Background: Endovascular revascularization (ER) and open revascularization (OR) are recognized treatment modalities for peripheral artery disease, but whether one technique provides better outcomes than the other is unclear, especially in patients with chronic or end-stage renal disease.
Methods: We conducted a systematic literature search on the PubMed, Scopus, and Google scholar databases. We considered randomized-controlled trials, and retrospective record-based and prospective studies for inclusion. All included studies compared patient outcomes between the two management modalities and reported adjusted effect sizes.
Results: We found the risks of in-hospital mortality (OR 0.52; 95% CI 0.30-0.92) and 30-day mortality (OR 0.63; 95% CI 0.49-0.80) during the post-operative period to be significantly lower in patients undergoing ER than in those undergoing OR. The pooled odds of amputation within 30 days of the post-operative period suggested a significantly higher risk of amputation in patients undergoing ER (OR 1.51; 95% CI 1.32-1.73) than in the others. Compared to patients undergoing OR, those undergoing ER had higher odds of being discharged to home (OR 2.30; 95% CI 1.58-3.36), lower odds of wound complications within 24 months of the post-operative period (OR 0.34; 95% CI 0.15-0.79), and a reduced length of hospital stay (WMD - 5.9; 95% CI - 10.8 to - 1.00).
Conclusions: For elderly patients with ESRD and chronic limb ischemia, ER may be the best choice due to its lower risk of mortality, lower odds of wound complications, reduced length of hospital stay, and reduced risk of re-intervention requirement when compared to OR. However, OR should be considered as an option when limb salvage is preferred.
Keywords: Endovascular; Meta-analysis; Renal disease; Revascularization.
© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature B.V.