5 studies, 2235 participants) stroke-related mortality (lovastatin and pravastatin; RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.03 to 2.29; 2 studies, 1366 participants), and adverse events (fluvastatin, lovastatin, pravastatin, probucol, and rosuvastatin; RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.53 to1.10; 7 studies, 3726 participants) compared to placebo or no treatment (all low-certainty evidence). The studies did not measure neurological impairment, major bleeding, progression of carotid stenosis, or quality of life. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Although there is no high-certainty evidence to support pharmacological intervention, this does not mean that pharmacological treatments are ineffective in preventing ischaemic cerebral events, morbidity, and mortality. High-quality RCTs are needed to better inform the best medical treatment that may reduce the burden of carotid stenosis. In the interim, clinicians will have to use other sources of information.

Duplex ultrasound for surveillance of lower limb revascularisation.

BACKGROUND: Lower extremity atherosclerotic disease (LEAD) - also known as peripheral arterial disease - refers to the obstruction or narrowing of the large arteries of the lower limbs, most commonly caused by atheromatous plaque. Although in many cases of less severe disease patients can be asymptomatic, the major clinical manifestations of LEAD are intermittent claudication (IC) and critical limb ischaemia, also known as chronic limb-threatening ischaemia (CLTI). Revascularisation procedures including angioplasty, stenting, and bypass grafting may be required for those in whom the disease is severe or does not improve with non-surgical interventions. Maintaining vessel patency after revascularisation remains a challenge for vascular surgeons, since approximately 30% of vein grafts may present with restenosis in the first year due to myointimal hyperplasia. Restenosis can also occur after angioplasty and stenting. Restenosis and occlusions that occur more than two years after the procedure are generally related to progression of the atherosclerosis. Surveillance programmes with duplex ultrasound (DUS) scanning as part of postoperative care may facilitate early diagnosis of restenosis and help avoid amputation in people who have undergone revascularisation. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of DUS versus pulse palpation, arterial pressure index, angiography, or any combination of these, for surveillance of lower limb revascularisation in people with LEAD. SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist searched the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and LILACS databases and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov trials registers to 1 February 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs that compared DUS surveillance after lower limb revascularisation versus clinical surveillance characterised by medical examination with pulse palpation, with or without any other objective test, such as arterial pressure index measures (e.g. ankle-brachial index (ABI) or toe brachial index (TBI)). Our primary outcomes were limb salvage rate, vessel or graft secondary patency, and adverse events resulting from DUS surveillance. Secondary outcomes were all-cause mortality, functional walking ability assessed by walking distance, clinical severity scales, quality of life (QoL), re-intervention rates, and functional walking ability assessed by any validated walking impairment questionnaire. We presented the outcomes at two time points: two years or less after the original revascularisation (short term) and more than two years after the original revascularisation (long term). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. We used the Cochrane RoB 1 tool to assess the risk of bias for RCTs and GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence. We performed meta-analysis when appropriate. MAIN RESULTS: We included three studies (1092 participants) that compared DUS plus pulse palpation and arterial pressure index (ABI or TBI) versus pulse palpation and arterial pressure index (ABI or TBI) for surveillance of lower limb revascularisation with bypass. One study each was conducted in Sweden and Finland, and the third study was conducted in the UK and Europe. The studies did not report adverse events resulting from DUS surveillance, functional walking ability, or clinical severity scales. No study assessed surveillance with DUS scanning after angioplasty or stenting, or both. We downgraded the certainty of evidence for risk of bias and imprecision. Duplex ultrasound plus pulse palpation and arterial pressure index (ABI or TBI) versus pulse palpation plus arterial pressure index (ABI or TBI) (short-term time point) In the short term, DUS surveillance may lead to little or no difference in limb salvage rate (risk ratio (RR) 0.84, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.49 to 1.45; I² = 93%; 2 studies, 936 participants; low-certainty evidence) and vein graft secondary patency (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.26; I² = 57%; 3 studies, 1092 participants; low-certainty evidence). DUS may lead to little or no difference in all-cause mortality (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.74; 1 study, 594 participants; low-certainty evidence). There was no clear difference in QoL as assessed by the 36-item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) physical score (mean difference (MD) 2 higher, 95% CI 2.59 lower to 6.59 higher; 1 study, 594 participants; low-certainty evidence); the SF-36 mental score (MD 3 higher, 95% CI 0.38 lower to 6.38 higher; 1 study, 594 participants; low-certainty evidence); or the EQ-5D utility score (MD 0.02 higher, 95% CI 0.03 lower to 0.07 higher; 1 study, 594 participants; low-certainty evidence). DUS may increase re-intervention rates when considered any therapeutic intervention (RR 1.38, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.81; 3 studies, 1092 participants; low-certainty evidence) or angiogram procedures (RR 1.53, 95% CI 1.12 to 2.08; 3 studies, 1092 participants; low-certainty evidence). Duplex ultrasound plus pulse palpation and arterial pressure index (ABI or TBI) versus pulse palpation plus arterial pressure index (ABI or TBI) (long-term time point) One study reported data after two years, but provided only vessel or graft secondary patency data. DUS may lead to little or no difference in vessel or graft secondary patency (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.19 to 3.51; 1 study, 156 participants; low-certainty evidence). Other outcomes of interest were not reported at the long-term time point. