Fu Xiaoyang, Zhang Zhidong, Liang Kai, Shi Shuaitao, Wang Guoquan, Zhang Kewei, Li Kun, Li Weixiao, Li Tianxiao, Zhai Shuiting
Department of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, Henan Provincial Hospital Zhengzhou 450003, China ; Department of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, The Affiliated People's Hospital, Zhengzhou University Zhengzhou 450003, China.
Int J Clin Exp Med. 2015 Jul 15;8(7):10595-602. eCollection 2015.
Background-Critical limb ischemia (CLI) is one of the most severe peripheral artery diseases. Angioplasty and bypass surgery are two major approaches for the treatment of CLI, however, it remains unclear which treatment has better benefit/risk ratio. In this paper, we performed a meta-analysis on the available clinical trials to compare these two approaches in terms of mortality, amputation-free survival, 5-year leg salvage, and freedom from surgical re-intervention. The results of this article will provide evidence based information for clinical treatment of CLI. Method-Randomized clinical trials comparing results between angioplasty and bypass surgery in CLI were identified by searching Pubmed (2000-2014) and EMBASE (2000-2014) using the search terms "angioplasty" or "bypass", "CLI" and "clinical trials". Primary outcome subjected to meta-analysis was amputation (of trial leg) free survival in 5 years. Secondary outcomes were 30-day mortality; mortality, re-interventions and leg salvage in 1, 3 and 5 years. Results-Seven clinical trials were selected for meta-analysis. No significant difference was found in the primary outcome-amputation free survival, between angioplasty and bypass surgery groups. The amputation free survival in 1, 3 and 5 years were 332/498 (66.7%), 169/346 (48.8%) and 21/60 (35%) in angioplasty group, versus 484/749 (64.6%), 250/494 (50.6%) and 46/132 (34.8%), in bypass group, respectively. The 30 days mortality rate was significantly higher in bypass treatment group [79/1304 (6.1%)] than in angioplasty group [30/918 (3.3%) [95% CI 0.55 [0.36, 0.86], P=0.008). However, there was no statistical significance in 1, 3 and 5 years mortality between these two groups. Two clinical trials showed that there was no difference in leg salvage between angioplasty and bypass surgery groups either. In addition, no difference was observed in re-vasculation between the two groups. Conclusion-Angioplasty is non-inferior to bypass surgery in regarding the amputation free survival, re-vasculation, leg amputation and overall mortality. However, angioplasty is safer, simple, and less invasive and less cost procedure. It should be considered as the first choice for feasible CLI patients.
背景——严重肢体缺血(CLI)是最严重的外周动脉疾病之一。血管成形术和搭桥手术是治疗CLI的两种主要方法,然而,哪种治疗方法具有更好的效益/风险比仍不清楚。在本文中,我们对现有的临床试验进行了荟萃分析,以比较这两种方法在死亡率、无截肢生存率、5年肢体挽救率和无需手术再次干预方面的差异。本文的结果将为CLI的临床治疗提供循证信息。方法——通过使用搜索词“血管成形术”或“搭桥术”、“CLI”和“临床试验”检索PubMed(2000 - 2014年)和EMBASE(2000 - 2014年),确定比较血管成形术和搭桥手术治疗CLI结果差异的随机临床试验。荟萃分析的主要结局指标是5年无(试验侧肢体)截肢生存率。次要结局指标包括30天死亡率;1年、3年和5年的死亡率、再次干预率和肢体挽救率。结果——七项临床试验被选入荟萃分析。血管成形术组和搭桥手术组在主要结局指标——无截肢生存率方面未发现显著差异。血管成形术组1年、3年和5年的无截肢生存率分别为332/498(66.7%)、169/346(48.8%)和21/60(35%),而搭桥手术组分别为484/749(64.6%)、250/494(50.6%)和46/132(34.8%)。搭桥治疗组的30天死亡率[79/1304(6.1%)]显著高于血管成形术组[30/918(3.3%)[95%CI 0.55[0.36,0.86],P = 0.008]。然而,两组在1年、3年和5年的死亡率方面无统计学差异。两项临床试验表明,血管成形术组和搭桥手术组在肢体挽救率方面也无差异。此外,两组在血管再通方面未观察到差异。结论——在无截肢生存率、血管再通、肢体截肢和总体死亡率方面,血管成形术不劣于搭桥手术。然而,血管成形术更安全、简单,侵袭性更小且成本更低。对于适合的CLI患者,应将其视为首选治疗方法。