SynthesisThe British journal of radiology2024
Meta-analysis of transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt creation with or without intravascular ultrasound guidance.
Synthesis in The British journal of radiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo conduct a meta-analysis to assess the efficacy of intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) during transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) creation.
methodsMEDLINE and Embase databases were queried until July 2022 for comparative studies reporting procedure metrics for TIPS creation with or without IVUS guidance. Meta-analysis was performed with random-effects modelling for total procedural time, time to portal venous access, fluoroscopy time, iodinated contrast volume use, air kerma, dose area product, and number of needle passes. Intraoperative procedure-related complications were also reviewed.
resultsOf 95 unique records initially identified, 6 were eligible for inclusion. A total of 194 and 240 patients underwent TIPS with and without IVUS guidance. Pooled analyses indicated that IVUS guidance was associated with reduced total procedure time (SMD -0.76 [95% CI -1.02, -0.50] P < .001), time to portal venous access (SMD -0.41 [95% CI -0.67, -0.15] P = .002), fluoroscopy time (SMD, -0.54 [95% CI -1.02, -0.07]; P = .002), contrast volume use (SMD, -0.89 [95% CI -1.16, -0.63]; P < .001), air kerma (SMD, -0.75 [95% CI -1.11, -0.38]; P < .001) and dose area product (SMD, -0.98 [95% CI -1.77, -0.20]; P = .013). A total of 4.2 and 7.8 needle passes were required in the IVUS and non-IVUS group, respectively (SMD, -0.60 [95% CI -1.42, 0.21]; P = .134). Pooled complication rates were 15.2% (12/79) and 21.4% (28/131), respectively.
conclusionIVUS guidance during TIPS creation improves procedural metrics including procedural time, contrast usage, and radiation exposure. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: (1) The use of IVUS during TIPS is associated with shorter procedural time, lower contrast usage, and radiation exposure. (2)The use of IVUS is not associated with higher complication rates.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.