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based on low certainty evidence, we found no clear difference between DUS and standard surveillance in preventing limb amputation, morbidity, and mortality after lower limb revascularisation. We found no studies on DUS surveillance after angioplasty or stenting (or both), only studies on bypass grafting. High-quality RCTs should be performed to better inform the best medical surveillance of lower limb revascularisation that may reduce the burden of peripheral arterial disease.

Interventions for motor rehabilitation in people with transtibial amputation due to peripheral arterial disease or diabetes.

BACKGROUND: Amputation is described as the removal of an external part of the body by trauma, medical illness or surgery. Amputations caused by vascular diseases (dysvascular amputations) are increasingly frequent, commonly due to peripheral arterial disease (PAD), associated with an ageing population, and increased incidence of diabetes and atherosclerotic disease. Interventions for motor rehabilitation might work as a precursor to enhance the rehabilitation process and prosthetic use. Effective rehabilitation can improve mobility, allow people to take up activities again with minimum functional loss and may enhance the quality of life (QoL). Strength training is a commonly used technique for motor rehabilitation following transtibial (below-knee) amputation, aiming to increase muscular strength. Other interventions such as motor imaging (MI), virtual environments (VEs) and proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation (PNF) may improve the rehabilitation process and, if these interventions can be performed at home, the overall expense of the rehabilitation process may decrease. Due to the increased prevalence, economic impact and long-term rehabilitation process in people with dysvascular amputations, a review investigating the effectiveness of motor rehabilitation interventions in people with dysvascular transtibial amputations is warranted. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the benefits and harms of interventions for motor rehabilitation in people with transtibial (below-knee) amputations resulting from peripheral arterial disease or diabetes (dysvascular causes). SEARCH METHODS: We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 9 January 2023. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCT) in people with transtibial amputations resulting from PAD or diabetes (dysvascular causes) comparing interventions for motor rehabilitation such as strength training (including gait training), MI, VEs and PNF against each other. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were 1. prosthesis use, and 2. ADVERSE EVENTS: Our secondary outcomes were 3. mortality, 4. QoL, 5. mobility assessment and 6. phantom limb pain. We use GRADE to assess certainty of evidence for each outcome. MAIN RESULTS: We included two RCTs with a combined total of 30 participants. One study evaluated MI combined with physical practice of walking versus physical practice of walking alone. One study compared two different gait training protocols. The two studies recruited people who already used prosthesis; therefore, we could not assess prosthesis use. The studies did not report mortality, QoL or phantom limb pain. There was a lack of blinding of participants and imprecision as a result of the small number of participants, which downgraded the certainty of the evidence. We identified no studies that compared VE or PNF with usual care or with each other. MI combined with physical practice of walking versus physical practice of walking (one RCT, eight participants) showed very low-certainty evidence of no difference in mobility assessment assessed using walking speed, step length, asymmetry of step length, asymmetry of the mean amount of support on the prosthetic side and on the non-amputee side and Timed Up-and-Go test. The study did not assess adverse events. One study compared two different gait training protocols (one RCT, 22 participants). The study used change scores to evaluate if the different gait training strategies led to a difference in improvement between baseline (day three) and post-intervention (day 10). There were no clear differences using velocity, Berg Balance Scale (BBS) or Amputee Mobility Predictor with PROsthesis (AMPPRO) in training approaches in functional outcome (very low-certainty evidence). There was very low-certainty evidence of little or no difference in adverse events comparing the two different gait training protocols. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Overall, there is a paucity of research in the field of motor rehabilitation in dysvascular amputation. We identified very low-certainty evidence that gait training protocols showed little or no difference between the groups in mobility assessments and adverse events. MI combined with physical practice of walking versus physical practice of walking alone showed no clear difference in mobility assessment (very low-certainty evidence). The included studies did not report mortality, QoL, and phantom limb pain, and evaluated participants already using prosthesis, precluding the evaluation of prosthesis use. Due to the very low-certainty evidence available based on only two small trials, it remains unclear whether these interventions have an effect on the prosthesis use, adverse events, mobility assessment, mortality, QoL and phantom limb pain. Further well-designed studies that address interventions for motor rehabilitation in dysvascular transtibial amputation may be important to clarify this uncertainty.

