Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37554365›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2023

Endovascular revascularization vs. open surgical revascularization for patients with lower extremity artery disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Hongxin Shu, Xiaowei Xiong, Xiaomei Chen, Xiaolei Sun, Rong Zhang, Ruihua Wang, Qun Huang, Jun Zhu

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Hongxin Shu *The Second Clinical Medical School, Nanchang University, Nanchang, China.
Xiaowei Xiong *Department of Vascular Surgery, The First Hospital of Nanchang, Nanchang, China.
Xiaomei Chen *Department of Nursing, Renji Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China.
Xiaolei SunDepartment of General Surgery (Vascular Surgery), The Affiliated Hospital of Southwest Medical University, Luzhou, China.
Rong ZhangDepartment of Vascular Surgery, Fengcheng Hospital, Shanghai, China.
Ruihua WangDepartment of Vascular Surgery, The Affiliated Chuzhou Hospital of Anhui Medical University, Anhui, China.
Qun HuangDepartment of Vascular Surgery, Shanghai Ninth People's Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China.
Jun ZhuDepartment of Vascular Surgery, Lu'an Hospital of Anhui Medical University, Anhui, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Currently, the main treatment for lower extremity artery disease (LEAD) is revascularization, including endovascular revascularization (EVR) and open surgical revascularization (OSR), but the specific revascularization strategy for LEAD is controversial. This review provided the comprehensive and recent evidence for the treatment of LEAD. Methods: Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Library databases were searched for relevant articles. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies comparing the short-term or long-term outcomes between EVR and OSR of LEAD were identified. Short-term outcomes were 30-day mortality, major amputation, wound complication, major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs), and length of hospital stay (LOS), while long-term outcomes included overall survival (OS), amputation-free survival (AFS), freedom from re-intervention (FFR), primary patency (PP), and secondary patency (SP). Results: 11 RCTs and 105 cohorts involving 750,134 patients were included in this analysis. For the pooled results of cohort studies, EVR markedly decreased the risk of 30-day mortality, wound complication, MACEs, LOS, but increased the risk of OS, FFR, PP, and SP. For the pooled outcomes of RCTs, EVR was associated with obviously lower 30-day mortality, less wound complication and shorter LOS, but higher risk of PP, and SP. However, both RCTs and cohorts did not show obvious difference in 30-day major amputation and AFS. Conclusions: Both the pooled results of cohorts and RCTs indicated that EVR was associated with a lower short-term risk for LEAD, while OSR was accompanied by a substantially lower long-term risk. Therefore, the life expectancy of LEAD should be strictly considered when choosing the revascularization modality. As the current findings mainly based on data of retrospective cohort studies, additional high-quality studies are essential to substantiate these results. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/#recordDetails, identifier CRD42022317239.

Indexed as

endovascularlower extremity artery diseasemeta-analysisopen surgeryperipheral artery diseaserevascularizationsystematic review

Identifiers

PMID37554365
PMCPMC10405177

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.