Circulation. Cardiovascular interventions · 2020
Endovascular Versus Surgical Revascularization for Acute Limb Ischemia: A Propensity-Score Matched Analysis.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНаблюдательное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Kolte Dhaval, Kennedy Kevin F, Shishehbor Mehdi H, Mamdani Shafiq T, Stangenberg Lars, Hyder Omar N, Soukas Peter, Aronow Herbert D
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The optimal revascularization strategy for acute limb ischemia (ALI) remains unclear, and contemporary comparative effectiveness data on endovascular versus surgical revascularization are lacking.
METHODS: We used the 2010 to 2014 National Inpatient Sample databases to identify hospitalizations with a primary diagnosis of ALI. Patients were propensity-score matched on the likelihood of undergoing endovascular versus surgical revascularization using a logistic regression model. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included myocardial infarction, stroke, composite of death/myocardial infarction/stroke, any amputation, fasciotomy, acute kidney injury, major bleeding, transfusion, vascular complications, length of stay, and hospital costs.
RESULTS: Of 10 484 (weighted national estimate=51 914) hospitalizations for ALI, endovascular revascularization was performed in 5008 (47.8%) and surgical revascularization in 5476 (52.2%). In the propensity-score matched cohort (n=7746; 3873 per group), patients who underwent endovascular revascularization had significantly lower in-hospital mortality (2.8% versus 4.0%; P=0.002), myocardial infarction (1.9% versus 2.7%; P=0.022), composite of death/myocardial infarction/stroke (5.2% versus 7.5%; P<0.001), acute kidney injury (10.5% versus 11.9%; P=0.043), fasciotomy (1.9% versus 8.9%; P<0.001), major bleeding (16.7% versus 21.0%; P<0.001), and transfusion (10.3% versus 18.5%; P<0.001), but higher vascular complications (1.4% versus 0.7%; P=0.002), compared with those undergoing surgical revascularization. Rates of any amputation were similar between the 2 groups (4.7% versus 5.1%; P=0.43). Median length of stay was shorter and hospital costs higher with endovascular versus surgical revascularization.
CONCLUSIONS: In patients with ALI, endovascular revascularization was associated with better in-hospital clinical outcomes compared with surgical revascularization. Contemporary randomized controlled trials are needed to determine the optimal revascularization strategy for ALI.
METHODS: We used the 2010 to 2014 National Inpatient Sample databases to identify hospitalizations with a primary diagnosis of ALI. Patients were propensity-score matched on the likelihood of undergoing endovascular versus surgical revascularization using a logistic regression model. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included myocardial infarction, stroke, composite of death/myocardial infarction/stroke, any amputation, fasciotomy, acute kidney injury, major bleeding, transfusion, vascular complications, length of stay, and hospital costs.
RESULTS: Of 10 484 (weighted national estimate=51 914) hospitalizations for ALI, endovascular revascularization was performed in 5008 (47.8%) and surgical revascularization in 5476 (52.2%). In the propensity-score matched cohort (n=7746; 3873 per group), patients who underwent endovascular revascularization had significantly lower in-hospital mortality (2.8% versus 4.0%; P=0.002), myocardial infarction (1.9% versus 2.7%; P=0.022), composite of death/myocardial infarction/stroke (5.2% versus 7.5%; P<0.001), acute kidney injury (10.5% versus 11.9%; P=0.043), fasciotomy (1.9% versus 8.9%; P<0.001), major bleeding (16.7% versus 21.0%; P<0.001), and transfusion (10.3% versus 18.5%; P<0.001), but higher vascular complications (1.4% versus 0.7%; P=0.002), compared with those undergoing surgical revascularization. Rates of any amputation were similar between the 2 groups (4.7% versus 5.1%; P=0.43). Median length of stay was shorter and hospital costs higher with endovascular versus surgical revascularization.
CONCLUSIONS: In patients with ALI, endovascular revascularization was associated with better in-hospital clinical outcomes compared with surgical revascularization. Contemporary randomized controlled trials are needed to determine the optimal revascularization strategy for ALI.
Предметные рубрики MeSH
Acute DiseaseAgedAged, 80 and overDatabases, FactualEndovascular ProceduresFemaleHospital CostsHospital MortalityHumansInpatientsIschemiaLength of StayMaleMiddle AgedPeripheral Arterial DiseasePostoperative ComplicationsPropensity ScoreRetrospective StudiesRisk AssessmentRisk FactorsTime FactorsTreatment OutcomeUnited StatesVascular Grafting