Antiplatelet agents for the treatment of deep venous thrombosis.

BACKGROUND: Antiplatelet agents may be useful for the treatment of deep venous thrombosis (DVT) when used in addition to best medical practice (BMP), which includes anticoagulation, compression stockings, and clinical care such as physical exercise, skin hydration, etc. Antiplatelet agents could minimise complications such as post-thrombotic syndrome (PTS) and pulmonary embolism (PE). They may also reduce the recurrence of the disease (recurrent venous thromboembolism (recurrent VTE)). However, antiplatelet agents may increase the likelihood of bleeding events. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of antiplatelet agents in addition to current BMP compared to current BMP (with or without placebo) for the treatment of DVT. 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 7 December 2021. The review authors searched LILACS and IBECS databases (15 December 2021) and also checked the bibliographies of included trials for further references to relevant trials, and contacted specialists in the field, manufacturers and authors of the included trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: We considered randomised controlled trials (RCTs) examining antiplatelet agents compared to BMP following initial standard anticoagulation treatment for DVT. We included studies where antiplatelet agents were given in addition to current BMP compared to current BMP (with or without placebo) for the treatment of DVT (acute: treatment started within 21 days of symptom onset; chronic: treatment started after 21 days of symptom onset). We evaluated only RCTs where the antiplatelet agents were the unique difference between the groups (intervention and control). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias of the trials. Any disagreements were resolved by discussion with a third review author. We calculated outcome effects using risk ratio (RR) or mean difference (MD) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) and the number needed to treat to benefit (NNTB). MAIN RESULTS: We included six studies with 1625 eligible participants, with data up to 37.2 months of follow-up. For one preplanned comparison (i.e. antiplatelet agents plus BMP versus BMP plus placebo) for acute DVT we identified no eligible studies for inclusion. In acute DVT, antiplatelet agents plus BMP versus BMP alone was assessed by one study (500 participants), which reported on four outcomes until 6 months of follow-up. There were no deaths and no cases of major bleeding reported. The participants who received antiplatelet agents showed a lower risk of PTS (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.91; 1 study, 500 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The control group presented a lower risk of adverse events compared to the intervention group (RR 2.88, 95% CI 1.06 to 7.80; 1 study, 500 participants; very low-certainty evidence). This study did not provide information for recurrent VTE or PE. In chronic DVT, antiplatelet agents plus BMP versus BMP alone was assessed by one study (224 participants). The study authors reported four relevant outcomes, three of which (major bleeding, mortality and adverse events) showed no events during the 3 years of follow-up. Therefore, an effect estimate could only be reported for recurrent VTE, favouring antiplatelet agents plus BMP versus BMP alone (RR 0.12, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.34; 1 study, 224 participants; very low-certainty evidence). For the outcomes PE and PTS, this study did not present information which could be used for analysis. In chronic DVT, antiplatelet agents plus BMP versus BMP plus placebo was assessed by four studies (901 participants). The meta-analysis of this pooled data showed a lower risk of recurrent VTE for the antiplatelet agents group (RR 0.65, 95%, CI 0.43 to 0.96; NNTB = 14; low-certainty evidence). For major bleeding, we found no clear difference between placebo and intervention groups until 37.2 months of follow-up (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.29 to 3.34; 1 study, 583 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). In PE fatal/non-fatal outcome, we found no clear difference with the use of antiplatelet agents (RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.23 to 1.14; 1 study, 583 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). For all-cause mortality, the overall effect of antiplatelet agents did not differ from the placebo group (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.21 to 1.06; 3 studies, 649 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The adverse events outcome did not show a clear difference (RR 1.57, 95% CI 0.34 to 7.19; 2 studies, 621 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There is no assessment of PTS in these studies. We downgraded the certainty of evidence for risk of bias, indirectness, imprecision and publication bias. