Background: For patients with critical limb ischemia (CLI), the optimal treatment to enhance limb preservation, prevent death, and improve functional status is unknown. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the comparative effectiveness of endovascular revascularization and surgical revascularization in patients with CLI.
Methods: We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for relevant English-language studies published from January 1995 to August 2012. Two investigators screened each abstract and full-text article for inclusion, abstracted the data, and performed quality ratings and evidence grading. Random-effects models were used to compute summary estimates of effects, with endovascular treatment as the control group.
Results: We identified a total of 23 studies, including 1 randomized controlled trial, which reported no difference in amputation-free survival at 3 years (odds ratio [OR] 1.22, 95% CI 0.84-1.77) and all-cause mortality (OR 1.07, 0.73-1.56) between the 2 treatments. Meta-analysis of the observational studies showed a statistically nonsignificant reduction in all-cause mortality at 6 months (11 studies, OR 0.85, 0.57-1.27) and amputation-free survival at 1 year (2 studies, OR 0.76, 0.48-1.21) in patients treated with endovascular revascularization. There was no difference in overall death, amputation, or amputation-free survival at ≥2 years.
Conclusions: The currently available literature suggests that there is no difference in clinical outcomes for patients with CLI treated with endovascular or surgical revascularization. There is a paucity of high-quality data available to guide clinical decision making, especially as it pertains to patient subgroups or anatomical considerations.
Copyright © 2014 Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.