George A Antoniou1, George S Georgiadis2, Stavros A Antoniou3, Ragai R Makar4, Jonathan D Smout4, Francesco Torella4. 1. Department of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, The Royal Oldham Hospital, Pennine Acute Hospitals NHS Trust, Manchester, UK. 2. Department of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, University Hospital of Alexandroupolis, Democritus University of Thrace, Alexandroupolis, Greece. 3. Department of Surgery, University Hospital of Heraklion, University of Crete, Souniou 11, Heraklion, Greece, 19001. 4. Liverpool Vascular and Endovascular Service, Royal Liverpool University Hospital, Prescot Street, Liverpool, UK, L7 8XP.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Bypass surgery is one of the mainstay treatments for patients with critical lower limb ischaemia (CLI). This is the second update of the review first published in 2000. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of bypass surgery in patients with chronic lower limb ischaemia. SEARCH METHODS: For this update, the Cochrane Vascular Group searched its trials register (last searched October 2016) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in the Cochrane Library (last searched Issue 9, 2016). SELECTION CRITERIA: We selected randomised controlled trials of bypass surgery versus control or any other treatment. The primary outcome parameters were defined as early postoperative non-thrombotic complications, procedural mortality, clinical improvement, amputation, primary patency, and mortality within follow-up. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: For the update, two review authors extracted data and assessed trial quality. We analysed data using odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We applied fixed-effect or random-effects models. MAIN RESULTS: We selected 11 trials reporting a total of 1486 participants. Six trials compared bypass surgery with percutaneous transluminal angioplasty (PTA), and one each with remote endarterectomy, thromboendarterectomy, thrombolysis, exercise, and spinal cord stimulation. The quality of the evidence for the most important outcomes of bypass surgery versus PTA was high except for clinical improvement and primary patency. We judged the quality of evidence for clinical improvement to be low, due to heterogeneity between the studies and the fact that this was a subjective outcome assessment and, therefore, at risk of detection bias. We judged the quality of evidence for primary patency to be moderate due heterogeneity between the studies. For the remaining comparisons, the evidence was limited. For several outcomes, the CIs were wide.Comparing bypass surgery with PTA revealed a possible increase in early postinterventional non-thrombotic complications (OR 1.29, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.73; six studies; 1015 participants) with bypass surgery, but bypass surgery was associated with higher technical success rates (OR 2.26, 95% CI 1.49 to 3.44; five studies; 913 participants). Analyses by different clinical severity of disease (intermittent claudication (IC) or CLI) revealed that peri-interventional complications occurred more frequently in participants with CLI undergoing bypass surgery than PTA (OR 1.57, 95% CI 1.09 to 2.24). No differences in periprocedural mortality were identified (OR 1.67, 95% CI 0.66 to 4.19; five studies; 913 participants). The primary patency rate at one year was higher after bypass surgery than after PTA (OR 1.94, 95% CI 1.20 to 3.14; four studies; 300 participants), but this difference was not shown at four years (OR 1.15, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.78; two studies; 363 participants). No differences in clinical improvement (OR 0.65, 95% CI 0.03 to 14.52; two studies; 154 participants), amputation rates (OR 1.24, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.87; five studies; 752 participants), reintervention rates (OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.37; three studies; 256 participants), or mortality within the follow-up period (OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.25; five studies; 961 participants) between surgical and endovascular treatment were identified. No differences in subjective outcome parameters, indicated by quality of life and physical and psychosocial well-being, were reported. The hospital stay for the index procedure was reported to be longer in participants undergoing bypass surgery than in those treated with PTA.In the single study (116 participants) comparing bypass surgery with remote endarterectomy of the superficial femoral artery, the frequency of early postinterventional non-thrombotic complications was similar in the treatment groups (OR 1.11, 95% CI 0.53 to 2.34). No mortality within 30 days of the index treatment or during stay in hospital in either group was recorded. No differences were identified in patency (OR 1.66, 95% CI 0.79 to 3.46), amputation (OR 1.70, 95% CI 0.27 to 10.58), and mortality rates within the follow-up period (OR 1.66, 95% CI 0.61 to 4.48). Information regarding clinical improvement was unavailable.No differences in major complications (OR 0.66, 95% CI 0.34 to 1.31) or mortality (OR 2.09, 95% CI 0.67 to 6.44) within 30 days of treatment between surgery and thrombolysis (one study, 237 participants) for chronic lower limb ischaemia were identified. The amputation rate was lower after bypass surgery (OR 0.10, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.80). No differences in late mortality were found (OR 1.56, 95% CI 0.71 to 3.44). No data regarding patency rates and clinical improvement were reported.Technical success resulting in blood flow restoration was higher after bypass surgery than thromboendarterectomy for aorto-iliac occlusive disease (one study, 43 participants) (OR 0.01, 95% CI 0 to 0.17). The periprocedural mortality (OR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.65), follow-up mortality (OR 3.29, 95% CI 0.13 to 85.44), and amputation rates (OR 0.47, 95% CI 0.08 to 2.91) did not differ between treatments. Clinical improvement and patency rates were not reported.Comparing surgery and exercise (one study, 75 participants) did not identify differences in early postinterventional complications (OR 7.45, 95% CI 0.40 to 137.76) and mortality (OR 1.55, 95% CI 0.06 to 39.31). The remaining primary outcomes were not reported. There was no difference in maximal walking time between exercise and surgery (1.66 min, 95% CI -1.23 to 4.55).Regarding comparisons of bypass surgery with spinal cord stimulation for CLI, there was no difference in amputation rates after 12 months of follow-up (OR 4.00, 95% CI 0.25 to 63.95; one study, 12 participants). The remaining primary outcome parameters were not reported. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is limited high quality evidence for the effectiveness of bypass surgery compared with other treatments; no studies compared bypass to optimal medical treatment. Our analysis has shown that PTA is associated with decreased peri-interventional complications in participants treated for CLI and shorter hospital stay compared with bypass surgery. Surgical treatment seems to confer improved patency rates up to one year. Endovascular treatment may be advisable in patients with significant comorbidity, rendering them high risk surgical candidates. No solid conclusions can be drawn regarding comparisons of bypass surgery with other treatments because of the paucity of available evidence. Further large trials evaluating the impact of anatomical location and extent of disease and clinical severity are required.
