Mid-term outcome of endovascular revascularization for chronic mesenteric ischaemia

29Citations
Citations of this article
26Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Background: This study aimed to assess mid-term outcome after endovascular revascularization of chronic occlusive mesenteric ischaemia (CMI) and to identify possible predictors of mortality. Methods: Consecutive patients undergoing primary elective stenting for CMI between 1995 and 2007 were registered prospectively in a database. Patients with acute ischaemia were excluded. Retrospective case-note review and data analysis were performed. Results: Forty-three patients (10 men) were treated for stable (n = 30) or exacerbated (n = 13) CMI. Their median (interquartile range (i.q.r.)) age was 70 (60-79) years. Revascularization was successful in 47 of 49 vessels. The superior mesenteric artery (SMA), either alone (n = 34) or in combination with the coeliac trunk (n = 6), was the predominant target vessel. No patient died within 30 days. Median follow-up was 43 (i.q.r. 25-63) months and the estimated (s.e.) 3-year overall survival rate was 76(7) per cent. Two patients died from distal SMA occlusive disease and intestinal infarction after 6 and 18 months respectively. Previous stroke (P = 0.016), male sex (P = 0.057) and age (P = 0.066) were associated with mid-term mortality on univariable, but not multivariable analysis. Reintervention was needed in 14 patients, achieving a 3-year cumulative rate of freedom from recurrent symptoms of 88(5) per cent. Conclusion: Endovascular treatment provided high early and mid-term survival rates in this series of patients with CMI, with low complication rates. Copyright © 2009 British Journal of Surgery Society Ltd. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Dias, N. V., Acosta, S., Resch, T., Sonesson, B., Alhadad, A., Malina, M., & Ivancev, K. (2010). Mid-term outcome of endovascular revascularization for chronic mesenteric ischaemia. British Journal of Surgery, 97(2), 195–201. https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.6819

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free