Meta-analysis of direct surgical versus endovascular revascularization for aortoiliac occlusive disease.

OBJECTIVE: There is a paucity of good-quality evidence comparing direct surgical (DS) with endovascular/hybrid (EVH) revascularization for aortoiliac occlusive disease (AIOD). We aimed to perform a meta-analysis of studies comparing DS and EVH revascularization for AIOD. METHODS: PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE, Cochrane, and Embase databases were searched for studies comparing DS and EVH revascularization for AIOD from 2000 to 2018. Risk of bias assessment was performed using the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies. Demographics, clinical presentation, and comorbidities of the two groups were compared. Kaplan-Meier curves from selected studies were digitized with WebPlotDigitizer. Meta-analysis was conducted using Review Manager, and outcome measures were compared. Subgroup analysis was performed for primary patency in the EVH group. RESULTS: Eleven observational studies were identified comparing a sample of 4030 patients. The median Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies score was 19 of 24. A total of 1679 and 2351 patients underwent DS and EVH techniques, respectively. No significant difference was found between means for sex, claudication, rest pain, tissue loss, preoperative ankle-brachial pressure index, and TransAtlantic Inter-Society Consensus C and D lesions in the two groups averaged across studies. However, the DS group had significantly younger patients (average age, 61.83 vs 66.77; P = .0011). The risk factors of the two groups, such as smoking, diabetes, ischemic heart disease, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, renal failure, and chronic lung disease, were comparable. Average hospital stay was significantly higher for the DS group (7.76 days vs 3.12 days; P = .025). Change in ankle-brachial pressure index, 30-day mortality, and 30-day graft/stent thrombosis were not significantly different for the groups. Overall, primary patency for a median follow-up of 50 months favored the DS group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.51; confidence interval [CI], 0.36-0.73; P = .0002). There was moderate heterogeneity among studies (I2 = 46%). The HR for the subgroup for which endovascular procedures were combined with common femoral endarterectomy was 0.43 compared with 0.88 for endovascular revascularization alone. Limb salvage was similar in both groups (HR, 1.10; CI, 0.74-1.64; P = .63), but overall survival after the procedure favored the DS group (HR, 0.75; CI, 0.60-0.94; P = .01; I2 = 0%). CONCLUSIONS: Moderate-quality studies showed that DS revascularization had significantly better primary patency than EVH revascularization for AIOD, although DS patients were younger and may have differed on other confounding variables. Both techniques had similar limb salvage rates, and the primary patency was better for endovascular revascularization combined with common femoral endarterectomy than for endovascular revascularization alone.

The Effect of Malignancy on Outcomes Following Revascularization for Critical Limb Ischemia: A Case-Control Study.

AIM: Malignancy is common in patients presenting with critical lower limb ischemia (CLI). However, outcomes in patients with concomitant active malignancy and CLI have not been well defined in comparative prospective analyses. Using contemporary prospective data, we aimed to assess outcomes following revascularization in patients with CLI and active malignancy. METHODS: A nested case-control study was performed using data from 2 tertiary referral centers for vascular disease. A total of 48 consecutive patients undergoing intervention for CLI who had a diagnosis of active malignancy were identified and matched to patients with CLI but no malignancy for age, sex, diabetes, and smoking. Patency rates and morbidity/mortality were assessed using duplex ultrasonography and regular clinical review. RESULTS: A total of 48 consecutive patients (median age: 74.5 years; interquartile range: 68-80 years) with active malignancy and CLI were identified and case-matched (age, sex, diabetes, and smoking) to 48 patients undergoing intervention for CLI who had no malignancy. Major cardiovascular risk factors did not differ. All-cause mortality was 23% versus 12% ( P = .41) at 6 months and 54% versus 15% ( P < .001) at 12 months. None of the patients died due to complications relating directly to the lower limb intervention or within 30 days of the intervention. A total of 4 (8.3%) patients had required a major limb amputation at 6 months in both groups, compared with 5 (10.4%) patients with malignancy versus 4 (8.3%) patients without ( P = .73) at 12 months. Patency rates were similar at 12 months (73% vs 80%). Three patients had required reintervention in both groups (endovascular in all cases) at 12 months. CONCLUSION: Revascularization can be offered safely in selected patients with active malignancy; patency rates in those surviving to 1 year are similar to patients without malignancy.