比较血管内治疗与手术血管重建治疗危重肢体缺血的疗效和安全性:系统回顾和荟萃分析。

Mohamad Riad Abouzid, Ankit Vyas, Ibrahim Kamel, Junaid Anwar, Shorouk Elshafei, Venkat Subramaniam, William Bennett, Carl J Lavie, Chima Nwaukwa, Christopher J White, Rajan A G Patel
{"title":"比较血管内治疗与手术血管重建治疗危重肢体缺血的疗效和安全性:系统回顾和荟萃分析。","authors":"Mohamad Riad Abouzid, Ankit Vyas, Ibrahim Kamel, Junaid Anwar, Shorouk Elshafei, Venkat Subramaniam, William Bennett, Carl J Lavie, Chima Nwaukwa, Christopher J White, Rajan A G Patel","doi":"10.1016/j.pcad.2024.06.008","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Critical limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI) is a severe manifestation of peripheral artery disease (PAD) that can lead to limb amputation and significantly reduce quality of life. In addition to guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT), endovascular therapy and surgical revascularization are the two revascularization options for CLTI. In recent years, there has been an ongoing debate about the best approach for CLTI patients. The purpose of this meta-analysis is to examine the current evidence and compare the clinical outcomes of endovascular therapy and surgical revascularization for CLTI.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a systematic search of electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science) for studies comparing the outcomes of endovascular therapy versus surgery in patients with CLTI. The primary outcomes were major adverse limb events (MALE) and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), while secondary outcomes included risk of bleeding, wound complications, readmission, unplanned reoperation, acute renal failure, and length of hospital stay. Pooled data was analyzed using the fixed-effect model or the random-effect model in Review Manager 5.3. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool were used to assess the bias of included studies.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 16 studies (47,609 patients) were included in this meta-analysis. The overall effect favors surgery over endovascular intervention in terms of MALE [odds ratio (OR) 1.13, 95% CI (1.01-1.28), P = 0.04]. Endovascular therapy is associated with lower MACE rates compared to surgery [OR 0.62, 95% CI (0.51-0.76), P < 0.00001]. Furthermore, the risk of bleeding, wound complications, readmission, unplanned reoperation, acute renal failure as well as the length of hospital stay was lower for endovascular intervention. Finally, there was no statistically significant difference in 30-day mortality between the two groups [OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.79-1.12, P = 0.52; Fig. 3i], and the pooled studies were homogeneous [P = 0.39; I2 = 5%].</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Surgery may be the preferred treatment option for CLTI patients, as it is associated with a lower risk of MALE than endovascular therapy. However, endovascular therapy may be associated with a lower risk of MACE and lower rates of bleeding, wound complications, readmission, unplanned reoperation, acute renal failure, and shorter hospital stays. There was no statistically significant difference in 30-day mortality between the two groups. Ultimately, the decision to use endovascular therapy or surgery as the primary treatment strategy should be based on a multi-disciplinary team approach with careful consideration of patient characteristics and anatomy.</p>","PeriodicalId":94178,"journal":{"name":"Progress in cardiovascular diseases","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparing the efficacy and safety of endovascular therapy versus surgical revascularization for critical limb-threatening ischemia: A systematic review and Meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Mohamad Riad Abouzid, Ankit Vyas, Ibrahim Kamel, Junaid Anwar, Shorouk Elshafei, Venkat Subramaniam, William Bennett, Carl J Lavie, Chima Nwaukwa, Christopher J White, Rajan A G Patel\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.pcad.2024.06.008\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Critical limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI) is a severe manifestation of peripheral artery disease (PAD) that can lead to limb amputation and significantly reduce quality of life. In addition to guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT), endovascular therapy and surgical revascularization are the two revascularization options for CLTI. In recent years, there has been an ongoing debate about the best approach for CLTI patients. The purpose of this meta-analysis is to examine the current evidence and compare the clinical outcomes of endovascular therapy and surgical revascularization for CLTI.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a systematic search of electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science) for studies comparing the outcomes of endovascular therapy versus surgery in patients with CLTI. The primary outcomes were major adverse limb events (MALE) and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), while secondary outcomes included risk of bleeding, wound complications, readmission, unplanned reoperation, acute renal failure, and length of hospital stay. Pooled data was analyzed using the fixed-effect model or the random-effect model in Review Manager 5.3. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool were used to assess the bias of included studies.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 16 studies (47,609 patients) were included in this meta-analysis. The overall effect favors surgery over endovascular intervention in terms of MALE [odds ratio (OR) 1.13, 95% CI (1.01-1.28), P = 0.04]. Endovascular therapy is associated with lower MACE rates compared to surgery [OR 0.62, 95% CI (0.51-0.76), P < 0.00001]. Furthermore, the risk of bleeding, wound complications, readmission, unplanned reoperation, acute renal failure as well as the length of hospital stay was lower for endovascular intervention. Finally, there was no statistically significant difference in 30-day mortality between the two groups [OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.79-1.12, P = 0.52; Fig. 3i], and the pooled studies were homogeneous [P = 0.39; I2 = 5%].</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Surgery may be the preferred treatment option for CLTI patients, as it is associated with a lower risk of MALE than endovascular therapy. However, endovascular therapy may be associated with a lower risk of MACE and lower rates of bleeding, wound complications, readmission, unplanned reoperation, acute renal failure, and shorter hospital stays. There was no statistically significant difference in 30-day mortality between the two groups. Ultimately, the decision to use endovascular therapy or surgery as the primary treatment strategy should be based on a multi-disciplinary team approach with careful consideration of patient characteristics and anatomy.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":94178,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Progress in cardiovascular diseases\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Progress in cardiovascular diseases\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pcad.2024.06.008\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Progress in cardiovascular diseases","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pcad.2024.06.008","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

