Systematic review and meta-analysis of endovascular versus open repair for common femoral artery atherosclerosis treatment.

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Encouraging recent reports on endovascular treatment of common femoral artery (CFA) atherosclerotic disease has rendered the question regarding the place of this technique evermore pertinent and legitimizes the performance of randomized trials. The present comprehensive review focused on the early and midterm outcomes to help assess the benefit/risk balance of endovascular vs open repair for CFA treatment. METHODS: Embase and Medline searches were conducted according to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-Analyses) standards to identify studies from 2000 to 2018 reporting on endovascular repair (ER), open surgery (OS), and comparisons of both techniques for CFA atherosclerosis treatment. The outcomes measured were 30-day mortality, morbidity, reintervention rates, midterm patency, late reintervention, and restenosis rates. RESULTS: Twenty-eight studies were eligible 14 OS (1920 patients), 12 ER (1900 patients), and 2 comparative randomized trials (197 patients). The meta-analysis of the comparative studies revealed no differences in 30-day mortality or reintervention rates but improved 30-day morbidity after ER. At 1 year, the primary patency rates did not differ between ER and OS, nor did the late reintervention rate. In the noncomparative studies, with a mean follow-up period of 23.8 months for ER and 66 months for OS, the restenosis rate was 14.4% and 4.7%, respectively. The reported stent fracture rate was 3.6%. In the ER cohort, the overall primary patency at 1, 2, and 3 years was 81.9%, 77.8%, and 75.1%, respectively. For the OS cohort, the overall primary patency rate at 1, 2, and 3 years was 93.4%, 91.4%, and 90.5%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Despite expectations, our analysis of the reported data suggests that the perioperative mortality is not in favor of ER; however, the perioperative morbidity showed an advantage for ER compared with OS. Also, although comparable in the first year, the long-term primary patency rate was much greater after OS. At present, the place of ER for CFA treatment still requires further definition. Additional clarification of the indications and more research are both required to determine the optimal endovascular technology and femoral bifurcation reconstruction with stenting.