ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Acute mesenteric ischemia (AMI) due to a sudden loss or decrease in blood perfusion to the mesentery represents a highly lethal condition. However, the optimal surgical management remains debatable and merits a more clear recommendation based on a higher level of evidence. METHODS: A systematic review of articles published between 2000 and 2013 was performed. Patients were divided into endovascular treatment (ET), open surgery (OS), and hybrid technique (HT) groups. Data of patients' demographics, procedural information, clinical outcomes including mortality, morbidity, primary patency rate, technique success, primary intestinal resection rate, and second-look laparotomy rate, and follow-up were all retrieved. Comparison between the ET and the OS groups was made using 2-sided Student t test and 2-sided χ(2) test or Fisher exact test where appropriate. RESULTS: Twenty-eight articles with a total of 1110 patients were included for the review. The ET group had lower in-hospital mortality and morbidity but similar survival rate during follow-up compared to the OS group. The primary patency rate was higher in the ET group. The overall bowel resection rate was lower in the ET group, and nearly every patient in the cohort who required second-look laparotomy required bowel resection. The HT group seemed to have the lowest mortality and acceptable second-look laparotomy rate and morbidity. Comparison between the HT group and other groups was not possible due to the limited number of cases available for review. CONCLUSION: Endovascular treatment may serve as a first-line therapy for select patients when there is a low suspicion for intestinal necrosis. Open surgery should be reserved for emergency conditions requiring exploratory laparotomy. Hybrid technique may be an especially effective approach for treating AMI, with low morbidity and mortality, although further studies are required comparing it to OS and ET.
Subject(s)
Critical Pathways , Endovascular Procedures , Mesenteric Ischemia/therapy , Mesenteric Vascular Occlusion/therapy , Vascular Surgical Procedures , Acute Disease , Algorithms , Chi-Square Distribution , Endovascular Procedures/adverse effects , Endovascular Procedures/mortality , Humans , Kaplan-Meier Estimate , Mesenteric Ischemia/diagnostic imaging , Mesenteric Ischemia/mortality , Mesenteric Ischemia/physiopathology , Mesenteric Vascular Occlusion/diagnostic imaging , Mesenteric Vascular Occlusion/mortality , Mesenteric Vascular Occlusion/physiopathology , Odds Ratio , Risk Factors , Splanchnic Circulation , Treatment Outcome , Vascular Surgical Procedures/adverse effects , Vascular Surgical Procedures/mortalityABSTRACT
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.