Infusion techniques for peripheral arterial thrombolysis

BACKGROUND: Acute limb ischaemia usually is caused by a blood clot blocking an artery or a bypass graft. Severe acute ischaemia will lead to irreversible damage to muscles and nerves if blood flow is not restored in a few hours. Once irreversible damage occurs, amputation will be necessary and the condition can be life‐threatening. Infusion of clot‐busting drugs (thrombolysis) is a useful tool in the management of acute limb ischaemia. Fibrinolytic drugs are used to disperse blood clots (thrombi) to clear arterial occlusion and restore blood flow. Thrombolysis is less invasive than surgery. A variety of techniques are used to deliver fibrinolytic agents. This is an update of a review first published in 2004. OBJECTIVES: To compare the effects of infusion techniques during peripheral arterial thrombolysis for treatment of patients with acute limb ischaemia. 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 registries to 20 October 2020. We undertook reference checking to identify additional studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing infusion techniques for fibrinolytic agents in the treatment of acute limb ischaemia. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures as recommended by Cochrane. We assessed the risk of bias in included trials using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool. We evaluated certainty of evidence using GRADE. For dichotomous outcomes, we calculated the odds ratio (OR) with the corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI). We were not able to carry out meta‐analyses due to clinical heterogeneity, so we have reported the results and performed the comparisons narratively. The main outcomes of interest were amputation‐free survival or limb salvage, amputation, mortality, vessel patency, duration of thrombolysis, and complications such as cerebrovascular accident and major and minor bleeding. MAIN RESULTS: Nine studies with a total of 671 participants are included in this update. Trials covered a variety of infusion techniques, dosage regimens, and adjunctive agents. We grouped trials according to types of techniques assessed (e.g. intravenous and intra‐arterial delivery of the agent, 'high‐' and 'low‐dose' regimens of the agent, continuous infusion and 'forced infusion' of the agent, use of adjunctive antiplatelet agents). We assessed the certainty of evidence as very low to low due to the limited power of individual studies to deliver clinically relevant results, small and heterogeneous study populations, use of different inclusion criteria by each study in terms of severity and duration of ischaemia, considerably different outcome measures between trials, and use of different fibrinolytic agents. This heterogeneity prevented pooling of data in meta‐analyses. No regimen has been shown to confer benefit in terms of amputation‐free survival (at 30 days), amputation, or death. For vessel patency, complete success was more likely with intra‐arterial (IA) than with intravenous (IV) infusion (odds ratio (OR) 13.22, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.79 to 62.67; 1 study, 40 participants; low‐certainty evidence); radiological failure may be more likely with IV infusion (OR 0.02, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.38; 1 study, 40 participants; low‐certainty evidence). Due to the small numbers involved in each arm and design differences between arms, it is not possible to conclude whether any technique offered any advantage over another. None of the treatment strategies clearly affected complications such as cerebrovascular accident or major bleeding requiring surgery or blood transfusion. Minor bleeding complications were more frequent in systemic (intravenous) therapy compared to intra‐arterial infusion (OR 0.03, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.56; 1 study, 40 participants), and in high‐dose compared to low‐dose therapy (OR 0.11, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.96; 1 study, 63 participants). Limited evidence from individual trials appears to indicate that high‐dose and forced‐infusion regimens reduce the duration of thrombolysis. In one trial, the median duration of infusion was 4 hours (range 0.25 to 46) for the high‐dose group and 20 hours (range 2 to 46) for the low‐dose group. In a second trial, treatment using pulse spray was continued for a median of 120 minutes (range 40 to 310) compared with low‐dose infusion for a median of 25 hours (range 2 to 60). In a third trial, the median duration of therapy was reduced with pulse spray at 195 minutes (range 90 to 1260 minutes) compared to continuous infusion at 1390 minutes (range 300 to 2400 minutes). However, none of the studies individually showed improvement in limb salvage at 30 days nor benefit for the amputation rate related to the technique of drug delivery. Similarly, no studies reported a clear difference in occurrence of cerebrovascular accident or major bleeding. Although 'high‐dose' and 'forced‐infusion' techniques achieved vessel patency in less time than 'low‐dose' infusion, more minor bleeding complications may be associated (OR 0.11, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.96; 1 study, 72 participants; and OR 0.48, 95% CI 0.17 to 1.32; 1 study, 121 participants, respectively). Use of adjunctive platelet glycoprotein IIb/IIIa antagonists did not improve outcomes, and results were limited by inclusion of participants with non‐limb‐threatening ischaemia. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient evidence to show that any thrombolytic regimen provides a benefit over any other in terms of amputation‐free survival, amputation, or 30‐day mortality. The rate of CVA or major bleeding requiring surgery or blood transfusion did not clearly differ between regimens but may occur more frequently in high dose and IV regimens. This evidence was limited and of very low certainty. Minor bleeding may be more common with high‐dose and IV regimens. In this context, thrombolysis may be an acceptable therapy for patients with marginally threatened limbs (Rutherford grade IIa) compared with surgery. Caution is advised for patients who do not have limb‐threatening ischaemia (Rutherford grade I) because of risks of major haemorrhage, cerebrovascular accident, and death from thrombolysis

