Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

160 questions · 160 findings · 28 reviews · Vascular

Sort:Best matchNewest Highest certainty Download CSV

No studies found 17 · 10.6%GRADE not reported 7 · 4.4%Very low 38 · 23.8%Low 56 · 35%Moderate 36 · 22.5%High 6 · 3.8%

Continuous infusion vs forced (or pulse) infusion of thrombolytic agents

Major bleeding · patients with < 42 days' limb ischaemiaa

1 finding from 1 review

Infusion techniques for peripheral arterial thrombolysis 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
4 studies · 304 participants
Very low

Intervention not reported

Amputation ( · patients with less than 42 days' lower limb ischaemia

1 finding from 1 review

Infusion techniques for peripheral arterial thrombolysis 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
1 study · 70 participants
GRADE not reported

Intervention not reported

Vessel patency ( · patients with less than 42 days' lower limb ischaemia

It is very uncertain whether the intervention changes vessel patency ( (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Infusion techniques for peripheral arterial thrombolysis 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
OR 1.2 [0.39, 3.69]
1 study · 70 participants
Very low

Intervention not reported

Duration of thrombolysis ( · patients with less than 42 days' lower limb ischaemia

1 finding from 1 review

Infusion techniques for peripheral arterial thrombolysis 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
1 study · 70 participants
Low

Intervention not reported

CVA ( · patients with less than 42 days' lower limb ischaemia

1 finding from 1 review

Infusion techniques for peripheral arterial thrombolysis 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
1 study · 70 participants
Low

Intervention not reported

Major bleeding ( · patients with less than 42 days' lower limb ischaemia

It is very uncertain whether the intervention changes major bleeding ( (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Infusion techniques for peripheral arterial thrombolysis 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
OR 0.25 [0.01, 4.9]
1 study · 70 participants
Very low

Intra‐arterial delivery vs intravenous delivery

Vessel patency ‐ radiological success ‐ complete (to end of treatment) · patients with < 30 days' limb ischaemiaa

Intra‐arterial delivery may leads to higher vessel patency ‐ radiological success ‐ complete (to end of treatment) compared with intravenous delivery (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Infusion techniques for peripheral arterial thrombolysis 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
OR 13.22 [2.79, 62.67]
1 study · 40 participants
Low

Intra‐arterial delivery vs intravenous delivery

Duration of thrombolysis (to end of treatment) · patients with < 30 days' limb ischaemiaa

1 finding from 1 review

Infusion techniques for peripheral arterial thrombolysis 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
2 studies · 78 participants
Very low

Intra‐arterial delivery vs intravenous delivery

CVA (up to 6 months) · patients with < 30 days' limb ischaemiaa

1 finding from 1 review

Infusion techniques for peripheral arterial thrombolysis 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
2 studies · 78 participants
Very low

Intra‐arterial delivery vs intravenous delivery

Major bleeding · patients with < 30 days' limb ischaemiaa

It is very uncertain whether intra‐arterial delivery changes major bleeding (up to 6 months) compared with intravenous delivery (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Infusion techniques for peripheral arterial thrombolysis 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
OR 0.12 [0.01, 2.53]
1 study · 40 participants
Very low

High‐dose vs low‐dose regimens of thrombolytic agents

Amputation · patients with < 42 days' limb ischaemiaa

1 finding from 1 review

Infusion techniques for peripheral arterial thrombolysis 2021 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
4 studies · 302 participants
Very low

Effects of clinically‐indicated replacement vs routine change of peripheral intravenous catheters

Catheter‐related blood stream infection · any patient requiring a PIVC expected to remain in‐situ for at least 3 days

Effects of clinically‐indicated replacement showed no clear difference in catheter‐related blood stream infection (during hospitalisation) compared with routine change of peripheral intravenous catheters (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Clinically‐indicated replacement versus routine replacement of peripheral venous catheters 2019 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
RR 0.61 [0.08, 4.68]
7 studies · 7323 participants
Low

Effects of clinically‐indicated replacement vs routine change of peripheral intravenous catheters

Thrombophlebitis (during hospitalisation) · any patient requiring a PIVC expected to remain in‐situ for at least 3 days

Effects of clinically‐indicated replacement showed no clear difference in thrombophlebitis (during hospitalisation) compared with routine change of peripheral intravenous catheters (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Clinically‐indicated replacement versus routine replacement of peripheral venous catheters 2019 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
RR 1.07 [0.93, 1.25]
7 studies · 7323 participants
Moderate

Effects of clinically‐indicated replacement vs routine change of peripheral intravenous catheters

All‐cause blood stream infection (during hospitalisation) · any patient requiring a PIVC expected to remain in‐situ for at least 3 days

Effects of clinically‐indicated replacement showed no clear difference in all‐cause blood stream infection (during hospitalisation) compared with routine change of peripheral intravenous catheters (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Clinically‐indicated replacement versus routine replacement of peripheral venous catheters 2019 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
RR 0.47 [0.15, 1.53]
1 study · 3283 participants
Moderate

Effects of clinically‐indicated replacement vs routine change of peripheral intravenous catheters

Cost of hospitalisation · any patient requiring a PIVC expected to remain in‐situ for at least 3 days

1 finding from 1 review

Clinically‐indicated replacement versus routine replacement of peripheral venous catheters 2019 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
3 studies · 4244 participants
Moderate

Effects of clinically‐indicated replacement vs routine change of peripheral intravenous catheters

Infiltration (during hospitalisation) · any patient requiring a PIVC expected to remain in‐situ for at least 3 days

Effects of clinically‐indicated replacement probably leads to higher infiltration (during hospitalisation) compared with routine change of peripheral intravenous catheters (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Clinically‐indicated replacement versus routine replacement of peripheral venous catheters 2019 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
RR 1.16 [1.06, 1.26]
6 studies · 7123 participants
Moderate

Effects of clinically‐indicated replacement vs routine change of peripheral intravenous catheters

Catheter blockage (during hospitalisation) · any patient requiring a PIVC expected to remain in‐situ for at least 3 days

Effects of clinically‐indicated replacement probably leads to higher catheter blockage (during hospitalisation) compared with routine change of peripheral intravenous catheters (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Clinically‐indicated replacement versus routine replacement of peripheral venous catheters 2019 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
RR 1.14 [1.01, 1.29]
7 studies · 7323 participants
Moderate

Intervention not reported

Heparin‐induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) · people undergoing surgical procedures and treated with UFH or LMWH for prophylaxis of thrombotic events lasting at least 5 days

The intervention may leads to lower heparin‐induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Unfractionated heparin versus low molecular weight heparins for avoiding heparin‐induced thrombocytopenia in… 2017 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
RR 0.23 [0.07, 0.73]
3 studies · 1398 participants
Low

Intervention not reported

HIT in people undergoing major surgical procedures · people undergoing surgical procedures and treated with UFH or LMWH for prophylaxis of thrombotic events lasting at least 5 days

The intervention may leads to lower HIT in people undergoing major surgical procedures (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Unfractionated heparin versus low molecular weight heparins for avoiding heparin‐induced thrombocytopenia in… 2017 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
RR 0.22 [0.06, 0.75]
2 studies · 586 participants
Low

Intervention not reported

HIT complicated by venous thromboembolism · people undergoing surgical procedures and treated with UFH or LMWH for prophylaxis of thrombotic events lasting at least 5 days

The intervention may leads to lower HIT complicated by venous thromboembolism (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Unfractionated heparin versus low molecular weight heparins for avoiding heparin‐induced thrombocytopenia in… 2017 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
RR 0.22 [0.06, 0.84]
3 studies · 1398 participants
Low