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In chronic DVT settings, following the initial standard treatment with anticoagulants, there is low-certainty evidence that antiplatelet agents in addition to BMP may reduce recurrent VTE, (NNTB = 14) when compared to BMP plus placebo. Moderate-certainty evidence shows no clear difference in adverse events, major bleeding and PE when antiplatelet agents are used in addition to BMP compared to BMP plus placebo. In acute and chronic DVT settings, following the initial standard treatment with anticoagulants, we can draw no conclusions for antiplatelet agents in addition to BMP compared to BMP alone due to very low-certainty evidence.  Trials of high methodological quality, that are large and of sufficient duration to detect significant clinical outcomes are needed. Trials should ideally last more than 4 years in order to estimate the long-term effect of antiplatelet agents. Trials should include people with acute and chronic DVT and provide relevant individual data, such as the outcome for each index event (DVT or PE), the use of an inferior vena cava (IVC) filter, whether the DVT is provoked or unprovoked, and the age of participants.

Duplex ultrasound for diagnosing symptomatic carotid stenosis in the extracranial segments.

BACKGROUND: Carotid artery stenosis is an important cause of stroke and transient ischemic attack. Correctly and rapidly identifying patients with symptomatic carotid artery stenosis is essential for adequate treatment with early cerebral revascularization. Doubts about the diagnostic value regarding the accuracy of duplex ultrasound (DUS) and the possibility of using DUS as the single diagnostic test before carotid revascularization are still debated. OBJECTIVES: To estimate the accuracy of DUS in individuals with symptomatic carotid stenosis verified by either digital subtraction angiography (DSA), computed tomography angiography (CTA), or magnetic resonance angiography (MRA). SEARCH METHODS: We searched CRDTAS, CENTRAL, MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), ISI Web of Science, HTA, DARE, and LILACS up to 15 February 2021. We handsearched the reference lists of all included studies and other relevant publications and contacted experts in the field to identify additional studies or unpublished data. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included studies assessing DUS accuracy against an acceptable reference standard (DSA, MRA, or CTA) in symptomatic patients. We considered the classification of carotid stenosis with DUS defined with validated duplex velocity criteria, and the NASCET criteria for carotid stenosis measures on DSA, MRA, and CTA. We excluded studies that included < 70% of symptomatic patients; the time between the index test and the reference standard was longer than four weeks or not described, or that presented no objective criteria to estimate carotid stenosis. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The review authors independently screened articles, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias and applicability concerns using the QUADAS-2 domain list. We extracted data with an effort to complete a 2 × 2 table (true positives, true negatives, false positives, and false negatives) for each of the different categories of carotid stenosis and reference standards. We produced forest plots and summary receiver operating characteristic (ROC) plots to summarize the data. Where meta-analysis was possible, we used a bivariate meta-analysis model. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 25,087 unique studies, of which 22 were deemed eligible for inclusion (4957 carotid arteries). The risk of bias varied considerably across the studies, and studies were generally of moderate to low quality. We narratively described the results without meta-analysis in seven studies in which the criteria used to determine stenosis were too different from the duplex velocity criteria proposed in our protocol or studies that provided insufficient data to complete a 2 × 2 table for at least in one category of stenosis. Nine studies (2770 carotid arteries) presented DUS versus DSA results for 70% to 99% carotid artery stenosis, and two (685 carotid arteries) presented results from DUS versus CTA in this category. Seven studies presented results for occlusion with DSA as the reference standard and three with CTA as the reference standard. Five studies compared DUS versus DSA for 50% to 99% carotid artery stenosis. Only one study presented results from 50% to 69% carotid artery stenosis. For DUS versus DSA, for < 50% carotid artery stenosis, the summary sensitivity was 0.63 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.48 to 0.76) and the summary specificity was 0.99 (95% CI 0.96 to 0.99); for the 50% to 69% range, only one study was included and meta-analysis not performed; for the 50% to 99% range, the summary sensitivity was 0.97 (95% CI 0.95 to 0.98) and the summary specificity was 0.70 (95% CI 0.67 to 0.73); for the 70% to 99% range, the summary sensitivity was 