Dressings and topical agents for arterial leg ulcers

Background: It is estimated that up to 1% of people in high-income countries suffer from a leg ulcer at some time in their life. The majority of leg ulcers are associated with circulation problems; poor blood return in the veins causes venous ulcers (around 70% of ulcers) and poor blood supply to the legs causes arterial ulcers (around 22% of ulcers). Treatment of arterial leg ulcers is directed towards correcting poor arterial blood supply, for example by correcting arterial blockages (either surgically or pharmaceutically). If the blood supply has been restored, these arterial ulcers can heal following principles of good wound-care. Dressings and topical agents make up a part of good wound-care for arterial ulcers, but there are many products available, and it is unclear what impact these have on ulcer healing. This is the third update of a review first published in 2003. Objectives: To determine whether topical agents and wound dressings affect healing in arterial ulcers. To compare healing rates and patient-centred outcomes between wound dressings and topical agents. Search methods: The Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist searched the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature and Allied and Complementary Medicine databases, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov trials register to 28 January 2019. Selection criteria: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), or controlled clinical trials (CCTs) evaluating dressings and topical agents in the treatment of arterial leg ulcers were eligible for inclusion. We included participants with arterial leg ulcers irrespective of method of diagnosis. Trials that included participants with mixed arterio-venous disease and diabetes were eligible for inclusion if they presented results separately for the different groups. All wound dressings and topical agents were eligible for inclusion in this review. We excluded trials which did not report on at least one of the primary outcomes (time to healing, proportion completely healed, or change in ulcer area). Data collection and analysis: Two review authors independently extracted information on the participants' characteristics, the interventions, and outcomes using a standardised data extraction form. Review authors resolved any disagreements through discussion. We presented the data narratively due to differences in the included trials. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence. Main results: Two trials met the inclusion criteria. One compared 2% ketanserin ointment in polyethylene glycol (PEG) with PEG alone, used twice a day by 40 participants with arterial leg ulcers, for eight weeks or until healing, whichever was sooner. One compared topical application of blood-derived concentrated growth factor (CGF) with standard dressing (polyurethane film or foam); both applied weekly for six weeks by 61 participants with non-healing ulcers (venous, diabetic arterial, neuropathic, traumatic, or vasculitic). Both trials were small, reported results inadequately, and were of low methodological quality. Short follow-up times (six and eight weeks) meant it would be difficult to capture sufficient healing events to allow us to make comparisons between treatments. One trial demonstrated accelerated wound healing in the ketanserin group compared with the control group. In the trial that compared CGF with standard dressings, the number of participants with diabetic arterial ulcers were only reported in the CGF group (9/31), and the number of participants with diabetic arterial ulcers and their data were not reported separately for the standard dressing group. In the CGF group, 66.6% (6/9) of diabetic arterial ulcers showed more than a 50% decrease in ulcer size compared to 6.7% (2/30) of non-healing ulcers treated with standard dressing. We assessed this as very-low certainty evidence due to the small number of studies and arterial ulcer participants, inadequate reporting of methodology and data, and short follow-up period. Only one trial reported side effects (complications), stating that no participant experienced these during follow-up (six weeks, low-certainty evidence). It should also be noted that ketanserin is not licensed in all countries for use in humans. Neither study reported time to ulcer healing, patient satisfaction or quality of life. Authors' conclusions: There is insufficient evidence to determine whether the choice of topical agent or dressing affects the healing of arterial leg ulcers

Thrombolytic strategies versus standard anticoagulation for acute deep vein thrombosis of the lower limb

