@article{CDT14445,
author = {Tariq H. Enezate and Jad Omran and Ehtisham Mahmud and Mitul Patel and Mazen S. Abu-Fadel and Christopher J. White and Ashraf S. Al-Dadah},
title = {Endovascular versus surgical treatment for acute limb ischemia: a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials},
journal = {Cardiovascular Diagnosis and Therapy},
volume = {7},
number = {3},
year = {2017},
keywords = {},
abstract = {Background: A number of small studies have suggested that outcomes following endovascular (ENDO) therapy are comparable to those following surgical (SURG) revascularization for patients presenting with acute limb ischemia (ALI). We sought to compare mortality, limb amputation and recurrent ischemia across both revascularization strategies.
Methods: A comprehensive database search of MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) electronic databases from January 1990 through January 2016 was performed to identify studies of ENDO versus SURG for ALI. Two independent reviewers selected studies and extracted the data. Random-effects meta-analysis was used to pool results across studies. Heterogeneity of treatment effect among trials was assessed using the I2 statistics. The primary endpoints were mortality and limb amputation at 1 month, 6 and 12 months. Secondary endpoint was recurrent ischemia at one year.
Results: A total of 1,773 patients were included from six studies (five randomized prospective and one observational retrospective) comparing ENDO and SURG in the setting of ALI. The mean age was 67 years and 65% of patients were male. There were no differences in mortality between the two groups at 1 month [risk ratio (RR) for ENDO vs. SURG is 0.70; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.33 to 1.50], 6 months (RR 1.12; CI, 0.78 to 1.61) or 12 months (RR 0.74; CI, 0.29 to 1.85). Similarly, there was no significant difference in amputation rates between ENDO and SURG at 1 month (RR 0.75; CI, 0.40 to 1.42), 6 months (RR 0.87; CI, 0.52 to 1.48) or 12 months (RR 0.81; CI, 0.55 to 1.18). When looking into secondary outcomes, recurrent ischemia was not different between the two groups (RR 1.12; CI, 0.75 to 1.67).
Conclusions: In patients presenting with ALI (},
issn = {2223-3660}, url = {https://cdt.amegroups.org/article/view/14445}
}