ReviewCureus2025
Endovascular Versus Open Surgical Approaches for Acute Mesenteric Ischemia: A Systematic Review of Outcomes.
Review in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- The real-world management of acute mesenteric ischemia in Spain: results from a multicenter national survey.European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society · 2026Observational
- Endovascular versus open revascularization for acute arterial occlusive mesenteric ischemia: a retrospective single center analysis.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Acute mesenteric ischemia (AMI) remains a life-threatening vascular emergency, with significant clinical challenges despite advances in diagnostic and therapeutic approaches. This systematic review compared the efficacy and outcomes of endovascular versus open surgical interventions in AMI management. A comprehensive search of PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library was conducted from database inception through February 15, 2025, yielding six retrospective cohort studies that met inclusion criteria. Endovascular intervention was associated with lower in-hospital mortality compared to open surgery in most studies. Patients undergoing endovascular therapy demonstrated significantly lower bowel resection rates and preserved intestinal length. Additional benefits included shorter hospital stays, reduced ICU length of stay, and fewer complications, including acute renal failure and pulmonary complications. However, endovascular approaches were associated with higher reintervention rates. Independent predictors of mortality included elevated lactate concentration, pneumatosis intestinalis, increased white blood cell count, chronic renal insufficiency, and extensive bowel necrosis. Endovascular therapy represents a promising approach for AMI management, particularly in patients without evidence of bowel necrosis at presentation, though careful patient selection and vigilant monitoring are essential due to higher reintervention rates. Prospective studies are needed to better define optimal treatment strategies for different AMI patient subgroups.
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.