Surgical and interventional visceral revascularization for the treatment of chronic mesenteric ischemia - When to prefer which?

Matthias Biebl, W. Andrew Oldenburg, Ricardo Paz-Fumagalli, J. Mark McKinney, Albert Hakaim

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

62 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: The purpose of the present study was to compare surgical and endovascular revascularization for chronic mesenteric ischemia (CMI). Methods: Forty-nine patients underwent surgical (SG) or endovascular (EG) treatment. Relief of symptoms was considered the primary endpoint; patency, morbidity, and mortality were secondary endpoints. For statistical analysis, significance was assumed if P values ≤ 0.05. Results: Twenty-six patients (53%) underwent surgical revascularization; 23 patients (47%), endovascular repair. Mean follow-up was 25 ± 21 months (SG) versus 10 ± 10 (EG) months (P = 0.07). Except for body mass indices (SG 18.9 ± 2.7 versus EG 23.6 ± 4.8; P = 0.001), preoperative data were comparable. Freedom from symptoms was 100% (SG) versus 90% (EG) after intervention (P = 0.194), and 89% (SG) versus 75% (EG) at the end of follow-up. Reocclusion or re-stenosis occurred in 8% (SG) versus 25% (EG) (log-rank test: P = 0.003), and mesenteric ischemia developed in 0% (SG) versus 9% (EG) (P = 0.04). Reintervention for CMI was required in 0% (SG) versus 13% (EG) (P = 0.01). Surgical patients experienced more early complications (42% versus EG 4%; P = 0.02) and longer hospital stays (11.6 ± 10.9 days versus EG 1.3 ± 0.5 days; P < 0.001). Overall mortality at the end of follow-up was 31% (SG) versus 4% (EG) (log-rank test: P = 0.08), including all patients with combined open mesenteric and aortic reconstruction (P = 0.001). Conclusions: Surgical treatment has superior long-term patency and requires fewer reinterventions, but it is also more invasive with greater morbidity and mortality compared to endovascular treatment. Endovascular techniques may be preferable in patients with significant co-morbidities, concomitant aortic disease, or indeterminate symptoms.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)562-568
Number of pages7
JournalWorld Journal of Surgery
Volume31
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - Mar 2007

Fingerprint

Morbidity
Mortality
Therapeutics
Aortic Diseases
Endovascular Procedures
Mesenteric Ischemia
Length of Stay
Pathologic Constriction
Body Mass Index

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Surgery

Cite this

Surgical and interventional visceral revascularization for the treatment of chronic mesenteric ischemia - When to prefer which? / Biebl, Matthias; Oldenburg, W. Andrew; Paz-Fumagalli, Ricardo; McKinney, J. Mark; Hakaim, Albert.

In: World Journal of Surgery, Vol. 31, No. 3, 03.2007, p. 562-568.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Biebl, Matthias ; Oldenburg, W. Andrew ; Paz-Fumagalli, Ricardo ; McKinney, J. Mark ; Hakaim, Albert. / Surgical and interventional visceral revascularization for the treatment of chronic mesenteric ischemia - When to prefer which?. In: World Journal of Surgery. 2007 ; Vol. 31, No. 3. pp. 562-568.
@article{2a7324f6c2dc41ce948cd6cd79c6b4cc,
title = "Surgical and interventional visceral revascularization for the treatment of chronic mesenteric ischemia - When to prefer which?",
abstract = "Background: The purpose of the present study was to compare surgical and endovascular revascularization for chronic mesenteric ischemia (CMI). Methods: Forty-nine patients underwent surgical (SG) or endovascular (EG) treatment. Relief of symptoms was considered the primary endpoint; patency, morbidity, and mortality were secondary endpoints. For statistical analysis, significance was assumed if P values ≤ 0.05. Results: Twenty-six patients (53{\%}) underwent surgical revascularization; 23 patients (47{\%}), endovascular repair. Mean follow-up was 25 ± 21 months (SG) versus 10 ± 10 (EG) months (P = 0.07). Except for body mass indices (SG 18.9 ± 2.7 versus EG 23.6 ± 4.8; P = 0.001), preoperative data were comparable. Freedom from symptoms was 100{\%} (SG) versus 90{\%} (EG) after intervention (P = 0.194), and 89{\%} (SG) versus 75{\%} (EG) at the end of follow-up. Reocclusion or re-stenosis occurred in 8{\%} (SG) versus 25{\%} (EG) (log-rank test: P = 0.003), and mesenteric ischemia developed in 0{\%} (SG) versus 9{\%} (EG) (P = 0.04). Reintervention for CMI was required in 0{\%} (SG) versus 13{\%} (EG) (P = 0.01). Surgical patients experienced more early complications (42{\%} versus EG 4{\%}; P = 0.02) and longer hospital stays (11.6 ± 10.9 days versus EG 1.3 ± 0.5 days; P < 0.001). Overall mortality at the end of follow-up was 31{\%} (SG) versus 4{\%} (EG) (log-rank test: P = 0.08), including all patients with combined open mesenteric and aortic reconstruction (P = 0.001). Conclusions: Surgical treatment has superior long-term patency and requires fewer reinterventions, but it is also more invasive with greater morbidity and mortality compared to endovascular treatment. Endovascular techniques may be preferable in patients with significant co-morbidities, concomitant aortic disease, or indeterminate symptoms.",
author = "Matthias Biebl and Oldenburg, {W. Andrew} and Ricardo Paz-Fumagalli and McKinney, {J. Mark} and Albert Hakaim",
year = "2007",
month = "3",
doi = "10.1007/s00268-006-0434-5",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "31",
pages = "562--568",
journal = "Presentations from the 9th Annual Electric Utilities Environmental Conference",
issn = "0364-2313",
publisher = "Springer New York",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Surgical and interventional visceral revascularization for the treatment of chronic mesenteric ischemia - When to prefer which?