BACKGROUND: Standard treatment for deep vein thrombosis (DVT) aims to reduce immediate complications. Use of thrombolytic clot removal strategies (i.e. thrombolysis (clot dissolving drugs), with or without additional endovascular techniques), could reduce the long‐term complications of post‐thrombotic syndrome (PTS) including pain, swelling, skin discolouration, or venous ulceration in the affected leg. This is the fourth update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2004. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of thrombolytic clot removal strategies and anticoagulation compared to anticoagulation alone for the management of people with acute deep vein thrombosis (DVT) of the lower limb. SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist searched the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and AMED and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov trials registries to 21 April 2020. We also checked the references of relevant articles to identify additional studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We considered randomised controlled trials (RCTs) examining thrombolysis (with or without adjunctive clot removal strategies) and anticoagulation versus anticoagulation alone for acute DVT. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures as recommended by Cochrane. We assessed the risk of bias in included trials with the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool. Certainty of the evidence was evaluated using GRADE. For dichotomous outcomes, we calculated the risk ratio (RR) with the corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI). We pooled data using a fixed‐effect model, unless we identified heterogeneity, in which case we used a random‐effects model. The primary outcomes of interest were clot lysis, bleeding and post thrombotic syndrome. MAIN RESULTS: Two new studies were added for this update. Therefore, the review now includes a total of 19 RCTs, with 1943 participants. These studies differed with respect to the thrombolytic agent, the doses of the agent and the techniques used to deliver the agent. Systemic, loco‐regional and catheter‐directed thrombolysis (CDT) strategies were all included. For this update, CDT interventions also included those involving pharmacomechanical thrombolysis. Three of the 19 included studies reported one or more domain at high risk of bias. We combined the results as any (all) thrombolysis interventions compared to standard anticoagulation. Complete clot lysis occurred more frequently in the thrombolysis group at early follow‐up (RR 4.75; 95% CI 1.83 to 12.33; 592 participants; eight studies) and at intermediate follow‐up (RR 2.42; 95% CI 1.42 to 4.12; 654 participants; seven studies; moderate‐certainty evidence). Two studies reported on clot lysis at late follow‐up with no clear benefit from thrombolysis seen at this time point (RR 3.25, 95% CI 0.17 to 62.63; two studies). No differences between strategies (e.g. systemic, loco‐regional and CDT) were detected by subgroup analysis at any of these time points (tests for subgroup differences: P = 0.41, P = 0.37 and P = 0.06 respectively). Those receiving thrombolysis had increased bleeding complications (6.7% versus 2.2%) (RR 2.45, 95% CI 1.58 to 3.78; 1943 participants, 19 studies; moderate‐certainty evidence). No differences between strategies were detected by subgroup analysis (P = 0.25). Up to five years after treatment, slightly fewer cases of PTS occurred in those receiving thrombolysis; 50% compared with 53% in the standard anticoagulation (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.93; 1393 participants, six studies; moderate‐certainty evidence). This was still observed at late follow‐up (beyond five years) in two studies (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.73; 211 participants; moderate‐certainty evidence). We used subgroup analysis to investigate if the level of DVT (iliofemoral, femoropopliteal or non‐specified) had an effect on the incidence of PTS. No benefit of thrombolysis was seen for either iliofemoral or femoropopliteal DVT (six studies; test for subgroup differences: P = 0.29). Systemic thrombolysis and CDT had similar levels of effectiveness. Studies of CDT included four trials in femoral and iliofemoral DVT, and results from these are consistent with those from trials of systemic thrombolysis in DVT at other levels of occlusion. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Complete clot lysis occurred more frequently after thrombolysis (with or without additional clot removal strategies) and PTS incidence was slightly reduced. Bleeding complications also increased with thrombolysis, but this risk has decreased over time with the use of stricter exclusion criteria of studies. Evidence suggests that systemic administration of thrombolytics and CDT have similar effectiveness. Using GRADE, we judged the evidence to be of moderate‐certainty, due to many trials having small numbers of participants or events, or both. Future studies are needed to investigate treatment regimes in terms of agent, dose and adjunctive clot removal methods; prioritising patient‐important outcomes, including PTS and quality of life, to aid clinical decision making

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

Intravenous immunoglobulin for the treatment of Kawasaki disease

This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (intervention). The objectives are as follows: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of IVIG in treating and preventing cardiac consequences of Kawasaki disease

Compression stockings for preventing deep vein thrombosis (DVT) in airline passengers

Background Air travel might increase the risk of deep vein thrombosis (DVT). It has been suggested that wearing compression stockings might reduce this risk. This is an update of the review first published in 2006. Objectives To assess the effects of wearing compression stockings versus not wearing them for preventing DVT in people travelling on flights lasting at least four hours. Search methods The Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist searched the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and AMED databases and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov trials registers to 1 April 2020. We also checked the bibliographies of relevant studies and reviews identified by the search to check for any additional trials. Selection criteria Randomised trials of compression stockings versus no stockings in passengers on flights lasting at least four hours. Trials in which passengers wore a stocking on one leg but not the other, or those comparing stockings and another intervention were also eligible. Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion and extracted data. We sought additional information from trialists where necessary. Main results One new study that fulfilled the inclusion criteria was identified for this update. Twelve randomised trials (n = 2918) were included in this review: ten (n = 2833) compared wearing graduated compression stockings on both legs versus not wearing them; one trial (n = 50) compared wearing graduated compression tights versus not wearing them; and one trial (n = 35) compared wearing a graduated compression stocking on one leg for the outbound flight and on the other leg on the return flight. Eight trials included people judged to be at low or medium risk of developing DVT (n = 1598) and two included high‐risk participants (n = 1273). All flights had a duration of more than five hours. Fifty of 2637 participants with follow‐up data available in the trials of wearing compression stockings on both legs had a symptomless DVT; three wore stockings, 47 did not (odds ratio (OR) 0.10, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.04 to 0.25, P Authors' conclusions There is high‐certainty evidence that airline passengers similar to those in this review can expect a substantial reduction in the incidence of symptomless DVT and low‐certainty evidence that leg oedema is reduced if they wear compression stockings. The certainty of the evidence was limited by the way that oedema was measured. There is moderate‐certainty evidence that superficial vein thrombosis may be reduced if passengers wear compression stockings. We cannot assess the effect of wearing stockings on death, pulmonary embolism or symptomatic DVT because no such events occurred in these trials. Randomised trials to assess these outcomes would need to include a very large number of people

