Bypass surgery versus endovascular revascularization for occlusive infrainguinal peripheral artery disease: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials for the development of the Italian Guidelines for the treatment of diabetic foot syndrome

To report a review and meta-analysis of all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing bypass surgery (BS) and endovascular treatment (ET) in infrainguinal peripheral arterial disease (PAD) for several endpoints, such as major and minor amputation, major adverse limb events (MALEs), ulcer healing, time to healing, and all-cause mortality to support the development of the Italian Guidelines for the Treatment of Diabetic Foot Syndrome (DFS). A MEDLINE and EMBASE search was performed to identify RCTs, published since 1991 up to June 21, 2023, enrolling patients with lower limb ischemia due to atherosclerotic disease (Rutherford I–VI). Any surgical BS or ET was allowed, irrespective of the approach, route, or graft employed, from iliac to below-the-knee district. Primary endpoint was major amputation rate. Secondary endpoints were amputation-free survival major adverse limb events (MALEs), minor amputation rate, all-cause mortality, ulcer healing rate, time to healing, pain, transcutaneous oxygen pressure (T_cPO₂) or ankle-brachial index (ABI), quality of life, need for a new procedure, periprocedural serious adverse events (SAE; within 30 days from the procedure), hospital lenght of stay, and operative time. Twelve RCTs were included, one enrolled two separate cohorts of patients, and therefore, the studies included in the analyses were 13. Participants treated with ET had a similar rate of major amputations to participants treated with BS (MH-OR 0.85 [0.60, 1.20], p = 0.36); only one trial reported separately data on patients with diabetes (N = 1), showing no significant difference between ET and BS (MH-OR: 0.67 [0.09, 5.13], p = 0.70). For minor amputation, no between-group significant differences were reported: MH-OR for ET vs BS: 0.83 [0.21, 3.30], p = 0.80). No significant difference in amputation-free survival between the two treatment modalities was identified (MH-OR 0.94 [0.59, 1.49], p = 0.80); only one study reported subgroup analyses on diabetes, with a non-statistical trend toward reduction in favor of ET (MH-OR 0.62 [0.37, 1.04], p = 0.07). No significant difference between treatments was found for all-cause mortality (MH-OR for ET vs BS: 0.98 [0.80, 1.21], p = 0.88). A significantly higher rate of MALE was reported in participants treated with ET (MH-OR: 1.44 [1.05, 1.98], p = 0.03); in diabetes subgroup analysis showed no differences between-group for this outcome (MH-OR: 1.34 [0.76, 2.37], p = 0.30). Operative duration and length of hospital stay were significantly shorter for ET (WMD: − 101.53 [− 127.71, − 75.35] min, p < 0.001, and, − 4.15 [− 5.73, − 2.57] days, p < 0.001 =, respectively). ET was associated with a significantly lower risk of any SAE within 30 days in comparison with BS (MH-OR: 0.60 [0.42, 0.86], p = 0.006). ET was associated with a significantly higher risk of reintervention (MH-OR: 1.57 [1.10, 2.24], p = 0.01). No significant between-group differences were reported for ulcer healing (MH-OR: 1.19 [0.53, 2.69], p = 0.67), although time to healing was shorter (− 1.00 [0.18, 1.82] months, p = 0.02) with BS. No differences were found in terms of quality of life and pain. ABI at the end of the study was reported by 7 studies showing a significant superiority of BS in comparison with ET (WMD: 0.09[0.02; 0.15] points, p = 0.01). The results of this meta-analysis showed no clear superiority of either ET or BS for the treatment of infrainguinal PAD also in diabetic patients. Further high-quality studies are needed, focusing on clinical outcomes, including pre-planned subgroup analyses on specific categories of patients, such as those with diabetes and detailing multidisciplinary team approach and structured follow-up.