Annals of vascular surgery · 2024
Efficacy and Durability of Percutaneous Deep Vein Arterialization: A Systematic Review.
Систематический обзорСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
So Samuel E, Chan Yiu Che, Cheng Stephen W
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Endovascular deep vein arteriaization (DVA) is a novel technique aimed at salvaging peripheral arterial disease unamenable to conventional surgical intervention. This study aims to review contemporary literature on the efficacy, safety, and durability of DVA on patients with no-option critical limb ischemia (NO-CLI).
METHODS: The study was performed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement, using predefined search terms of "percutaneous deep vein arterialization" or "percutaneous deep venous arterialization" in PubMed, Web of Sciences, OvidSP, and Embase. Only studies with 5 or more patients were included, and studies involving open or hybrid DVA were excluded. The primary outcomes included technical success and primary amputation rates. Secondary outcomes included rates of wound healing, complication, reintervention, and all-cause mortality.
RESULTS: Ten studies encompassing a total of 233 patients were included. Patients were primarily those deemed to have NO-CLI. The median follow-up period was 12 months (range 1-63 months). The technical success rate was 97% (95% confidence interval [CI] 96.2%-97.9%) and the major amputation rate was 21.8% (95% 21.1%-22.4%). The wound healing rate was 69.5% (95% CI 67.9-71.0%), complication rate was 13.8% (95% CI 11.7%-15.9%), reintervention rate was 37.4% (95% CI 34.9%-39.9%), and all-cause mortality rate was 15.7% (95% CI 14.1%-17.2%).
CONCLUSIONS: Our study showed that endovascular DVA is safe for patients with NO-CLI. Nonetheless, studies were small with follow-up period of less than 1 year. There is currently lack of level 1 evidence to recommend routine use in patients with NO-CLI.
METHODS: The study was performed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement, using predefined search terms of "percutaneous deep vein arterialization" or "percutaneous deep venous arterialization" in PubMed, Web of Sciences, OvidSP, and Embase. Only studies with 5 or more patients were included, and studies involving open or hybrid DVA were excluded. The primary outcomes included technical success and primary amputation rates. Secondary outcomes included rates of wound healing, complication, reintervention, and all-cause mortality.
RESULTS: Ten studies encompassing a total of 233 patients were included. Patients were primarily those deemed to have NO-CLI. The median follow-up period was 12 months (range 1-63 months). The technical success rate was 97% (95% confidence interval [CI] 96.2%-97.9%) and the major amputation rate was 21.8% (95% 21.1%-22.4%). The wound healing rate was 69.5% (95% CI 67.9-71.0%), complication rate was 13.8% (95% CI 11.7%-15.9%), reintervention rate was 37.4% (95% CI 34.9%-39.9%), and all-cause mortality rate was 15.7% (95% CI 14.1%-17.2%).
CONCLUSIONS: Our study showed that endovascular DVA is safe for patients with NO-CLI. Nonetheless, studies were small with follow-up period of less than 1 year. There is currently lack of level 1 evidence to recommend routine use in patients with NO-CLI.