ReviewBiomedicines2024
Short-Term Outcomes and Efficacy of Percutaneous Deep Vein Arterialization for No-Option Critical Limb Ischemia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Biomedicines, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Venous Arterialization-Based Extracorporeal Perfusion for Chronic Limb-Threatening Ischemia: A Retrospective Comparative Cohort Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Microvascular distal foot arterialization with flow through free flaps for salvage of the no-option foot.Journal of vascular surgery cases and innovative techniques · 2025Article
- The Immune-Centric Revolution Translated into Clinical Application: Peripheral Blood Mononuclear Cell (PBMNC) Therapy in Diabetic Patients with No-Option Critical Limb-Threatening Ischemia (NO-CLTI)-Rationale and Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPercutaneous deep vein arterialization (pDVA) is considered a treatment modality in patients with no-option critical limb ischemia. However, there is still a paucity of evidence regarding its safety and efficacy. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE (via PubMed), Embase and Web of Science databases as well as the CENTRAL registry up to the end of June 2023.
methodsThis review adhered to the PRISMA guidelines (PROSPERO registration no. CRD42023445171). The risk of bias was assessed using the methodological index for non-randomized studies (MINORS). Primary endpoints included technical success, overall survival and limb salvage during the follow-up. Amputation-free survival at 30 days, 6 months and 1 year as well as complete wound healing, major adverse limb events and reintervention were investigated as secondary outcomes.
resultsFive observational studies, comprising 208 patients (142 Rutherford class 5/77 Rutherford class 6), were included. MINORS revealed a low risk of bias. The meta-analysis reached a pooled technical success rate of 96.2% (95% CI: 91.5-98.4), an overall survival of 82.8% (95% CI: 70.5-95.2) and a limb salvage rate of 77.2% (95% CI: 65.2-89.1) during the follow-up. The amputation-free survival at 30 days, 6 months and 1 year was 87.8%, 68.7% and 65.6%, respectively. Furthermore, pDVA resulted in a complete wound healing rate of 53.4% (95% CI: 30.3-76.5). The pooled reintervention rate was as high as 46.7% (37.1-56.3%).
conclusionsPDVA seems a feasible bail-out strategy for patients with no option for routine treatment of CLTI. However, due to the small number of studies, the strength of the evidence is low.
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.