Intravascular ultrasound in the diagnosis and treatment of central venous diseases

VASA ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 50 (1) ◽  
pp. 2-10 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xin Li ◽  
Giuseppe D’Amico ◽  
Cristiano Quintini ◽  
Teresa Diago Uso ◽  
Sameer Gadani ◽  
...  

Summary: Intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) has been used extensively in coronary applications. Its use in venous applications has increased as endovascular therapy has increasingly become the mainstay therapy for central venous diseases. IVUS has been used for both diagnostic and therapeutic purposes in managing venous stenotic disease, venous occlusive disease, and IVC filter placement and removal. IVUS has been proven to be effective in providing detailed measurement of the venous anatomy, which aid in determining the appropriate size and the approach for venous stent placement. In IVC filter placement, IVUS can provide detailed measurement and guide IVC filter placement in emergent and critical care settings. It also has certain utility in filter removal. At any rate, to date there are only a few studies examining its impact on patient outcomes. Prospective randomized controlled trials are warranted in the future.

VASA ◽  
2003 ◽  
Vol 32 (Supplement 63) ◽  
pp. 3-6

Background. The use of compression therapy is mainly based on tradition and experience. Randomized controlled trials demonstrating clinical effects in different indications are rare or non-existing. A clear proof of effectiveness for different compression devices endorsed by evidence based medicine will be a prerequisite for reimbursement by health budgets in the near future. Against this background a group of experts has discussed and approved the following position document under the auspices of the International Union of Phlebology. Indications for compression therapy in phlebology and lymphology are mainly: 1. Chronic venous disorders (CEAP C0-C6 ) (1) 2. Acute venous diseases 3. Lymphoedema. The following 3 questions are discussed for every single indication: ¥ What is done? (Current practice and rationale) ¥ What do we know? (Level of recommendation based on present knowledge) ¥ What do we need to know? (Proposals for randomized controlled trials on compression therapy)


2012 ◽  
Vol 46 (4) ◽  
pp. 293-299 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kelley Hodgkiss-Harlow ◽  
Martin R. Back ◽  
Robert Brumberg ◽  
Paul Armstrong ◽  
Murray Shames ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Sylvain Boet ◽  
Joseph K. Burns ◽  
Olivia Cheng-Boivin ◽  
Hira Khan ◽  
Kendra Derry ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Evidence suggests that there are substantial inconsistencies in the practice of anesthesia. There has not yet been a comprehensive summary of the anesthesia literature that can guide future knowledge translation interventions to move evidence into practice. As the first step toward identifying the most promising interventions for systematic implementation in anesthesia practice, this scoping review of multicentre RCTs aimed to explore and map the existing literature investigating perioperative anesthesia-related interventions and clinical patient outcomes. Methods Multicenter randomized controlled trials were eligible for inclusion if they involved a tested anesthesia-related intervention administered to adult surgical patients (≥ 16 years old), with a control group receiving either another anesthesia intervention or no intervention at all. The electronic databases Embase (via OVID), MEDLINE, and MEDLINE in Process (via OVID), and Cochrane Central Register of Control Trials (CENTRAL) were searched from inception to February 26, 2021. Studies were screened and data were extracted by pairs of independent reviewers in duplicate with disagreements resolved through consensus or a third reviewer. Data were summarized narratively. Results We included 638 multicentre randomized controlled trials (n patients = 615,907) that met the eligibility criteria. The most commonly identified anesthesia-related intervention theme across all studies was pharmacotherapy (n studies = 361 [56.6%]; n patients = 244,610 [39.7%]), followed by anesthetic technique (n studies = 80 [12.5%], n patients = 48,455 [7.9%]). Interventions were most often implemented intraoperatively (n studies = 233 [36.5%]; n patients = 175,974 [28.6%]). Studies typically involved multiple types of surgeries (n studies = 187 [29.2%]; n patients = 206 667 [33.5%]), followed by general surgery only (n studies = 115 [18.1%]; n patients = 201,028 [32.6%]) and orthopedic surgery only (n studies = 94 [14.7%]; n patients = 34,575 [5.6%]). Functional status was the most commonly investigated outcome (n studies = 272), followed by patient experience (n studies = 168), and mortality (n studies = 153). Conclusions This scoping review provides a map of multicenter RCTs in anesthesia which can be used to optimize future research endeavors in the field. Specifically, we have identified key knowledge gaps in anesthesia that require further systematic assessment, as well as areas where additional research would likely not add value. These findings provide the foundation for streamlining knowledge translation in anesthesia in order to reduce practice variation and enhance patient outcomes.


2020 ◽  
Vol 3 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 23-24
Author(s):  
M El Sheikh ◽  
G Lee ◽  
M El Bizri ◽  
M J Sewitch

Abstract Background Mobile health technologies are innovative solutions for delivering instructions to patients preparing for their colonoscopy appointments. Aims To systematically review the literature of the effect of smartphone-based technologies supporting colonoscopy appointment preparation on patient outcomes. Methods With the assistance of a librarian, one author searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and CENTRAL for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the effect of smartphone-based technologies for colonoscopy preparation on bowel cleanliness and user satisfaction. Two independent reviewers extracted data on patient and intervention characteristics and study outcomes, and appraised study quality using the Cochrane Risk-of-Bias tool. Summary statistics were generated using random effects models for the trials that used either the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BPPS) or the Ottawa Bowel Preparation Scale (OBPS). Statistical heterogeneity was assessed using I2. Results Ten RCTs met our inclusion criteria. Smartphone-based interventions included apps, SMS text messages, video clips, camera apps, and social media apps. Most studies showed smartphone-based interventions were associated with better quality bowel cleanliness scores and higher user satisfaction compared to usual care. Standardized mean differences for the BBPS and OBPS differed between the intervention and control groups [SMD 0.57, 95%CI 0.18, 0.95] and [SMD -0.39, 95%CI -0.59, -0.19], respectively. Statistically significant statistical heterogeneity was found for the meta-analyses for the trials employing the BBPS (I2=80%, p=0.03) but not for the trials using the OBPS (I2=45%, p=0.16). All RCTs were at high risk of bias from non-blinded participants, and most studies were at high or unclear risk of bias due to lack of allocation concealment. Funnel plots to evaluate publication bias were not generated as there were too few studies with sufficient data to analyze. Conclusions This systematic review found that smartphone-based technology users had better bowel cleanliness quality scores and higher satisfaction with the method of delivering instructions compared to patients given usual care. Given that all RCTs were at high risk of bias, high-quality RCTs that blind participants and conceal study group allocation are needed. Funding Agencies CIHRDepartment of Medicine, McGill University and the Research Institute of the McGill University Health Centre


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document