Systematic review and meta-analysis of endovascular treatment for acute mesenteric ischaemia

Introduction Acute mesenteric ischaemia is associated with a significant morbidity and mortality. Endovascular techniques have emerged as a viable alternative treatment option to conventional surgery. Our objective was to conduct a systematic review of the literature and perform a meta-analysis of reported outcomes. Methods Our review conformed to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement standards and the protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42016035667). We searched electronic information sources (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, CENTRAL) and bibliographic lists of relevant articles to identify studies reporting outcomes of endovascular treatment for acute mesenteric ischaemia of embolic or thrombotic aetiology. We defined 30-day or in-hospital mortality and bowel resection as the primary outcome measures. We used the Newcastle-Ottawa scale to assess the methodological quality of observational studies. We calculated combined overall effect sizes using random effects models; results are reported as the odds ratio and 95% confidence interval. Results We identified 19 observational studies reporting on a total of 3362 patients undergoing endovascular treatment for acute mesenteric ischaemia. The pooled estimate of peri-interventional mortality was 0.245 (95% confidence interval 0.197-0.299), that of the requirement for bowel resection 0.326 (95% confidence interval 0.229-0.439), and the pooled estimate for acute kidney injury was 0.132 (95% confidence interval 0.082-0.204). Eight studies reported comparative outcomes of endovascular versus surgical treatment for acute mesenteric ischaemia (endovascular group, 3187 patients; surgical group, 4998 patients). Endovascular therapy was associated with a significantly lower risk of 30-day mortality (odds ratio 0.45, 95% confidence interval 0.30-0.67, P = 0.0001), bowel resection (odds ratio 0.45, 95% confidence interval 0.34-0.59, P < 0.00001) and acute renal failure (odds ratio 0.58, 95% confidence interval 0.49-0.68, P < 0.00001). No differences were identified in septic complications or the development of short bowel syndrome. Conclusion Endovascular treatment for acute mesenteric ischaemia is associated with a considerable mortality and requirement of bowel resection. However, endovascular therapy confers improved outcomes compared to conventional surgery, as indicated be reduced mortality, risk of bowel resection and acute renal failure. An endovascular-first approach should be considered in patients presenting with acute mesenteric ischaemia.