Cited by 114Abdominal vascular conditions and treatmentsPeripheral Artery Disease ManagementVascular anomalies and interventions

A systematic review and meta-analysis of endovascular versus open surgical revascularization for chronic mesenteric ischemia

Open access
Alahdab, Fares, Arwani, Remy, Pasha, Ahmed Khurshid, Razouki, Zayd A., Prokop, Larry J., Huber, Thomas S., Murad, M. Hassan·2018·Journal of Vascular Surgery

Abstract

Background Despite the enthusiasm for endovascular revascularization for chronic mesenteric ischemia (CMI), it is not clear if early benefits offset long-term patency rates. This systematic review aimed to provide an up-to-date comprehensive evidence synthesis evaluating the two approaches. Methods We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Scopus through July 15, 2016, for studies that compared the endovascular with the open surgical approach for revascularization in CMI patients. We conducted a random-effects meta-analysis to pool outcomes of interest across studies. Results We included 100 observational studies (22 comparative, 78 noncomparative; 18,726 patients; mean age, 69 years). Open surgery was associated with a statistically significant increase in the risk of in-hospital complications (relative risk [RR], 2.2; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.8-2.6) and a nonsignificant increase in mortality at 30 days (RR, 1.57; 95% CI, 0.84-2.93). Open surgery was associated with lower risk of 3-year recurrence rates (RR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.34-0.66) and a similar 3-year survival. Data from noncomparative studies provided similar inferences. The quality of evidence was low. Conclusions Observational evidence suggests that the endovascular approach for revascularization in patients with CMI may offer better early outcomes than open surgery, although this effect may not be durable. Long-term mortality appears to be similar.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jvs.2017.12.046

Cites

26 of 26 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Alahdab, F., Arwani, R., Pasha, A. K., Razouki, Z. A., Prokop, L. J., Huber, T. S., & Murad, M. H.
Affiliations
  • Mayo Clinic (US)
  • Ain Shams University (EG)
  • University of Florida Health (US)
Corresponding author
Murad, M. Hassan
Venue
Journal of Vascular Surgery
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2018-05
Volume
67
Issue
5
Pages
1598-1605
ISSN
0741-5214 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2791789420
Cited by
114
References
26
Citations by year
2026: 15 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 3
FWCI
2.11
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 › Surgery › Peripheral Artery Disease Management
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Vascular anomalies and interventions
Keywords
chronic mesenteric ischemia, endovascular revascularization, open surgical revascularization, mesenteric artery stenosis, in-hospital complications, 30-day mortality, recurrence, long-term survival, graft patency
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Child, Chronic Disease, Female, Humans, Male, Mesenteric Vascular Occlusion, Middle Aged, Recurrence, Risk Factors, Splanchnic Circulation, Time Factors, Vascular Patency, Vascular Surgical Procedures, Odds Ratio, Treatment Outcome, Young Adult, Endovascular Procedures, 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.

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