evidencegaps
Cochrane · systematic review · CD013486

Percutaneous thrombectomy or ultrasound‐accelerated thrombolysis for initial management of acute limb ischaemia

Araujo, ST, Moreno, DH, Cacione, DG · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2022 · Cochrane Library

VascularAMSTAR 2: not assessed
SoF tableOnly the outcomes this review put in its Summary of Findings table are listed (the Cochrane Handbook caps them at about seven per comparison). Its other analyses are not shown here.
Questions
6
current version
GRADE rated
4
No studies
0
Included studies
NR
No studies 0 · 0%Ungraded 2 · 33.3%Very low 4 · 66.7%Low 0 · 0%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%

Ungraded means an effect was reported without a GRADE rating; it is not a gap. No studies means the review found nothing to answer the question. The six categories are a display order, not a score.

Questions and results

Ultrasound‐accelerated thrombolysis compared to thrombolysis alone for initial management of acute limb ischaemia

Population: adults with ALI
6 questions
OutcomeEffectEvidenceStatus / GRADE
Primary patency
Ultrasound‐accelerated thrombolysis vs thrombolysis alone
no estimate extracted1 study · 60 participantsUngraded
Amputation rate
Ultrasound‐accelerated thrombolysis vs thrombolysis alone
RR 1.14 [0.17, 7.59]1 study · 60 participantsVery low
Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision
Major bleeding
Ultrasound‐accelerated thrombolysis vs thrombolysis alone
RR 1.71 [0.31, 9.53]1 study · 60 participantsVery low
Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision
Clinical success ‐ increase in ABI by at least 0.2
Ultrasound‐accelerated thrombolysis vs thrombolysis alone
RR 1 [0.94, 1.07]1 study · 60 participantsVery low
Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision
Secondary patency
Ultrasound‐accelerated thrombolysis vs thrombolysis alone
no estimate extracted1 study · 60 participantsUngraded
Adverse events
Ultrasound‐accelerated thrombolysis vs thrombolysis alone
RR 5.69 [0.28, 113.72]1 study · 60 participantsVery low
Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision