TY - JOUR
T1 - Outcomes for Patients With Chronic Limb-Threatening Ischemia After Direct and Indirect Endovascular and Surgical Revascularization
T2 - A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review
AU - Tarricone, Arthur
AU - Gee, Allen
AU - de la Mata, Karla
AU - Rogers, Lee C
AU - Wiley, Jose
AU - Lavery, Lawrence A.
AU - Krishnan, Prakash
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© The Author(s) 2024.
PY - 2024
Y1 - 2024
N2 - Purpose: The purpose of this review and meta-analysis is to determine the clinical outcome differences between patients with chronic limb-threatening ischemia who underwent direct versus indirect angiosome revascularization using either the surgical or endovascular approach. Materials and Methods: The data sources used for article selection included PubMed, Embase/Medline, Cochrane reviews, and Web of Science (All studies were in English and included up to September 2023). All articles included were comparative in design, including retrospective, prospective, and randomized controlled trials that compared the clinical outcomes between direct and indirect angiosome-guided revascularization in chronic limb-threatening ischemia. A random-effects model was used to determine the measure of association between direct revascularization and amputation-free survival, wound healing, and overall survival. Publication bias was assessed with both Begg’s and Egger’s test, and heterogeneity was calculated using an I2. Results: Data from 9 articles were analyzed and reported in this review. Direct revascularization was associated with improved amputation-free survival (odds ratio [OR]=2.632, confidence interval [CI]: 1.625, 4.265), binary wound healing (OR=2.262, CI: 1.518, 3.372), and overall survival (OR=1.757, CI: 1.176, 2.625). Time until wound healed was not associated with either direct or indirect revascularization (Standard Mean Difference [SMD]=−2.15, p=0.11). There was a low risk of bias across all studies according to the RoB 2.0 tool. Conclusion: Direct revascularization is associated with improved amputation-free survival, overall survival, and wound healing in chronic limb-threatening ischemic patients compared to the indirect approach. Clinical Impact: Preservation of the lower extremity is critical for preventing mortality and maintaining independence. The benefit of angiosome-guided revascularization for chronic limb-threatening ischemia remains controversial. The authors of this article aim to review the current literature and compare direct and indirect angiosome-guided intervention for preserving the lower extremity. Current findings suggest direct angiosome-guided intervention reduces amputation rates and improves survival; however, many trials neglect to address the multifactorial approach needed in wound care management.
AB - Purpose: The purpose of this review and meta-analysis is to determine the clinical outcome differences between patients with chronic limb-threatening ischemia who underwent direct versus indirect angiosome revascularization using either the surgical or endovascular approach. Materials and Methods: The data sources used for article selection included PubMed, Embase/Medline, Cochrane reviews, and Web of Science (All studies were in English and included up to September 2023). All articles included were comparative in design, including retrospective, prospective, and randomized controlled trials that compared the clinical outcomes between direct and indirect angiosome-guided revascularization in chronic limb-threatening ischemia. A random-effects model was used to determine the measure of association between direct revascularization and amputation-free survival, wound healing, and overall survival. Publication bias was assessed with both Begg’s and Egger’s test, and heterogeneity was calculated using an I2. Results: Data from 9 articles were analyzed and reported in this review. Direct revascularization was associated with improved amputation-free survival (odds ratio [OR]=2.632, confidence interval [CI]: 1.625, 4.265), binary wound healing (OR=2.262, CI: 1.518, 3.372), and overall survival (OR=1.757, CI: 1.176, 2.625). Time until wound healed was not associated with either direct or indirect revascularization (Standard Mean Difference [SMD]=−2.15, p=0.11). There was a low risk of bias across all studies according to the RoB 2.0 tool. Conclusion: Direct revascularization is associated with improved amputation-free survival, overall survival, and wound healing in chronic limb-threatening ischemic patients compared to the indirect approach. Clinical Impact: Preservation of the lower extremity is critical for preventing mortality and maintaining independence. The benefit of angiosome-guided revascularization for chronic limb-threatening ischemia remains controversial. The authors of this article aim to review the current literature and compare direct and indirect angiosome-guided intervention for preserving the lower extremity. Current findings suggest direct angiosome-guided intervention reduces amputation rates and improves survival; however, many trials neglect to address the multifactorial approach needed in wound care management.
KW - amputation
KW - chronic limb threatening ischemia
KW - diabetes
KW - infection
KW - osteomyelitis
KW - peripheral arterial disease
KW - peripheral vascular disease
KW - revascularization
KW - ulcer
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85191703989&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85191703989&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1177/15266028241248524
DO - 10.1177/15266028241248524
M3 - Review article
C2 - 38687701
AN - SCOPUS:85191703989
SN - 1526-6028
JO - Journal of Endovascular Therapy
JF - Journal of Endovascular Therapy
ER -