Home > Journals > International Angiology > Past Issues > Articles online first > International Angiology 2021 Nov 09



To subscribe PROMO
Submit an article
Recommend to your librarian


Publication history
Cite this article as



International Angiology 2021 Nov 09

DOI: 10.23736/S0392-9590.21.04791-X


language: English

Critical appraisal of evidence on bypass surgery versus endovascular treatment for intermittent claudication: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Teresa M. LEMOS 1 , Andreia COELHO 1, 2, Armando MANSILHA 1, 3

1 Faculty of Medicine, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal; 2 Department of Angiology and Vascular Surgery, Centro Hospitalar e Universitário do Porto, Porto, Portugal; 3 Department of Angiology and Vascular Surgery, Centro Hospitalar e Universitário de S. João, Porto, Portugal


INTRODUCTION: Intermittent claudication (IC) stage of peripheral artery disease (PAD) is associated with significant impairment of quality of life. In the subset of patients with disabling IC refractory to best medical treatment (BMT), revascularization procedures may be considered. However, evidence comparing open revascularization surgery, endovascular treatment and BMT focussing on the impact on quality of life is very sparse. We aim to review clinical, anatomical and hemodynamic outcomes after bypass surgery compared to BMT and/or endovascular treatment in IC patients.
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: We systematically reviewed controlled trials and comparative cohort studies assessing quality of life, walking performance, clinical/symptomatic improvement, symptom recurrence, patency rates, ankle-brachial index (ABI) improvement and adverse events after bypass surgery versus endovascular treatment/BMT in IC patients.
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Eleven studies involving 16,608 patients were included. Compared to BMT, bypass surgery was associated with a significantly greater improvement on Short-Form 36 (SF-36) physical functioning score (mean difference (MD), -14.0; 95% confidence interval (CI), -21.2 to -6.8), Walking Impairment Questionnaire (WIQ) walking distance score (MD, -0.23; 95% CI, -0.29 to -0.16) and SF-36 bodily pain score (MD, -13.0; 95% CI, -20.2 to -5.8). There were no significant differences between bypass and endovascular treatment regarding the three scores. Bypass surgery presented better primary patency rates at 1 (odds ratio (OR), 0.47; 95% CI, 0.29 to 0.76) and 5 years (OR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.34 to 0.57) and better ABI improvement (MD, -0.07; 95% CI, -0.12 to -0.03) when compared to endovascular treatment. There were no statistically significant differences between bypass and endovascular patients regarding secondary patency rates, 30-day mortality and major amputation.
CONCLUSIONS: Lower limb revascularization may be beneficial in patients with disabling and refractory IC when the primary goal is to improve quality of life and walking capacity. Bypass surgery is associated to better symptomatic status, long-term primary patency and ABI improvement when compared to endovascular surgery, especially in anatomically extensive disease. Further studies addressing patient-reported outcomes and including a BMT group are paramount for more robust evidence on IC treatment and, consequently, better decision making.

KEY WORDS: Intermittent claudication; Surgical procedures, Operative; Endovascular procedures; Conservative treatment; Quality of life

top of page