Comparison of Clinical Outcomes of Endovascular Versus Open Revascularization for Chronic Mesenteric Ischemia: A Meta-analysis

BackgroundThe purpose of this study is to compare the clinical outcomes of endovascular versus open revascularization for chronic mesenteric ischemia (CMI).MethodsPublished studies that investigated endovascular versus open revascularization for CMI were identified, and meta-analysis was used for statistical analysis.ResultsEight studies were analyzed by meta-analysis method, cumulative 569 cases were included. Endovascular treatments were performed in 209 cases, and open repairs were performed in 360 cases. Meta-analysis showed that there was no difference in 30-day mortality and 3-year cumulative survival rate between the endovascular group and the open group (P = 0.55 and P = 0.56); compared with the open revascularization group, the endovascular revascularization group resulted in significantly lower rate of in-hospital complication (P = 0.002), while recurrence rate within 3 years after revascularization was significantly greater in the endovascular revascularization group (P < 0.00001).ConclusionEndovascular treatment offers a benefit of lower in-hospital complication rate, but a greater recurrence rate within 3 years after revascularization compared with the open revascularization, and both groups have similar 30-day mortality and 3-year cumulative survival rate.