Systematic Review and Proportional Meta-Analysis of Endarterectomy and Endovascular Therapy with Routine or Selective
Khalid Hamid Changal1, Mubbasher Ameer Syed2, Tawseef Dar3
1Internal Medicine, Mercy Health St. Vincent Medical Center, Toledo, OH, USA.
Insights
Endovascular treatment with routine stenting (EVT-RS) offers comparable outcomes to common femoral endarterectomy (CFE) for common femoral artery atherosclerotic disease (CFA-ASD). EVT-RS demonstrates lower complication rates and similar long-term patency, supporting its use as an alternative therapy.
Area of Science:
- Vascular Surgery
- Interventional Cardiology
- Atherosclerosis Research
Background:
- Common femoral endarterectomy (CFE) has been the standard treatment for common femoral artery atherosclerotic disease (CFA-ASD).
- Historically, endovascular treatments for CFA-ASD were approached with caution due to concerns about stent durability and future vascular access.
- Recent advancements suggest CFA may be suitable for endovascular interventions, prompting re-evaluation of treatment strategies.
Purpose of the Study:
- To conduct a meta-analysis comparing endovascular treatment (EVT) with CFE for CFA-ASD.
- To evaluate the efficacy and safety of EVT with selective stenting (EVT-SS) and routine stenting (EVT-RS) against CFE.
Main Methods:
- A systematic search of multiple databases identified 28 studies (7 EVT-RS, 8 EVT-SS, 13 CFE) over the past two decades.
- Studies were analyzed based on treatment strategy: EVT-RS, EVT-SS, or CFE.
- Primary outcomes included primary patency (PP), target lesion revascularization (TLR), and complication rates, analyzed using a random-effect model.
Main Results:
- One-year primary patency was 84% for EVT-RS, 78% for EVT-SS, and 93% for CFE.
- One-year target lesion revascularization rates were 8% for EVT-RS, 19% for EVT-SS, and 4.5% for CFE.
- Local complication rates were lower for EVT-RS (5%) and EVT-SS (7%) compared to CFE (22%). Mortality was higher in the CFE group (23.1%) versus EVT-RS (5.3%) at maximum follow-up.
Conclusions:
- Endovascular treatment with routine stenting (EVT-RS) shows comparable one-year primary patency and target lesion revascularization rates to common femoral endarterectomy (CFE).
- CFE demonstrated superior one-year primary patency compared to endovascular treatment with selective stenting (EVT-SS).
- EVT-RS and EVT-SS have significantly lower complication rates than CFE, and EVT-RS presents a viable alternative management strategy for CFA-ASD with comparable long-term patency and lower mortality.
Introduction:
Common femoral endarterectomy (CFE) has been the therapy of choice for common femoral artery atherosclerotic disease (CFA-ASD). In the past, there was inhibition to treat CFA-ASD endovascularly with stents due to fear of stent fracture and compromise of future vascular access site. However, recent advances and new evidence suggest that CFA may no longer be a 'stent-forbidden zone'. In the light of new evidence, we conducted a meta-analysis to determine the use of endovascular treatment for CFA-ASD and compare it with common femoral endarterectomy in the present era.
Methods:
Using certain MeSH terms we searched multiple databases for studies done on endovascular and surgical treatment of CFA-ASD in the last two decades. Inclusion criteria were randomized control trials, observational, prospective, or retrospective studies evaluating an endovascular treatment or CFE for CFA-ASD. For comparison, studies were grouped based on the treatment strategy used for CFA-ASD: endovascular treatment with selective stenting (EVT-SS), endovascular treatment with routine stenting (EVT-RS), or common femoral endarterectomy (CFE). Primary patency (PP), target lesion revascularization (TLR), and complications were the outcomes studied. We did proportional meta-analysis using a random-effect model due to heterogeneity among the included studies. If confidence intervals of two results do not overlap, then statistical significance is determined.
Results:
Twenty-eight studies met inclusion criteria (7 for EVT-RS, 8 for EVT-SS, and 13 for CFE). Total limbs involved were 2914 (306 in EVT-RS, 678 in EVT-SS, and 1930 in CFE). The pooled PP at 1 year was 84% (95% CI 75-92%) for EVT-RS, 78% (95% CI 69-85%) for EVT-SS, and 93% (95% CI 90-96%) for CFE. PP at maximum follow-up in EVT-RS was 83.7% (95% CI 74-91%) and in CFE group was 88.3% (95% CI 81-94%). The pooled target lesion revascularization (TLR) rate at one year was 8% (95% CI 4-13%) for EVT-RS, 19% (95% CI 14-23%) for EVT-SS, and 4.5% (95% CI 1-9%) for CFE. The pooled rate of local complications for EVT-RS was 5% (95% CI 2-10%), for EVT-SS was 7% (95% CI 3 to 12%), and CFE was 22% (95% CI 14-32%). Mortality at maximum follow-up in CFE group was 23.1% (95% CI 14-33%) and EVT-RS was 5.3% (95% CI 1-11%).
Conclusion:
EVT-RS has comparable one-year PP and TLR as CFE. CFE showed an advantage over EVT-SS for one-year PP. The complication rate is lower in EVT RS and EVT SS compared to CFE. At maximum follow-up, CFE and EVT-RS have similar PP but CFE has a higher mortality. These findings support EVT-RS as a management alternative for CFA-ASD.
Related Concept Videos
Peripheral Artery Disease III: Interprofessional Care
Atherosclerosis III: Management
Aneurysm III: Interprofessional Care
Peripheral Artery Disease I: Introduction