0.85 (95% CI 0.77 to 0.91) and the summary specificity was 0.98 (95% CI 0.74 to 0.90); for occlusion, the summary sensitivity was 0.91 (95% CI 0.81 to 0.97) and the summary specificity was 0.95 (95% CI 0.76 to 0.99). For sensitivity analyses, excluding studies in which participants were selected based on the presence of occlusion on DUS had an impact on specificity: 0.98 (95% CI 0.97 to 0.99). For DUS versus CTA, we found two studies in the range of 70% to 99%; the sensitivity varied from 0.57 to 0.94 and the specificity varied from 0.87 to 0.98. For occlusion, the summary sensitivity was 0.95 (95% CI 0.80 to 0.99) and the summary specificity was 0.91 (95% CI 0.09 to 0.99). For DUS versus MRA, there was one study with results for 50% to 99% carotid artery stenosis, with a sensitivity of 0.88 (95% CI 0.70 to 0.98) and specificity of 0.60 (95% CI 0.15 to 0.95); in the 70% to 99% range, two studies were included, with sensitivity that varied from 0.54 to 0.99 and specificity that varied from 0.78 to 0.89. We could perform only a few of the proposed sensitivity analyses because of the small number of studies included. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review provides evidence that the diagnostic accuracy of DUS is high, especially at discriminating between the presence or absence of significant carotid artery stenosis (< 50% or 50% to 99%). This evidence, plus its less invasive nature, supports the early use of DUS for the detection of carotid artery stenosis. The accuracy for 70% to 99% carotid artery stenosis and occlusion is high. Clinicians should exercise caution when using DUS as the single preoperative diagnostic method, and the limitations should be considered. There was little evidence of the accuracy of DUS when compared with CTA or MRA. The results of this review should be interpreted with caution because they are based on studies of low methodological quality, mainly due to the patient selection method. Methodological problems in participant inclusion criteria from the studies discussed above apparently influenced an overestimated estimate of prevalence values. Most of the studies included failed to precisely describe inclusion criteria and previous testing. Future diagnostic accuracy studies should include direct comparisons of the various modalities of diagnostic tests (mainly DUS, CTA, and MRA) for carotid artery stenosis since DSA is no longer considered to be the best method for diagnosing carotid stenosis and less invasive tests are now used as reference standards in clinical practice. Also, for future studies, the participant inclusion criteria require careful attention.

Ultrasound guidance for arterial (other than femoral) catheterisation in adults.

BACKGROUND: Arterial vascular access is a frequently performed procedure, with a high possibility for adverse events (e.g. pneumothorax, haemothorax, haematoma, amputation, death), and additional techniques such as ultrasound may be useful for improving outcomes. However, ultrasound guidance for arterial access in adults is still under debate. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of ultrasound guidance for arterial (other than femoral) catheterisation in adults. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, and CINAHL on 21 May 2021. We also searched IBECS, WHO ICTRP, and ClinicalTrials.gov on 16 June 2021, and we checked the reference lists of retrieved articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), including cross-over trials and cluster-RCTs, comparing ultrasound guidance, alone or associated with other forms of guidance, versus other interventions or palpation and landmarks for arterial (other than femoral) guidance in adults. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently performed study selection, extracted data, assessed risk of bias, and assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: We included 48 studies (7997 participants) that tested palpation and landmarks, Doppler auditory ultrasound assistance (DUA), direct ultrasound guidance with B-mode, or any other modified ultrasound technique for arterial (axillary, dorsalis pedis, and radial) catheterisation in adults. Radial artery Real-time B-mode ultrasound versus palpation and landmarks Real-time B-mode ultrasound guidance may improve first attempt success rate (risk ratio (RR) 1.44, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.29 to 1.61; 4708 participants, 27 studies; low-certainty evidence) and overall success rate (RR 1.11, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.16; 4955 participants, 28 studies; low-certainty evidence), and may decrease time needed for a successful procedure (mean difference (MD) -0.33 minutes, 95% CI -0.54 to -0.13; 4902 participants, 26 studies; low-certainty evidence) up to one hour compared to palpation and landmarks. Real-time B-mode ultrasound guidance probably decreases major haematomas (RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.56; 2504 participants, 16 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). It