Cargando…

Endovascular revascularization vs. open surgical revascularization for patients with lower extremity artery disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND: Currently, the main treatment for lower extremity artery disease (LEAD) is revascularization, including endovascular revascularization (EVR) and open surgical revascularization (OSR), but the specific revascularization strategy for LEAD is controversial. This review provided the comprehe...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Shu, Hongxin, Xiong, Xiaowei, Chen, Xiaomei, Sun, Xiaolei, Zhang, Rong, Wang, Ruihua, Huang, Qun, Zhu, Jun
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Frontiers Media S.A. 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10405177/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37554365
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fcvm.2023.1223841
_version_ 1785085466964393984
author Shu, Hongxin
Xiong, Xiaowei
Chen, Xiaomei
Sun, Xiaolei
Zhang, Rong
Wang, Ruihua
Huang, Qun
Zhu, Jun
author_facet Shu, Hongxin
Xiong, Xiaowei
Chen, Xiaomei
Sun, Xiaolei
Zhang, Rong
Wang, Ruihua
Huang, Qun
Zhu, Jun
author_sort Shu, Hongxin
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Currently, the main treatment for lower extremity artery disease (LEAD) is revascularization, including endovascular revascularization (EVR) and open surgical revascularization (OSR), but the specific revascularization strategy for LEAD is controversial. This review provided the comprehensive and recent evidence for the treatment of LEAD. METHODS: Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Library databases were searched for relevant articles. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies comparing the short-term or long-term outcomes between EVR and OSR of LEAD were identified. Short-term outcomes were 30-day mortality, major amputation, wound complication, major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs), and length of hospital stay (LOS), while long-term outcomes included overall survival (OS), amputation-free survival (AFS), freedom from re-intervention (FFR), primary patency (PP), and secondary patency (SP). RESULTS: 11 RCTs and 105 cohorts involving 750,134 patients were included in this analysis. For the pooled results of cohort studies, EVR markedly decreased the risk of 30-day mortality, wound complication, MACEs, LOS, but increased the risk of OS, FFR, PP, and SP. For the pooled outcomes of RCTs, EVR was associated with obviously lower 30-day mortality, less wound complication and shorter LOS, but higher risk of PP, and SP. However, both RCTs and cohorts did not show obvious difference in 30-day major amputation and AFS. CONCLUSIONS: Both the pooled results of cohorts and RCTs indicated that EVR was associated with a lower short-term risk for LEAD, while OSR was accompanied by a substantially lower long-term risk. Therefore, the life expectancy of LEAD should be strictly considered when choosing the revascularization modality. As the current findings mainly based on data of retrospective cohort studies, additional high-quality studies are essential to substantiate these results. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/#recordDetails, identifier CRD42022317239.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10405177
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-104051772023-08-08 Endovascular revascularization vs. open surgical revascularization for patients with lower extremity artery disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis Shu, Hongxin Xiong, Xiaowei Chen, Xiaomei Sun, Xiaolei Zhang, Rong Wang, Ruihua Huang, Qun Zhu, Jun Front Cardiovasc Med Cardiovascular Medicine BACKGROUND: Currently, the main treatment for lower extremity artery disease (LEAD) is revascularization, including endovascular revascularization (EVR) and open surgical revascularization (OSR), but the specific revascularization strategy for LEAD is controversial. This review provided the comprehensive and recent evidence for the treatment of LEAD. METHODS: Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Library databases were searched for relevant articles. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies comparing the short-term or long-term outcomes between EVR and OSR of LEAD were identified. Short-term outcomes were 30-day mortality, major amputation, wound complication, major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs), and length of hospital stay (LOS), while long-term outcomes included overall survival (OS), amputation-free survival (AFS), freedom from re-intervention (FFR), primary patency (PP), and secondary patency (SP). RESULTS: 11 RCTs and 105 cohorts involving 750,134 patients were included in this analysis. For the pooled results of cohort studies, EVR markedly decreased the risk of 30-day mortality, wound complication, MACEs, LOS, but increased the risk of OS, FFR, PP, and SP. For the pooled outcomes of RCTs, EVR was associated with obviously lower 30-day mortality, less wound complication and shorter LOS, but higher risk of PP, and SP. However, both RCTs and cohorts did not show obvious difference in 30-day major amputation and AFS. CONCLUSIONS: Both the pooled results of cohorts and RCTs indicated that EVR was associated with a lower short-term risk for LEAD, while OSR was accompanied by a substantially lower long-term risk. Therefore, the life expectancy of LEAD should be strictly considered when choosing the revascularization modality. As the current findings mainly based on data of retrospective cohort studies, additional high-quality studies are essential to substantiate these results. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/#recordDetails, identifier CRD42022317239. Frontiers Media S.A. 2023-07-24 /pmc/articles/PMC10405177/ /pubmed/37554365 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fcvm.2023.1223841 Text en © 2023 Shu, Xiong, Chen, Sun, Zhang, Wang, Huang and Zhu. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
spellingShingle Cardiovascular Medicine
Shu, Hongxin
Xiong, Xiaowei
Chen, Xiaomei
Sun, Xiaolei
Zhang, Rong
Wang, Ruihua
Huang, Qun
Zhu, Jun
Endovascular revascularization vs. open surgical revascularization for patients with lower extremity artery disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title Endovascular revascularization vs. open surgical revascularization for patients with lower extremity artery disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_full Endovascular revascularization vs. open surgical revascularization for patients with lower extremity artery disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_fullStr Endovascular revascularization vs. open surgical revascularization for patients with lower extremity artery disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_full_unstemmed Endovascular revascularization vs. open surgical revascularization for patients with lower extremity artery disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_short Endovascular revascularization vs. open surgical revascularization for patients with lower extremity artery disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_sort endovascular revascularization vs. open surgical revascularization for patients with lower extremity artery disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis
topic Cardiovascular Medicine
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10405177/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37554365
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fcvm.2023.1223841
work_keys_str_mv AT shuhongxin endovascularrevascularizationvsopensurgicalrevascularizationforpatientswithlowerextremityarterydiseaseasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT xiongxiaowei endovascularrevascularizationvsopensurgicalrevascularizationforpatientswithlowerextremityarterydiseaseasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT chenxiaomei endovascularrevascularizationvsopensurgicalrevascularizationforpatientswithlowerextremityarterydiseaseasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT sunxiaolei endovascularrevascularizationvsopensurgicalrevascularizationforpatientswithlowerextremityarterydiseaseasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT zhangrong endovascularrevascularizationvsopensurgicalrevascularizationforpatientswithlowerextremityarterydiseaseasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT wangruihua endovascularrevascularizationvsopensurgicalrevascularizationforpatientswithlowerextremityarterydiseaseasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT huangqun endovascularrevascularizationvsopensurgicalrevascularizationforpatientswithlowerextremityarterydiseaseasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT zhujun endovascularrevascularizationvsopensurgicalrevascularizationforpatientswithlowerextremityarterydiseaseasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis