CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 104Abdominal vascular conditions and treatmentsPeripheral Artery Disease ManagementVascular anomalies and interventions

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 33 of the 33 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Intermediate-term outcomes of endovascular treatment for symptomatic chronic mesenteric ischemia

Open access
Peck, Michael A., Conrad, Mark F., Kwolek, Christopher J., LaMuraglia, Glenn M., Paruchuri, Vikram, Cambria, Richard P.·2010·Journal of Vascular Surgery
DOI 10.1016/j.jvs.2009.06.064
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Objective Endovascular therapy for chronic mesenteric ischemia (CMI) has been increasingly utilized. Early outcomes compare favorably with open mesenteric bypass--the current gold standard. The goal of this study is documentation of intermediate-term anatomic and functional outcomes of endovascular mesenteric revascularization for symptomatic CMI. Methods This is a retrospective review of all patients undergoing endovascular treatment of symptomatic CMI from July 2002 to March 2008. Study endpoints included periprocedural mortality, major morbidity, patency, symptomatic recurrence, and survival. Endpoints were analyzed using actuarial methods. Results Sixty-six mesenteric arteries (78.8% stenotic/21.2% occluded) were treated in 49 patients. One or more vessels were treated in each case; however, four mesenteric artery total occlusions (3 SMAs/1 IMA) could not be crossed. Initial symptom relief was noted in 89.8% (n = 44) with no change in 5 patients. Single-vessel treatments were performed in 32 patients (65.3%) and two-vessel interventions in 17 (34.7%). The 30-day mortality rate was 2.0% (n = 1). Major complications occurred in 8 patients (16.3%). The mean follow-up duration was 37.4 +/- 2.98 months (range, 0-66). Restenosis on follow-up imaging occurred in 64.9% (n = 24) of the 37 patients who had radiographic surveillance at a mean follow-up interval of 8.5 +/- 1.9 months and was diagnosed most often by Duplex scan or computed tomographic angiography (CTA). Fourteen patients (28.6%) developed recurrent symptoms with 13 requiring a reintervention. Actuarial 36-month freedom from symptomatic recurrence was 60.9% +/- 9.4%. Two-vessel treatment was protective against symptom recurrence (P = .0014) and reintervention (P = .0060) by univariate analysis. A total of 19 reinterventions were required in 14 patients (28.6%) at a mean of 17 months from the original treatment. Primary patency at 36 months was 63.9 +/- 8.5%. Actuarial survival at 48 months was 81.1% +/- 6.1% with no CMI-related deaths in the study cohort. Conclusion Intermediate (3-year) follow-up indicates that significant restenosis and symptom recurrence are common following the endovascular treatment of symptomatic CMI. Thirty percent of the cohort required a reintervention, one-third of which were conversions to surgical reconstruction. Similar to the surgical paradigm of two-vessel revascularization, endovascular treatment of multiple mesenteric arteries produced better outcomes. A first-line endovascular approach to patients with CMI is a reasonable clinical strategy, but close follow-up is mandatory.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jvs.2009.06.064

Cites

33 of 33 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Show all 33 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Peck, M. A., Conrad, M. F., Kwolek, C. J., LaMuraglia, G. M., Paruchuri, V., & Cambria, R. P.
Affiliations
Harvard University (US)
Corresponding author
Peck, Michael A.
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Vascular Surgery
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2010-01
Volume
51
Issue
1
Pages
140-147.e2
ISSN
0741-5214 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.jvs.2009.06.064
OpenAlex
W2082117389
Cited by
104
References
33
Citations by year
2025: 5 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 10
FWCI
9.13
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Journal of Vascular Surgery (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Abdominal vascular conditions and treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Peripheral Artery Disease Management
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Vascular anomalies and interventions
Keywords
chronic mesenteric ischemia, mesenteric artery stenosis, restenosis, reintervention, symptom recurrence, patency, survival, periprocedural mortality, mesenteric artery occlusion, mid-term outcomes, Doppler ultrasound surveillance, CT angiography
MeSH terms
Aged, Angioplasty, Balloon, Chronic Disease, Female, Humans, Ischemia, Male, Mesenteric Vascular Occlusion, Recurrence, Retrospective Studies, Splanchnic Circulation, Time Factors, Tomography, X-Ray Computed, Vascular Patency, Stents, Proportional Hazards Models, Treatment Outcome, Risk Assessment, Ultrasonography, Doppler, Duplex, Kaplan-Meier Estimate

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review