What do systematic reviews say?

Endovascular revascularisation vs no therapy

• Endovascular revascularisation versus conservative management for intermittent claudication 2018 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  3 studies · 125 participants
  Moderate
• Endovascular revascularisation versus conservative management for intermittent claudication 2018 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  2 studies · 103 participants
  Low

Endovascular revascularisation vs conservative therapy

• Endovascular revascularisation versus conservative management for intermittent claudication 2018 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  2 studies · 147 participants
  Moderate
• Endovascular revascularisation versus conservative management for intermittent claudication 2018 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  5 studies · 345 participants
  Moderate

Endovascular revascularisation vs conservative therapy

Endovascular revascularisation showed no clear difference in secondary invasive interventions compared with conservative therapy (high certainty).

• Endovascular revascularisation versus conservative management for intermittent claudication 2018 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  OR 1.4 [0.7, 2.8]
  4 studies · 395 participants
  High

Endovascular revascularisation vs conservative therapy

• Endovascular revascularisation versus conservative management for intermittent claudication 2018 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  3 studies · 301 participants
  High

Endovascular revascularisation vs no therapy

• Endovascular revascularisation versus conservative management for intermittent claudication 2018 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  3 studies · 125 participants
  Moderate
• Endovascular revascularisation versus conservative management for intermittent claudication 2018 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  2 studies · 103 participants
  Low

Endovascular revascularisation vs no therapy

Endovascular revascularisation showed no clear difference in secondary invasive interventions compared with no specific therapy (moderate certainty).

• Endovascular revascularisation versus conservative management for intermittent claudication 2018 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  OR 0.81 [0.12, 5.28]
  2 studies · 118 participants
  Moderate

Endovascular revascularisation vs no therapy

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Endovascular revascularisation versus conservative management for intermittent claudication 2018 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  Studies not reported
  No studies found

Endovascular revascularisation vs conservative therapy

• Endovascular revascularisation versus conservative management for intermittent claudication 2018 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  5 studies · 345 participants
  Moderate
• Endovascular revascularisation versus conservative management for intermittent claudication 2018 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  3 studies · 184 participants
  Moderate

Endovascular revascularisation plus conservative therapy vs conservative therapy

• Endovascular revascularisation versus conservative management for intermittent claudication 2018 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  3 studies · 432 participants
  Moderate
• Endovascular revascularisation versus conservative management for intermittent claudication 2018 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  1 study · 106 participants
  Low

Endovascular revascularisation plus conservative therapy vs conservative therapy

• Endovascular revascularisation versus conservative management for intermittent claudication 2018 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  2 studies · 305 participants
  Moderate
• Endovascular revascularisation versus conservative management for intermittent claudication 2018 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  Studies not reported
  No studies found

Endovascular revascularisation plus conservative therapy vs conservative therapy

Endovascular revascularisation plus conservative therapy leads to lower secondary invasive interventions compared with conservative therapy alone (high certainty).

• Endovascular revascularisation versus conservative management for intermittent claudication 2018 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  OR 0.27 [0.13, 0.55]
  3 studies · 457 participants
  High

Endovascular revascularisation plus conservative therapy vs conservative therapy

• Endovascular revascularisation versus conservative management for intermittent claudication 2018 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  2 studies · 330 participants
  Moderate

General anaesthesia vs non‐general anaesthesia

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Type of anaesthesia for acute ischaemic stroke endovascular treatment 2022 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  Studies not reported
  No studies found

General anaesthesia vs non‐general anaesthesia

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Type of anaesthesia for acute ischaemic stroke endovascular treatment 2022 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  Studies not reported
  No studies found
• Type of anaesthesia for acute ischaemic stroke endovascular treatment 2022 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  5 studies · 498 participants
  Very low

General anaesthesia vs non‐general anaesthesia

General anaesthesia probably leads to higher target artery revascularisation (dichotomous; mTICI 2b–3) compared with non‐general anaesthesia (moderate certainty).

• Type of anaesthesia for acute ischaemic stroke endovascular treatment 2022 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 1.1 [1.02, 1.18]
  7 studies · 982 participants
  Moderate