Comparative effectiveness of endovascular and surgical revascularization for patients with peripheral artery disease and critical limb ischemia

Background For patients with critical limb ischemia (CLI), the optimal treatment to enhance limb preservation, prevent death, and improve functional status is unknown. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the comparative effectiveness of endovascular revascularization and surgical revascularization in patients with CLI. Methods We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for relevant English-language studies published from January 1995 to August 2012. Two investigators screened each abstract and full-text article for inclusion, abstracted the data, and performed quality ratings and evidence grading. Random-effects models were used to compute summary estimates of effects, with endovascular treatment as the control group. Results We identified a total of 23 studies, including 1 randomized controlled trial, which reported no difference in amputation-free survival at 3 years (odds ratio [OR] 1.22, 95% CI 0.84-1.77) and all-cause mortality (OR 1.07, 0.73-1.56) between the 2 treatments. Meta-analysis of the observational studies showed a statistically nonsignificant reduction in all-cause mortality at 6 months (11 studies, OR 0.85, 0.57-1.27) and amputation-free survival at 1 year (2 studies, OR 0.76, 0.48-1.21) in patients treated with endovascular revascularization. There was no difference in overall death, amputation, or amputation-free survival at ≥2 years. Conclusions The currently available literature suggests that there is no difference in clinical outcomes for patients with CLI treated with endovascular or surgical revascularization. There is a paucity of high-quality data available to guide clinical decision making, especially as it pertains to patient subgroups or anatomical considerations.