↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Bypass surgery for chronic lower limb ischaemia

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (73rd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
12 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
40 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
262 Mendeley
Title
Bypass surgery for chronic lower limb ischaemia
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2017
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd002000.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

George A Antoniou, George S Georgiadis, Stavros A Antoniou, Ragai R Makar, Jonathan D Smout, Francesco Torella

Abstract

Bypass surgery is one of the mainstay treatments for patients with critical lower limb ischaemia (CLI). This is the second update of the review first published in 2000. To assess the effects of bypass surgery in patients with chronic lower limb ischaemia. For this update, the Cochrane Vascular Group searched its trials register (last searched October 2016) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in the Cochrane Library (last searched Issue 9, 2016). We selected randomised controlled trials of bypass surgery versus control or any other treatment. The primary outcome parameters were defined as early postoperative non-thrombotic complications, procedural mortality, clinical improvement, amputation, primary patency, and mortality within follow-up. For the update, two review authors extracted data and assessed trial quality. We analysed data using odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We applied fixed-effect or random-effects models. We selected 11 trials reporting a total of 1486 participants. Six trials compared bypass surgery with percutaneous transluminal angioplasty (PTA), and one each with remote endarterectomy, thromboendarterectomy, thrombolysis, exercise, and spinal cord stimulation. The quality of the evidence for the most important outcomes of bypass surgery versus PTA was high except for clinical improvement and primary patency. We judged the quality of evidence for clinical improvement to be low, due to heterogeneity between the studies and the fact that this was a subjective outcome assessment and, therefore, at risk of detection bias. We judged the quality of evidence for primary patency to be moderate due heterogeneity between the studies. For the remaining comparisons, the evidence was limited. For several outcomes, the CIs were wide.Comparing bypass surgery with PTA revealed a possible increase in early postinterventional non-thrombotic complications (OR 1.29, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.73; six studies; 1015 participants) with bypass surgery, but bypass surgery was associated with higher technical success rates (OR 2.26, 95% CI 1.49 to 3.44; five studies; 913 participants). Analyses by different clinical severity of disease (intermittent claudication (IC) or CLI) revealed that peri-interventional complications occurred more frequently in participants with CLI undergoing bypass surgery than PTA (OR 1.57, 95% CI 1.09 to 2.24). No differences in periprocedural mortality were identified (OR 1.67, 95% CI 0.66 to 4.19; five studies; 913 participants). The primary patency rate at one year was higher after bypass surgery than after PTA (OR 1.94, 95% CI 1.20 to 3.14; four studies; 300 participants), but this difference was not shown at four years (OR 1.15, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.78; two studies; 363 participants). No differences in clinical improvement (OR 0.65, 95% CI 0.03 to 14.52; two studies; 154 participants), amputation rates (OR 1.24, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.87; five studies; 752 participants), reintervention rates (OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.37; three studies; 256 participants), or mortality within the follow-up period (OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.25; five studies; 961 participants) between surgical and endovascular treatment were identified. No differences in subjective outcome parameters, indicated by quality of life and physical and psychosocial well-being, were reported. The hospital stay for the index procedure was reported to be longer in participants undergoing bypass surgery than in those treated with PTA.In the single study (116 participants) comparing bypass surgery with remote endarterectomy of the superficial femoral artery, the frequency of early postinterventional non-thrombotic complications was similar in the treatment groups (OR 1.11, 95% CI 0.53 to 2.34). No mortality within 30 days of the index treatment or during stay in hospital in either group was recorded. No differences were identified in patency (OR 1.66, 95% CI 0.79 to 3.46), amputation (OR 1.70, 95% CI 0.27 to 10.58), and mortality rates within the follow-up period (OR 1.66, 95% CI 0.61 to 4.48). Information regarding clinical improvement was unavailable.No differences in major complications (OR 0.66, 95% CI 0.34 to 1.31) or mortality (OR 2.09, 95% CI 0.67 to 6.44) within 30 days of treatment between surgery and thrombolysis (one study, 237 participants) for chronic lower limb ischaemia were identified. The amputation rate was lower after bypass surgery (OR 0.10, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.80). No differences in late mortality were found (OR 1.56, 95% CI 0.71 to 3.44). No data regarding patency rates and clinical improvement were reported.Technical success resulting in blood flow restoration was higher after bypass surgery than thromboendarterectomy for aorto-iliac occlusive disease (one study, 43 participants) (OR 0.01, 95% CI 0 to 0.17). The periprocedural mortality (OR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.65), follow-up mortality (OR 3.29, 95% CI 0.13 to 85.44), and amputation rates (OR 0.47, 95% CI 0.08 to 2.91) did not differ between treatments. Clinical improvement and patency rates were not reported.Comparing surgery and exercise (one study, 75 participants) did not identify differences in early postinterventional complications (OR 7.45, 95% CI 0.40 to 137.76) and mortality (OR 1.55, 95% CI 0.06 to 39.31). The remaining primary outcomes were not reported. There was no difference in maximal walking time between exercise and surgery (1.66 min, 95% CI -1.23 to 4.55).Regarding comparisons of bypass surgery with spinal cord stimulation for CLI, there was no difference in amputation rates after 12 months of follow-up (OR 4.00, 95% CI 0.25 to 63.95; one study, 12 participants). The remaining primary outcome parameters were not reported. There is limited high quality evidence for the effectiveness of bypass surgery compared with other treatments; no studies compared bypass to optimal medical treatment. Our analysis has shown that PTA is associated with decreased peri-interventional complications in participants treated for CLI and shorter hospital stay compared with bypass surgery. Surgical treatment seems to confer improved patency rates up to one year. Endovascular treatment may be advisable in patients with significant comorbidity, rendering them high risk surgical candidates. No solid conclusions can be drawn regarding comparisons of bypass surgery with other treatments because of the paucity of available evidence. Further large trials evaluating the impact of anatomical location and extent of disease and clinical severity are required.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 262 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 <1%
Unknown 260 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 55 21%
Student > Bachelor 30 11%
Researcher 29 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 19 7%
Other 59 23%
Unknown 50 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 109 42%
Nursing and Health Professions 36 14%
Psychology 10 4%
Social Sciences 8 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 2%
Other 29 11%
Unknown 65 25%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 03 July 2017.
All research outputs
#3,418,603
of 17,413,051 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#6,107
of 11,670 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#72,109
of 273,648 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#160
of 250 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,413,051 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 80th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,670 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.1. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 273,648 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 250 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.