Cited by 285Abdominal vascular conditions and treatmentsAppendicitis Diagnosis and ManagementIntestinal and Peritoneal Adhesions

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 14 of the 15 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 16 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.

A comparison of endovascular revascularization with traditional therapy for the treatment of acute mesenteric ischemia

Open access

Abstract

Objectives Few centers have adopted endovascular therapy for the treatment of acute mesenteric ischemia (AMI). We sought to evaluate the effect of endovascular therapy on outcomes for the treatment of AMI.Methods A single-center, retrospective cohort review was performed on all consecutive patients with thrombotic or embolic AMI presenting between 1999 and 2008. Patients with mesenteric venous thrombosis, nonocclusive mesenteric ischemia, and ischemia associated with aortic dissection were excluded. Demographic factors, preoperative metabolic status, and etiology were compared. Primary clinical outcomes included endovascular technical success, operative complications, and in-hospital mortality.Results Seventy consecutive patients were identified with AMI (mean age, 64 ± 13 years). Etiology of mesenteric ischemia was 65% thrombotic and 35% embolic occlusions. Endovascular revascularization was the preferred treatment (81%) vs operative therapy (19%). Successful endovascular treatment was achieved in 87%. Endovascular therapy required laparotomy in 69% vs traditional therapy in 100% (P < .05), with a median 52-cm necrotic bowel resected (interquartile range [IQR], 11-140 cm) vs 160 cm (IQR, 90-250 cm; P < .05), respectively. Acute renal failure and pulmonary failure occurred less frequently with endovascular therapy (27% vs 50%; P < .05 and 27% vs 64%; P < .05). Successful endovascular treatment resulted in a mortality rate of 36% compared with 50% (P < .05) with traditional therapy, whereas the mortality rate for endovascular failures was 50%. Endovascular therapy was associated with improved mortality in thrombotic AMI (odds ratio, 0.10; 95% confidence interval, 0.10-0.76; P < .05).Conclusions Endovascular therapy has altered the management of AMI, and there are measurable advantages to this approach. Using endovascular therapy as the primary modality for AMI reduces complications and improves outcomes.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jvs.2010.09.049

Cites

14 of 14 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

0 of 16 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

  • It may state two separate claims as one. 34
  • Probably not a substantial claim. 27
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 1
55 of 55
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The endovascular and traditional treatment groups are comparable enough that the observed differences in outcomes can be attributed to the treatment modality rather than to confounding by baseline characteristics.

    “Multivariate analysis was not used secondary to the overall low number of observed cases within each group.”
    “Using endovascular therapy as the primary modality for AMI reduces complications and improves outcomes.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Acute mesenteric ischemia is relatively infrequent, making it difficult for a single center to accumulate a large experience in a short period.

    “given the relative infrequency of this disease, it is difficult for any one center to obtain a large experience over a relatively short interval.”
  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    There are unidentified cases of acute mesenteric ischemia in which the vascular surgery service did not evaluate the patient.

    “presumably, there are unidentified cases of AMI in which the vascular surgery service did not evaluate the patient.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The variability and error in determining exact etiology is uniform across articles reporting outcomes for acute mesenteric ischemia.

    “However, the variability and error associated with determining the exact etiology is uniform across articles reporting outcomes for AMI.”
4 of 4

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • Renal-failure significance differs between abstract and table

    Major

    The abstract reports P < .05 for the 27% versus 50% acute renal failure comparison, while Table III reports P = .14 for the same comparison.

  • Overall mortality comparison has two P values

    Minor

    The Results text gives P = .10 for the 39% versus 50% mortality comparison, whereas Table III gives P = .15.

  • Confidence-interval lower bounds differ

    Minor

    For the thrombotic AMI mortality odds ratio of 0.10, the abstract gives a confidence-interval lower bound of 0.10, but the Results section gives 0.17. The latter interval also excludes the reported point estimate.

  • Lytic-therapy count and percentage disagree

    Minor

    The discussion says 28 of 56 endovascular patients received lytic therapy. That is 50%, not the stated 48%.

    Reported 48 · recomputed 50

  • Extended-infusion count conflicts with duration percentages

    Minor

    The Results section says 36% received two days of infusion and 5% received three days-about 11 of the approximately 27-28 lytic-therapy patients. The discussion instead says about seven received two or more days.

5 of 5

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 15 references

1 of the 15 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 285

Metadata

Authors
Arthurs, Z. M., Titus, J., Bannazadeh, M., Eagleton, M. J., Srivastava, S., Sarac, T. P., & Clair, D. G.
Affiliations
Cleveland Clinic (US)
Corresponding author
Arthurs, Zachary M.
Venue
Journal of Vascular Surgery
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2011-03
Volume
53
Issue
3
Pages
698-705
ISSN
0741-5214 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2146977838
Cited by
285
References
15
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 23 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 19 · 2019: 25 · 2018: 19 · 2017: 29 · 2016: 18 · 2015: 26 · 2014: 21 · 2013: 19 · 2012: 10
FWCI
17.88
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Vascular Surgery (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Abdominal vascular conditions and treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Emergency Medicine › Appendicitis Diagnosis and Management
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Intestinal and Peritoneal Adhesions
Keywords
acute mesenteric ischemia, endovascular revascularization, mesenteric artery occlusion, bowel resection, in-hospital mortality, acute kidney injury, respiratory failure, surgical treatment
MeSH terms
Aged, Angioplasty, Balloon, Embolism, Female, Humans, Ischemia, Male, Mesenteric Vascular Occlusion, Middle Aged, Ohio, Respiratory Insufficiency, Retrospective Studies, Risk Factors, Thrombosis, Time Factors, Vascular Diseases, Vascular Surgical Procedures, Thrombolytic Therapy, Chi-Square Distribution, Odds Ratio, Treatment Outcome, Hospital Mortality, Embolectomy, Thrombectomy, Risk Assessment, Endovascular Procedures, Vascular Grafting, Acute Kidney Injury, Mesenteric Ischemia

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.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-01, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-01 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

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