SynthesisInternational urology and nephrology2022
Bypass surgery versus endovascular intervention for lower extremity revascularization in patients with chronic renal disease or end-stage renal disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in International urology and nephrology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEndovascular revascularization (ER) and open revascularization (OR) are recognized treatment modalities for peripheral artery disease, but whether one technique provides better outcomes than the other is unclear, especially in patients with chronic or end-stage renal disease.
methodsWe conducted a systematic literature search on the PubMed, Scopus, and Google scholar databases. We considered randomized-controlled trials, and retrospective record-based and prospective studies for inclusion. All included studies compared patient outcomes between the two management modalities and reported adjusted effect sizes.
resultsWe found the risks of in-hospital mortality (OR 0.52; 95% CI 0.30-0.92) and 30-day mortality (OR 0.63; 95% CI 0.49-0.80) during the post-operative period to be significantly lower in patients undergoing ER than in those undergoing OR. The pooled odds of amputation within 30 days of the post-operative period suggested a significantly higher risk of amputation in patients undergoing ER (OR 1.51; 95% CI 1.32-1.73) than in the others. Compared to patients undergoing OR, those undergoing ER had higher odds of being discharged to home (OR 2.30; 95% CI 1.58-3.36), lower odds of wound complications within 24 months of the post-operative period (OR 0.34; 95% CI 0.15-0.79), and a reduced length of hospital stay (WMD - 5.9; 95% CI - 10.8 to - 1.00).
conclusionsFor elderly patients with ESRD and chronic limb ischemia, ER may be the best choice due to its lower risk of mortality, lower odds of wound complications, reduced length of hospital stay, and reduced risk of re-intervention requirement when compared to OR. However, OR should be considered as an option when limb salvage is preferred.
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.