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

Background: The purpose of this study is to compare the clinical outcomes of endovascular versus open revascularization for chronic mesenteric ischemia (CMI). Methods: Published studies that investigated endovascular versus open revascularization for CMI were identified, and meta-analysis was used for statistical analysis. Results: Eight 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). Conclusion: Endovascular 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.