导言:危重肢体缺血(CLTI)是外周动脉疾病(PAD)的一种严重表现,可导致肢体截肢并显著降低生活质量。除指南指导的药物治疗(GDMT)外,血管内治疗和手术血管重建是治疗 CLTI 的两种血管重建方案。近年来,关于 CLTI 患者的最佳治疗方法一直存在争议。本荟萃分析的目的是研究现有证据,并比较血管内治疗和手术血管重建治疗 CLTI 的临床效果:我们对电子数据库(PubMed、Embase、Cochrane Library 和 Web of Science)进行了系统性检索,比较了血管内治疗与手术治疗 CLTI 患者的疗效。主要结果是肢体主要不良事件(MALE)和心血管主要不良事件(MACE),次要结果包括出血风险、伤口并发症、再入院、计划外再次手术、急性肾功能衰竭和住院时间。汇总数据使用Review Manager 5.3中的固定效应模型或随机效应模型进行分析。采用纽卡斯尔-渥太华量表和 Cochrane 偏倚风险评估工具评估纳入研究的偏倚:本荟萃分析共纳入16项研究(47 609名患者)。就MALE而言,手术治疗优于血管内介入治疗[几率比(OR)1.13,95% CI (1.01-1.28),P = 0.04]。与手术相比,血管内治疗的 MACE 发生率更低[OR 0.62,95% CI (0.51-0.76),P 结论:手术可能是CLTI患者的首选治疗方案,因为与血管内治疗相比,手术的MALE风险更低。然而,血管内治疗可能与较低的MACE风险、较低的出血率、伤口并发症、再入院、计划外再次手术、急性肾功能衰竭和较短的住院时间有关。两组患者的 30 天死亡率在统计学上没有明显差异。最终,决定使用血管内治疗还是手术作为主要治疗策略,应基于多学科团队的方法,并仔细考虑患者的特征和解剖结构。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Comparing the efficacy and safety of endovascular therapy versus surgical revascularization for critical limb-threatening ischemia: A systematic review and Meta-analysis.

Introduction: Critical limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI) is a severe manifestation of peripheral artery disease (PAD) that can lead to limb amputation and significantly reduce quality of life. In addition to guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT), endovascular therapy and surgical revascularization are the two revascularization options for CLTI. In recent years, there has been an ongoing debate about the best approach for CLTI patients. The purpose of this meta-analysis is to examine the current evidence and compare the clinical outcomes of endovascular therapy and surgical revascularization for CLTI.

Methods: We conducted a systematic search of electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science) for studies comparing the outcomes of endovascular therapy versus surgery in patients with CLTI. The primary outcomes were major adverse limb events (MALE) and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), while secondary outcomes included risk of bleeding, wound complications, readmission, unplanned reoperation, acute renal failure, and length of hospital stay. Pooled data was analyzed using the fixed-effect model or the random-effect model in Review Manager 5.3. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool were used to assess the bias of included studies.

Results: A total of 16 studies (47,609 patients) were included in this meta-analysis. The overall effect favors surgery over endovascular intervention in terms of MALE [odds ratio (OR) 1.13, 95% CI (1.01-1.28), P = 0.04]. Endovascular therapy is associated with lower MACE rates compared to surgery [OR 0.62, 95% CI (0.51-0.76), P < 0.00001]. Furthermore, the risk of bleeding, wound complications, readmission, unplanned reoperation, acute renal failure as well as the length of hospital stay was lower for endovascular intervention. Finally, there was no statistically significant difference in 30-day mortality between the two groups [OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.79-1.12, P = 0.52; Fig. 3i], and the pooled studies were homogeneous [P = 0.39; I2 = 5%].

Conclusion: Surgery may be the preferred treatment option for CLTI patients, as it is associated with a lower risk of MALE than endovascular therapy. However, endovascular therapy may be associated with a lower risk of MACE and lower rates of bleeding, wound complications, readmission, unplanned reoperation, acute renal failure, and shorter hospital stays. There was no statistically significant difference in 30-day mortality between the two groups. Ultimately, the decision to use endovascular therapy or surgery as the primary treatment strategy should be based on a multi-disciplinary team approach with careful consideration of patient characteristics and anatomy.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Cardiovascular outcomes among giant cell myocarditis compared with cardiac sarcoidosis: A propensity score-matched analysis. Assorted topics III 2024. Of meat & molecules. Safety outcomes of oral anticoagulants in patients with an indication of anti-coagulants after TAVR: A meta-analysis. Cardiovascular-kidney-metabolic syndrome - An integrative review.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1