BACKGROUND: Bypass surgery is one of the mainstay treatments for patients with critical lower limb ischaemia (CLI). This is the second update of the review first published in 2000. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of bypass surgery in patients with chronic lower limb ischaemia. SEARCH METHODS: For this update, the Cochrane Vascular Group searched its trials register (last searched October 2016) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in the Cochrane Library (last searched Issue 9, 2016). SELECTION CRITERIA: We selected randomised controlled trials of bypass surgery versus control or any other treatment. The primary outcome parameters were defined as early postoperative non-thrombotic complications, procedural mortality, clinical improvement, amputation, primary patency, and mortality within follow-up. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: For the update, two review authors extracted data and assessed trial quality. We analysed data using odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We applied fixed-effect or random-effects models. MAIN RESULTS: We selected 11 trials reporting a total of 1486 participants. Six trials compared bypass surgery with percutaneous transluminal angioplasty (PTA), and one each with remote endarterectomy, thromboendarterectomy, thrombolysis, exercise, and spinal cord stimulation. The quality of the evidence for the most important outcomes of bypass surgery versus PTA was high except for clinical improvement and primary patency. We judged the quality of evidence for clinical improvement to be low, due to heterogeneity between the studies and the fact that this was a subjective outcome assessment and, therefore, at risk of detection bias. We judged the quality of evidence for primary patency to be moderate due heterogeneity between the studies. For the remaining comparisons, the evidence was limited. For several outcomes, the CIs were wide.Comparing bypass surgery with PTA revealed a possible increase in early postinterventional non-thrombotic complications (OR 1.29, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.73; six studies; 1015 participants) with bypass surgery, but bypass surgery was associated with higher technical success rates (OR 2.26, 95% CI 1.49 to 3.44; five studies; 913 participants). Analyses by different clinical severity of disease (intermittent claudication (IC) or CLI) revealed that peri-interventional complications occurred more frequently in participants with CLI undergoing bypass surgery than PTA (OR 1.57, 95% CI 1.09 to 2.24). No differences in periprocedural mortality were identified (OR 1.67, 95% CI 0.66 to 4.19; five studies; 913 participants). The primary patency rate at one year was higher after bypass surgery than after PTA (OR 1.94, 95% CI 1.20 to 3.14; four studies; 300 participants), but this difference was not shown at four years (OR 1.15, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.78; two studies; 363 participants). No differences in clinical improvement (OR 0.65, 95% CI 0.03 to 14.52; two studies; 154 participants), amputation rates (OR 1.24, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.87; five studies; 752 participants), reintervention rates (OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.37; three studies; 256 participants), or mortality within the follow-up period (OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.25; five studies; 961 participants) between surgical and endovascular treatment were identified. No differences in subjective outcome parameters, indicated by quality of life and physical and psychosocial well-being, were reported. The hospital stay for the index procedure was reported to be longer in participants undergoing bypass surgery than in those treated with PTA.In the single study (116 participants) comparing bypass surgery with remote endarterectomy of the superficial femoral artery, the frequency of early postinterventional non-thrombotic complications was similar in the treatment groups (OR 1.11, 95% CI 0.53 to 2.34). No mortality within 30 days of the index treatment or during stay in hospital in either group was recorded. No differences were identified in patency (OR 1.66, 95% CI 0.79 to 3.46), amputation (OR 1.70, 95% CI 0.27 to 10.58), and mortality rates within the follow-up period (OR 1.66, 95% CI 0.61 to 4.48). Information regarding clinical improvement was unavailable.No differences in major complications (OR 0.66, 95% CI 0.34 to 1.31) or mortality (OR 2.09, 95% CI 