Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 24, 2026
Comprehensive Endovascular and Open Surgical Management of Cerebral Arteriovenous Malformations
Published on: October 20, 2017
Endovascular revascularization vs open surgical revascularization as the first strategy for arterial acute mesenteric
Yadong Shi1, Boxiang Zhao1, Yangyi Zhou1
1Department of Vascular and Interventional Radiology, Nanjing First Hospital, Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, China.
Objective:
This paired meta-analysis aimed to compare the mortality and morbidity of endovascular revascularization (EVR) and open surgical revascularization (OSR) as the first strategy for arterial acute mesenteric ischemia (AMI).
Methods:
This systematic review and meta-analysis were performed in accordance with the PRISMA statement. A systematic search strategy was performed to identify eligible studies using the following databases: PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library database from inception to December 31, 2023, with restriction to the English language. The end search date was January 2, 2024. The primary outcome was short-term mortality. Secondary outcomes included bowel resection, second-look laparotomy, and short bowel syndrome. The counterenhanced funnel plot and the Peters' test were used to assess bias. Outcomes were reported as odds ratio (OR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) using the Mantel-Haenszel method. The GRADE classification was used to estimate the certainty of evidence.
Results:
A total of 11 studies (1141 patients) comparing EVR vs OSR for arterial AMI were identified and analyzed. The mean patient age was 61.9 to 73.6 years and 45.1% of the patients were male. Compared with OSR, EVR as the first treatment may not decrease short-term mortality (OR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.50-1.25; P = .31; very low certainty) and second-look laparotomy (OR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.30-3.36; P = .99; very low certainty). However, EVR may be associated with decreased bowel resection (OR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.20-0.88; P = .022; very low certainty) and short bowel syndrome (OR, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.21-0.75; P = .005; very low certainty). The metaregression revealed that the mortality regarding EVR vs OSR was not impacted significantly by thrombotic etiology (-0.002; 95% CI, -0.027 to 0.022; P = .85), whereas it was impacted significantly by publication year (0.076; 95% CI, 0.069-0.145; P = .031).
Conclusions:
Compared with OSR, EVR as the first treatment for arterial AMI may not decrease short-term mortality or second-look laparotomy. Future multicenter randomized controlled trials are needed urgently to confirm these results.