Thrombolysis for acute deep vein thrombosis

Background: Standard treatment for deep vein thrombosis aims to reduce immediate complications. Use of thrombolysis or clot dissolving drugs could reduce the long-term complications of post-thrombotic syndrome (PTS) including pain, swelling, skin discolouration, or venous ulceration in the affected leg. This is the third update of a review first published in 2004. Objectives: To assess the effects of thrombolytic therapy and anticoagulation compared to anticoagulation alone for the management of people with acute deep vein thrombosis (DVT) of the lower limb as determined by the effects on pulmonary embolism, recurrent venous thromboembolism, major bleeding, post-thrombotic complications, venous patency and venous function. Search methods: For this update the Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist (CIS) searched the Specialised Register (February 2016). In addition the CIS searched the Cochrane Register of Studies (CENTRAL (2016, Issue 1)). Trial registries were searched for details of ongoing or unpublished studies. Selection criteria: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) examining thrombolysis and anticoagulation versus anticoagulation for acute DVT were considered. Data collection and analysis: For this update (2016), LW and CB selected trials, extracted data independently, and sought advice from MPA where necessary. We assessed study quality with the Cochrane risk of bias tool. For dichotomous outcomes, we calculated the risk ratio (RR) and corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI). Data were pooled using a fixed-effect model unless significant heterogeneity was identified in which case a random-effects model was used. GRADE was used to assess the overall quality of the evidence supporting the outcomes assessed in this review. Main results: Seventeen RCTs with 1103 participants were included. These studies differed in the both thrombolytic agent used and in the technique used to deliver it. Systemic, loco-regional and catheter-directed thrombolysis (CDT) were all included. Fourteen studies were rated as low risk of bias and three studies were rated as high risk of bias. We combined the results as any (all) thrombolysis compared to standard anticoagulation. Complete clot lysis occurred significantly more often in the treatment group at early follow-up (RR 4.91; 95% CI 1.66 to 14.53, P = 0.004) and at intermediate follow-up (RR 2.44; 95% CI 1.40 to 4.27, P = 0.002; moderate quality evidence). A similar effect was seen for any degree of improvement in venous patency. Up to five years after treatment significantly less PTS occurred in those receiving thrombolysis (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.81; P < 0.0001; moderate quality evidence). This reduction in PTS was still observed at late follow-up (beyond five years), in two studies (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.77; P < 0.0001; moderate quality evidence). Leg ulceration was reduced although the data were limited by small numbers (RR 0.87; 95% CI 0.16 to 4.73, P = 0.87). Those receiving thrombolysis had increased bleeding complications (RR 2.23; 95% CI 1.41 to 3.52, P = 0.0006; moderate quality evidence). Three strokes occurred in the treatment group, all in trials conducted pre-1990, and none in the control group. There was no significant effect on mortality detected at either early or intermediate follow-up. Data on the occurrence of pulmonary embolism (PE) and recurrent DVT were inconclusive. Systemic thrombolysis and CDT had similar levels of effectiveness. Studies of CDT included two trials in femoral and iliofemoral DVT, and results from these are consistent with those from trials of systemic thrombolysis in DVT at other levels of occlusion. Authors' conclusions: Thrombolysis increases the patency of veins and reduces the incidence of PTS following proximal DVT by a third. Evidence suggests that systemic administration and CDT have similar effectiveness. Strict eligibility criteria appears to improve safety in recent studies and may be necessary to reduce the risk of bleeding complications. This may limit the applicability of this treatment. In those who are treated there is a small increased risk of bleeding. Using GRADE assessment, the evidence was judged to be of moderate quality due to many trials having low numbers of participants. However, the results across studies were consistent and we have reasonable confidence in these results.Publisher PDFPeer reviewe

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