Objective: Acute mesenteric ischemia is a disease with high morbidity and mortality, and it is traditionally treated with open surgery. Endovascular therapy and hybrid techniques are alternative treatments that are also currently available. We performed a meta-analysis to evaluate the outcomes of the different treatment approaches in the last 20 years. Methods: Studies on acute mesenteric ischemia that were indexed in PubMed, Embase, and MEDLINE databases (from January 1, 2000, to April 1, 2021) were reviewed. All related retrospective observational studies and case series were included. A random-effects model was used to calculate pooled estimates, and the results were reported as proportions and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results: In our study, a total of 2369 patients (in 39 studies) underwent endovascular, open surgery, or retrograde open mesenteric stenting. The pooled mortality estimates for open surgery, endovascular therapy, and retrograde open mesenteric stenting were 40% (95% CI, 0.33–0.47; I² = 84%), 26% (95% CI, 0.19–0.33; I² = 33%), and 32% (95% CI, 0.21–0.44; I² = 26%), respectively. Conclusions: The mortality associated with open surgical treatment, endovascular therapy, and retrograde open mesenteric stenting tend to be similar in the last 20 years.

This study was to analyze the outcomes of left subclavian artery (LSA) revascularization during thoracic endovascular repair (TEVAR) for type B aortic dissections (TBAD). From 2011 to 2017, TBAD patients who underwent LSA revascularization during TEVAR were enrolled. Technical success, endoleaks, mortality, complication, reintervention, and patency of target vessels were analyzed. 38 patients were included, 14 underwent carotid-subclavian bypass (CSB), and 24 underwent chimney graft (CG) implantation. Technical success rates were 92.9% and 100% in CSB and CG group. Eleven immediate type I endoleak (EL-I) was detected, including one from CSB group and ten from CG group. Three immediate type II endoleak (EL-II) was detected in CSB group. Perioperative complications showed no difference, but CSB group had longer intensive care unit (ICU) stay time. Median follow-up time was 26.2 months, and overall mortality was 14.3% and 0% in each group. Three EL-I and one EL-II underwent reintervention. All the LSA showed good patency, except one suffered from CG collapse. Both CSB and CG were feasible strategies to preserve the antegrade blood flow of LSA, and each strategy had its advantages and disadvantages. Based on our current experience, we preferred CG for high-risk patients. However, the evidence was still not strong enough, further well-designed studies are necessary to identify the criteria for LSA revascularization strategy during TEVAR.