is uncertain whether real-time B-mode ultrasound guidance has any effect on pseudoaneurysm, pain, and quality of life (QoL) compared to palpation and landmarks (very low-certainty evidence). Real-time B-mode ultrasound versus DUA One study (493 participants) showed that real-time B-mode ultrasound guidance probably improves first attempt success rate (RR 1.35, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.64; moderate-certainty evidence) and time needed for a successful procedure (MD -1.57 minutes, 95% CI -1.78 to -1.36; moderate-certainty evidence) up to 72 hours compared to DUA. Real-time B-mode ultrasound guidance may improve overall success rate (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.29; low-certainty evidence) up to 72 hours compared to DUA. Pseudoaneurysm, major haematomas, pain, and QoL were not reported. Real-time B-mode ultrasound versus modified real-time B-mode ultrasound Real-time B-mode ultrasound guidance may decrease first attempt success rate (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.84; 153 participants, 2 studies; low-certainty evidence), may decrease overall success rate (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.01; 153 participants, 2 studies; low-certainty evidence), and may lead to no difference in time needed for a successful procedure (MD 0.04 minutes, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.09; 153 participants, 2 studies; low-certainty evidence) up to one hour compared to modified real-time B-mode ultrasound guidance. It is uncertain whether real-time B-mode ultrasound guidance has any effect on major haematomas compared to modified real-time B-mode ultrasound (very low-certainty evidence). Pseudoaneurysm, pain, and QoL were not reported. In-plane versus out-of-plane B-mode ultrasound In-plane real-time B-mode ultrasound guidance may lead to no difference in overall success rate (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.05; 1051 participants, 8 studies; low-certainty evidence) and in time needed for a successful procedure (MD -0.06 minutes, 95% CI -0.16 to 0.05; 1134 participants, 9 studies; low-certainty evidence) compared to out-of-plane B-mode ultrasound up to one hour. It is uncertain whether in-plane real-time B-mode ultrasound guidance has any effect on first attempt success rate or major haematomas compared to out-of-plane B-mode ultrasound (very low-certainty evidence). Pseudoaneurysm, pain, and QoL were not reported. DUA versus palpation and landmarks DUA may lead to no difference in first attempt success rate (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.14; 666 participants, 2 studies; low-certainty evidence) or overall success rate (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.07; 666 participants, 2 studies; low-certainty evidence) and probably increases time needed for a successful procedure (MD 0.45 minutes, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.70; 500 participants, 1 study; moderate-certainty evidence) up to 72 hours compared to palpation and landmarks. Pseudoaneurysm, major haematomas, pain, and QoL were not reported. Oblique-axis versus long-axis in-plane B-mode ultrasound Oblique-axis in-plane B-mode ultrasound guidance may increase overall success rate (RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.53; 215 participants, 2 studies; low-certainty evidence) up to 72 hours compared to long-axis in-plane B-mode ultrasound. It is uncertain whether oblique-axis in-plane B-mode ultrasound guidance has any effect on first attempt success rate, time needed for a successful procedure, and major haematomas compared to long-axis in-plane B-mode ultrasound. Pseudoaneurysm, pain, and QoL were not reported. We are uncertain about effects in the following comparisons due to very low-certainty evidence and unreported outcomes: real-time B-mode ultrasound versus palpation and landmarks (axillary and dorsalis pedis arteries), real-time B-mode ultrasound versus near-infrared laser (radial artery), and dynamic versus static out-of-plane B-mode ultrasound (radial artery). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Real-time B-mode ultrasound guidance may improve first attempt success rate, overall success rate, and time needed for a successful procedure for radial artery catheterisation compared to palpation, or DUA. In addition, real-time B-mode ultrasound guidance probably decreases major haematomas compared to palpation. However, we are uncertain about the evidence on major haematomas and pain for other comparisons due to very low-certainty evidence and unreported outcomes. We are also uncertain about the effects on pseudoaneurysm and QoL for axillary and dorsalis pedis arteries catheterisation. Given that first attempt success rate and pseudoaneurysm are the most relevant outcomes for people who underwent arterial catheterisation, future studies must measure both. Future trials must be large enough to detect effects, use validated scales, and report longer-term follow-up.