0.67 to 6.44) within 30 days of treatment between surgery and thrombolysis (one study, 237 participants) for chronic lower limb ischaemia were identified. The amputation rate was lower after bypass surgery (OR 0.10, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.80). No differences in late mortality were found (OR 1.56, 95% CI 0.71 to 3.44). No data regarding patency rates and clinical improvement were reported.Technical success resulting in blood flow restoration was higher after bypass surgery than thromboendarterectomy for aorto-iliac occlusive disease (one study, 43 participants) (OR 0.01, 95% CI 0 to 0.17). The periprocedural mortality (OR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.65), follow-up mortality (OR 3.29, 95% CI 0.13 to 85.44), and amputation rates (OR 0.47, 95% CI 0.08 to 2.91) did not differ between treatments. Clinical improvement and patency rates were not reported.Comparing surgery and exercise (one study, 75 participants) did not identify differences in early postinterventional complications (OR 7.45, 95% CI 0.40 to 137.76) and mortality (OR 1.55, 95% CI 0.06 to 39.31). The remaining primary outcomes were not reported. There was no difference in maximal walking time between exercise and surgery (1.66 min, 95% CI -1.23 to 4.55).Regarding comparisons of bypass surgery with spinal cord stimulation for CLI, there was no difference in amputation rates after 12 months of follow-up (OR 4.00, 95% CI 0.25 to 63.95; one study, 12 participants). The remaining primary outcome parameters were not reported. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is limited high quality evidence for the effectiveness of bypass surgery compared with other treatments; no studies compared bypass to optimal medical treatment. Our analysis has shown that PTA is associated with decreased peri-interventional complications in participants treated for CLI and shorter hospital stay compared with bypass surgery. Surgical treatment seems to confer improved patency rates up to one year. Endovascular treatment may be advisable in patients with significant comorbidity, rendering them high risk surgical candidates. No solid conclusions can be drawn regarding comparisons of bypass surgery with other treatments because of the paucity of available evidence. Further large trials evaluating the impact of anatomical location and extent of disease and clinical severity are required.
Authors: David Atkins; Dana Best; Peter A Briss; Martin Eccles; Yngve Falck-Ytter; Signe Flottorp; Gordon H Guyatt; Robin T Harbour; Margaret C Haugh; David Henry; Suzanne Hill; Roman Jaeschke; Gillian Leng; Alessandro Liberati; Nicola Magrini; James Mason; Philippa Middleton; Jacek Mrukowicz; Dianne O'Connell; Andrew D Oxman; Bob Phillips; Holger J Schünemann; Tessa Tan-Torres Edejer; Helena Varonen; Gunn E Vist; John W Williams; Stephanie Zaza Journal: BMJ Date: 2004-06-19
Authors: J Gelin; L Jivegård; C Taft; J Karlsson; M Sullivan; A G Dahllöf; R Sandström; B Arfvidsson; K Lundholm Journal: Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg Date: 2001-08 Impact factor: 7.069
Authors: Maria Teresa B Abola; Jonathan Golledge; Tetsuro Miyata; Seung-Woon Rha; Bryan P Yan; Timothy C Dy; Marie Simonette V Ganzon; Pankaj Kumar Handa; Salim Harris; Jiang Zhisheng; Ramakrishna Pinjala; Peter Ashley Robless; Hiroyoshi Yokoi; Elaine B Alajar; April Ann Bermudez-Delos Santos; Elmer Jasper B Llanes; Gay Marjorie Obrado-Nabablit; Noemi S Pestaño; Felix Eduardo Punzalan; Bernadette Tumanan-Mendoza Journal: J Atheroscler Thromb Date: 2020-07-04 Impact factor: 4.928
Authors: Jihad A Mustapha; Zsuzsanna Igyarto; David O'Connor; Ehrin J Armstrong; Anthony R Iorio; Vickie R Driver; Fadi Saab; Ann N Behrens; Brad J Martinsen; George L Adams Journal: Vasc Health Risk Manag Date: 2020-02-10
Authors: Derek J Roberts; Sudhir K Nagpal; Dalibor Kubelik; Timothy Brandys; Henry T Stelfox; Manoj M Lalu; Alan J Forster; Colin Jl McCartney; Daniel I McIsaac Journal: BMJ Date: 2020-11-25
Authors: Stefanos Giannopoulos; Eric A Secemsky; Jihad A Mustapha; George Adams; Robert E Beasley; George Pliagas; Ehrin J Armstrong Journal: J Endovasc Ther Date: 2020-07-03 Impact factor: 3.487
Authors: Vojtěch Kamenský; Vladimír Rogalewicz; Ondřej Gajdoš; Gleb Donin Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-09-19 Impact factor: 4.614
Authors: Joanne Palmer; Sean Pymer; George E Smith; Amy Elizabeth Harwood; Lee Ingle; Chao Huang; Ian C Chetter Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2020-09-21