Purpose: Acute mesenteric ischemia (AMI) is a life-threatening disease that leads to bowel infarction and death. The optimal management of AMI remains controversial. The present meta-analysis aimed to estimate the prognostic impact of surgical (SG) versus endovascular or hybrid intervention (EV) as the first-line treatment for acute arterial occlusive mesenteric ischemia and to assess whether endovascular strategy was actually effective in reducing bowel resection.
Methods: MEDLINE, Scopus and the Cochrane Library databases were searched. There have been no randomized controlled trials comparing SG versus EV for the treatment of AMI. We undertook this systematic review and meta-analysis according to MOOSE (Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology) guidelines, assessing the included study quality with the Newcastle-Ottawa scale.
Results: Seven studies comparing EV versus SG as first strategy for the treatment of AMI were selected for the analyses, reporting of 3020 patients. EV was associated with a reduced risk of in-hospital mortality (RR 0.68; 95% CI 0.59-0.79; fixed-effects analysis; p < 0.0001; I 2 = 4.9%; τ 2 = 0.025). Pooled prevalence of mortality was 19% for EV and 34% for SG. EV also showed a benefit impact on risk of bowel resection and second-look laparotomy.
Conclusions: The present meta-analysis outlines that endovascular revascularization strategy seems to offer advantages in terms of in-hospital mortality and morbidity in case of arterial occlusive AMI. A multidisciplinary team consisting of radiologists, interventional radiologists, cardiovascular and general surgeons comes out to be essential to tailor the right procedure to the patient and improve the outcomes associated with AMI.
Keywords: Acute mesenteric ischemia; First-line treatment; Meta-analysis.