AU - Biebl, Matthias

AU - Oldenburg, W. Andrew

AU - Paz-Fumagalli, Ricardo

AU - McKinney, J. Mark

AU - Hakaim, Albert

PY - 2007/3

Y1 - 2007/3

N2 - Background: The purpose of the present study was to compare surgical and endovascular revascularization for chronic mesenteric ischemia (CMI). Methods: Forty-nine patients underwent surgical (SG) or endovascular (EG) treatment. Relief of symptoms was considered the primary endpoint; patency, morbidity, and mortality were secondary endpoints. For statistical analysis, significance was assumed if P values ≤ 0.05. Results: Twenty-six patients (53%) underwent surgical revascularization; 23 patients (47%), endovascular repair. Mean follow-up was 25 ± 21 months (SG) versus 10 ± 10 (EG) months (P = 0.07). Except for body mass indices (SG 18.9 ± 2.7 versus EG 23.6 ± 4.8; P = 0.001), preoperative data were comparable. Freedom from symptoms was 100% (SG) versus 90% (EG) after intervention (P = 0.194), and 89% (SG) versus 75% (EG) at the end of follow-up. Reocclusion or re-stenosis occurred in 8% (SG) versus 25% (EG) (log-rank test: P = 0.003), and mesenteric ischemia developed in 0% (SG) versus 9% (EG) (P = 0.04). Reintervention for CMI was required in 0% (SG) versus 13% (EG) (P = 0.01). Surgical patients experienced more early complications (42% versus EG 4%; P = 0.02) and longer hospital stays (11.6 ± 10.9 days versus EG 1.3 ± 0.5 days; P < 0.001). Overall mortality at the end of follow-up was 31% (SG) versus 4% (EG) (log-rank test: P = 0.08), including all patients with combined open mesenteric and aortic reconstruction (P = 0.001). Conclusions: Surgical treatment has superior long-term patency and requires fewer reinterventions, but it is also more invasive with greater morbidity and mortality compared to endovascular treatment. Endovascular techniques may be preferable in patients with significant co-morbidities, concomitant aortic disease, or indeterminate symptoms.

AB - Background: The purpose of the present study was to compare surgical and endovascular revascularization for chronic mesenteric ischemia (CMI). Methods: Forty-nine patients underwent surgical (SG) or endovascular (EG) treatment. Relief of symptoms was considered the primary endpoint; patency, morbidity, and mortality were secondary endpoints. For statistical analysis, significance was assumed if P values ≤ 0.05. Results: Twenty-six patients (53%) underwent surgical revascularization; 23 patients (47%), endovascular repair. Mean follow-up was 25 ± 21 months (SG) versus 10 ± 10 (EG) months (P = 0.07). Except for body mass indices (SG 18.9 ± 2.7 versus EG 23.6 ± 4.8; P = 0.001), preoperative data were comparable. Freedom from symptoms was 100% (SG) versus 90% (EG) after intervention (P = 0.194), and 89% (SG) versus 75% (EG) at the end of follow-up. Reocclusion or re-stenosis occurred in 8% (SG) versus 25% (EG) (log-rank test: P = 0.003), and mesenteric ischemia developed in 0% (SG) versus 9% (EG) (P = 0.04). Reintervention for CMI was required in 0% (SG) versus 13% (EG) (P = 0.01). Surgical patients experienced more early complications (42% versus EG 4%; P = 0.02) and longer hospital stays (11.6 ± 10.9 days versus EG 1.3 ± 0.5 days; P < 0.001). Overall mortality at the end of follow-up was 31% (SG) versus 4% (EG) (log-rank test: P = 0.08), including all patients with combined open mesenteric and aortic reconstruction (P = 0.001). Conclusions: Surgical treatment has superior long-term patency and requires fewer reinterventions, but it is also more invasive with greater morbidity and mortality compared to endovascular treatment. Endovascular techniques may be preferable in patients with significant co-morbidities, concomitant aortic disease, or indeterminate symptoms.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=33847661033&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=33847661033&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s00268-006-0434-5

DO - 10.1007/s00268-006-0434-5

M3 - Article

C2 - 17334867

AN - SCOPUS:33847661033

VL - 31

SP - 562

EP - 568

JO - Presentations from the 9th Annual Electric Utilities Environmental Conference

JF - Presentations from the 9th Annual Electric Utilities Environmental Conference

SN - 0364-2313

IS - 3

ER -