ArticleJournal of vascular surgery2012
Outcomes and practice patterns in patients undergoing lower extremity bypass.
Article in Journal of vascular surgery, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 47 citations in OpenAlex.
- Quantifying the risk-adjusted hospital costs of postoperative complications after lower extremity bypass in patients with claudication.Journal of vascular surgery · 2021Article
- Major adverse limb events and major adverse cardiac events after contemporary lower extremity bypass and infrainguinal endovascular intervention in patients with claudication.Journal of vascular surgery · 2018Article
- Lower extremity bypass for critical limb ischemia decreases major adverse limb events with equivalent cardiac risk compared with endovascular intervention.Journal of vascular surgery · 2017Article
- Perioperative outcomes of infrainguinal bypass surgery in patients with and without prior revascularization.Journal of vascular surgery · 2017Article
- Effectiveness of a Medical vs Revascularization Intervention for Intermittent Leg Claudication Based on Patient-Reported Outcomes.JAMA surgery · 2016Article
- AG490 suppresses EPO-mediated activation of JAK2-STAT but enhances blood flow recovery in rats with critical limb ischemia.Journal of inflammation (London, England) · 2016Article
- Growing impact of restenosis on the surgical treatment of peripheral arterial disease.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2013Observational
- Treatment of infrapopliteal critical limb ischemia in 2013: the wound perfusion approach.Current cardiology reports · 2013Review
- Results of peripheral bypass surgery in patients with critical limb ischemia (CRITISCH registry).Gefasschirurgie : Zeitschrift fur vaskulare und endovaskulare Chirurgie : Organ der Deutschen und der Osterreichischen Gesellschaft fur Gefasschirurgie unter Mitarbeit der Schweizerischen Gesellschaft fur GefasschirurgieArticle
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe appropriate application of endovascular intervention vs bypass for both critical limb ischemia (CLI) and intermittent claudication (IC) remains controversial, and outcomes from large, contemporary series are critical to help inform treatment decisions. Therefore, we sought to define the early and 1-year outcomes of lower extremity bypass (LEB) in a large, multicenter regional cohort, and analyze trends in the use of LEB with or without prior endovascular interventions.
methodsThe Vascular Study Group of New England database was used to identify all infrainguinal LEB procedures performed between 2003 and 2009. The primary study endpoint was 1-year amputation-free survival (AFS). Secondary endpoints included in-hospital mortality and morbidity, including major adverse cardiac events. Trend analyses were conducted to identify annual trends in the proportion of LEBs performed for an indication of IC, in-hospital outcomes, including mortality and morbidity, and 1-year outcomes, including AFS. Analyses were performed on the entire cohort and then stratified by indication.
resultsBetween 2003 and 2009, 2907 patients were identified who underwent LEBs (72% for CLI; 28% for IC). The proportion that underwent LEB for IC increased significantly over the study period (from 19% to 31%; P < .0001). There was a significant increase over time in the proportion of LEBs performed after a previous endovascular intervention among both CLIs (from 11% to 24%; P < .0001) and ICs (from 13% to 23%; P = .02). Neither in-hospital mortality nor cardiac event rates changed significantly among either group. There was no significant change in 1-year AFS in patients with IC (97% in 2003 and 98% in 2008; P for trend .63) or in patients with CLI (73% in 2003 and 81% in 2008; P = .10).
conclusionsOver the last 7 years, significant changes in patient selection for LEBs have occurred in New England. The proportion of LEBs performed for ICs as opposed to CLIs has increased. Patients are much more likely to have undergone prior endovascular interventions before undergoing a bypass. In-hospital and 1-year outcomes after LEB for both IC and CLI have remained excellent with no significant changes in AFS.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.