Management of acute mesenteric ischaemia in adult patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract

Background: Guidance on managing acute mesenteric ischaemia (AMI) is largely based on expert opinion and retrospective studies pooling different subtypes of AMI. In clinical practice, management strategy is often selected based on the patient’s severity of illness, whereas randomized controlled trials or even adjusted analyses comparing different strategies are rarely available. We aimed to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis on the effect of different management options when adjusted for the baseline severity of illness. Methods: A literature search was performed in PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science and Scopus. Studies recruiting patients after the year 2000, assessing at least 10 adult patients with reliably confirmed AMI, and comparing different management approaches were considered for inclusion. Thirteen study questions on different management strategies in different subtypes of AMI were formulated a priori. We included studies reporting results of adjusted analyses or reporting any variables reflecting the severity of illness in both study groups under comparison. Results: A total of 3324 publications were identified, 321 were selected for full-text review and 31 included in the review and analysis. Most of the studies comparing different management strategies of AMI did not report the severity of illness in the groups under comparison. Any variable that could be considered to reflect the severity of illness was reported in 26 studies. The available data only allowed one meta-regression analysis comparing initial endovascular revascularization versus open surgery in arterial occlusive AMI, including four studies that reported white blood cell count and lactate. The results indicate that the significant advantage of the endovascular approach suggested in the crude analysis may be abolished when adjusting for the severity of the illness. Narrative summaries and raw data are presented for other research questions. Conclusions: The severity of illness plays an important role in the selection of management strategy and largely determines the outcome of any treatment, yet is generally not considered in available studies assessing the management of AMI. There is a major gap in the literature precluding appropriate analyses on treatment effects. Future studies should report subtypes of AMI and the severity of illness for each group. Study registration: PROSPERO CRD42024568497, date of registration: July 20th, 2024