Fares Alahdab1, Remy Arwani2, Ahmed Khurshid Pasha3, Zayd A Razouki3, Larry J Prokop4, Thomas S Huber5, M Hassan Murad6. 1. Mayo Evidence-Based Practice Center, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn; Department of Preventive, Occupational, and Aerospace Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn. 2. Department of Internal Medicine, Ain-Shams University School of Medicine, Cairo, Egypt. 3. Department of General Internal Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn. 4. Mayo Evidence-Based Practice Center, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn; Mayo Medical Library, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn. 5. Department of Vascular Surgery and Endovascular Therapy, University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville, Fla. 6. Mayo Evidence-Based Practice Center, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn; Department of Preventive, Occupational, and Aerospace Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn. Electronic address: murad.mohammad@mayo.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite the enthusiasm for endovascular revascularization for chronic mesenteric ischemia (CMI), it is not clear if early benefits offset long-term patency rates. This systematic review aimed to provide an up-to-date comprehensive evidence synthesis evaluating the two approaches. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Scopus through July 15, 2016, for studies that compared the endovascular with the open surgical approach for revascularization in CMI patients. We conducted a random-effects meta-analysis to pool outcomes of interest across studies. RESULTS: We included 100 observational studies (22 comparative, 78 noncomparative; 18,726 patients; mean age, 69 years). Open surgery was associated with a statistically significant increase in the risk of in-hospital complications (relative risk [RR], 2.2; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.8-2.6) and a nonsignificant increase in mortality at 30 days (RR, 1.57; 95% CI, 0.84-2.93). Open surgery was associated with lower risk of 3-year recurrence rates (RR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.34-0.66) and a similar 3-year survival. Data from noncomparative studies provided similar inferences. The quality of evidence was low. CONCLUSIONS: Observational evidence suggests that the endovascular approach for revascularization in patients with CMI may offer better early outcomes than open surgery, although this effect may not be durable. Long-term mortality appears to be similar.
BACKGROUND: Despite the enthusiasm for endovascular revascularization for chronic mesenteric ischemia (CMI), it is not clear if early benefits offset long-term patency rates. This systematic review aimed to provide an up-to-date comprehensive evidence synthesis evaluating the two approaches. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Scopus through July 15, 2016, for studies that compared the endovascular with the open surgical approach for revascularization in CMI patients. We conducted a random-effects meta-analysis to pool outcomes of interest across studies. RESULTS: We included 100 observational studies (22 comparative, 78 noncomparative; 18,726 patients; mean age, 69 years). Open surgery was associated with a statistically significant increase in the risk of in-hospital complications (relative risk [RR], 2.2; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.8-2.6) and a nonsignificant increase in mortality at 30 days (RR, 1.57; 95% CI, 0.84-2.93). Open surgery was associated with lower risk of 3-year recurrence rates (RR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.34-0.66) and a similar 3-year survival. Data from noncomparative studies provided similar inferences. The quality of evidence was low. CONCLUSIONS: Observational evidence suggests that the endovascular approach for revascularization in patients with CMI may offer better early outcomes than open surgery, although this effect may not be durable. Long-term mortality appears to be similar.
Authors: Andrew S Miller; Kathryn Boyce; Benjamin Box; Matthew D Clarke; Sarah E Duff; Niamh M Foley; Richard J Guy; Lisa H Massey; George Ramsay; Dominic A J Slade; James A Stephenson; Phil J Tozer; Danette Wright Journal: Colorectal Dis Date: 2021-02 Impact factor: 3.917
Authors: Louisa Jd van Dijk; Desirée van Noord; Annemarie C de Vries; Jeroen J Kolkman; Robert H Geelkerken; Hence Jm Verhagen; Adriaan Moelker; Marco J Bruno Journal: United European Gastroenterol J Date: 2018-12-04 Impact factor: 4.623
Authors: Louisa J D van Dijk; Jihan Harki; Desirée van Noord; Hence J M Verhagen; Jeroen J Kolkman; Robert H Geelkerken; Marco J Bruno; Adriaan Moelker Journal: Trials Date: 2019-08-20 Impact factor: 2.279
Authors: Luke G Terlouw; Adriaan Moelker; Jan Abrahamsen; Stefan Acosta; Olaf J Bakker; Iris Baumgartner; Louis Boyer; Olivier Corcos; Louisa Jd van Dijk; Mansur Duran; Robert H Geelkerken; Giulio Illuminati; Ralph W Jackson; Jussi M Kärkkäinen; Jeroen J Kolkman; Lars Lönn; Maria A Mazzei; Alexandre Nuzzo; Felice Pecoraro; Jan Raupach; Hence Jm Verhagen; Christoph J Zech; Desirée van Noord; Marco J Bruno Journal: United European Gastroenterol J Date: 2020-04-16 Impact factor: 4.623
Authors: Anna-Leonie Menges; Benedikt Reutersberg; Albert Busch; Michael Salvermoser; Marcus Feith; Matthias Trenner; Michael Kallmayer; Alexander Zimmermann; Hans-Henning Eckstein Journal: World J Surg Date: 2020-08 Impact factor: 3.282
Authors: Luke G Terlouw; Desirée van Noord; Theo van Walsum; Louisa J D van Dijk; Adriaan Moelker; Marco J Bruno Journal: United European Gastroenterol J Date: 2021-06-02 Impact factor: 4.623
Authors: Luke G Terlouw; Mandy Verbeten; Desirée van Noord; Marjolein Brusse-Keizer; Ruth R Beumer; Robert H Geelkerken; Marco J Bruno; Jeroen J Kolkman Journal: Clin Transl Gastroenterol Date: 2020-08 Impact factor: 4.396