Efficacy of ultrasound-accelerated versus traditional catheter-directed thrombolysis in treatment of lower extremity deep venous thrombosis: A protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis

Background:There is no meta-analysis or review in the literature to compare and evaluate the difference and effectiveness of ultrasonic-accelerated thrombolysis (UAT) and catheter directed thrombolysis (CDT) in lower extremity deep vein thrombosis (DVT) patients. Therefore, we conducted this protocol of systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy between UAT and CDT for patients with lower extremity DVT.Methods:We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocols reporting guidelines to conduct this study. Reviewers will search the PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and EMBASE online databases using the key phrases “deep venous thrombosis,” “thrombolysis,” and “ultrasound-accelerated” for all cohort studies published up to July 22, 2021. There is no restriction in the dates of publication or language in the search for the current review. The primary outcome is major bleeding. Secondary outcomes include health-related quality of life and complications such as recurrent venous thromboembolism, pulmonary embolism, in-stent thrombosis, and death. Review Manager software (v 5.4; Cochrane Collaboration) will be used for the meta-analysis. A P value of < .05 is considered to be statistically significant.Results:We hypothesized that these two methods would provide similar therapeutic benefits.OSF registration number:10.17605/OSF.IO/YZB3H.