Tarricone Arthur, Gee Allen, de la Mata Karla, Rogers Lee, Wiley Jose, Lavery Lawrence A, Krishnan Prakash
Department of Plastic Surgery, The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, USA.
Nova Southeastern University Dr. Kiran C. Patel College of Osteopathic Medicine, Davie, FL, USA.
J Endovasc Ther. 2024 Apr 30:15266028241248524. doi: 10.1177/15266028241248524.
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.
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 I.
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.
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.
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.
本综述和荟萃分析的目的是确定采用手术或血管内方法进行直接与间接血管体血运重建的慢性肢体威胁性缺血患者之间的临床结局差异。
用于文章选择的数据来源包括PubMed、Embase/Medline、Cochrane综述和科学网(所有研究均为英文,截至2023年9月)。纳入的所有文章均为比较性设计,包括回顾性、前瞻性和随机对照试验,比较慢性肢体威胁性缺血中直接与间接血管体引导血运重建的临床结局。采用随机效应模型确定直接血运重建与无截肢生存、伤口愈合和总生存之间的关联度量。使用Begg检验和Egger检验评估发表偏倚,并使用I2计算异质性。
本综述分析并报告了9篇文章的数据。直接血运重建与改善无截肢生存(比值比[OR]=2.632,置信区间[CI]:1.625,4.265)、二元伤口愈合(OR=2.262,CI:1.518,3.372)和总生存(OR=1.757,CI:1.176,2.625)相关。伤口愈合所需时间与直接或间接血运重建均无关(标准均差[SMD]=-2.15,p=0.11)。根据RoB 2.0工具,所有研究的偏倚风险较低。
与间接方法相比,直接血运重建与慢性肢体威胁性缺血患者的无截肢生存、总生存和伤口愈合改善相关。
保留下肢对于预防死亡和维持独立性至关重要。血管体引导血运重建对慢性肢体威胁性缺血的益处仍存在争议。本文作者旨在回顾当前文献,并比较直接和间接血管体引导干预以保留下肢。当前研究结果表明,直接血管体引导干预可降低截肢率并提高生存率;然而,许多试验忽略了伤口护理管理所需的多因素方法。