Percutaneous Endovascular versus Open Non-Endovascular Treatment for Chronic Mesenteric Ischemia-A Meta-Analysis.

Abstract

Purpose: Aim of this review is to compare pooled data on early and late outcomes between endovascular and open treatment for chronic mesenteric ischemia (CMI).

Materials and methods: The present systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted under the PRISMA guidelines. The following databases were utilized: Pubmed, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane Library. All eligible studies published online up to April 2024 were investigated. Eligible studies should compare early and/or late outcomes between endovascular repair (ER) and open surgery (OS) for CMI. Early outcomes included 30-day mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), pulmonary, gastrointestinal, and renal complications. Late outcomes included all-cause survival, symptom recurrence, and re-intervention.

Results: In total, 15 studies (published from 1995 to 2024) were evaluated (12,326 patients under ER versus 6008 patients under OS). Regarding 30-day outcomes, ER was associated with a lower 30-day mortality risk (pooled OR = 0.58; 95% CI [0.347-0.975]; p = 0.039), a lower 30-day MI risk (pooled OR = 0.59; 95% CI [0.351-0.989]; p=0.045), a lower pulmonary complications risk (pooled OR = 0.18; 95% CI [0.075-0.426]; p=0.0001), and a lower 30-day renal complications risk (pooled OR = 0.28; 95% CI [0.146-0.553]; p=.00002). Regarding late outcomes, ER was associated with a lower overall 5-year survival (pooled OR = 0.414; 95% CI [0.291-0.591]; p < 0.0001). ER was also associated with a higher 3-year symptom recurrence risk (pooled OR = 3.77; 95% CI [2.314-6.142]; p < 0.0001) and a higher 5-year re-intervention risk (pooled OR = 2.40; 95% CI [1.538-3.739]; p=0.0001).

Conclusions: ER is associated with superior early outcomes and worse late outcomes compared to OS among patients treated for CMI.Clinical ImpactThis is the most updated meta-analysis comparing pooled data between percutaneous endovascular repair (ER) and open surgery (OS) for patients with chronic mesenteric ischemia. This review verifies the advantage of endovascular treatment regarding early outcomes. However, this benefit is lost in the long-term as far as mortality and re-interventions are concerned. These findings seem to further support the current endovascular-first approach. One should take into consideration that ER is probably selected for patients of worse clinical status. OS may be more suitable for fitter patients who are not candidates for ER.