Meta-Analysis of Randomised Controlled Trials Comparing Bypass and Endovascular Revascularisation for Peripheral Artery Disease

Objective: Peripheral artery disease affects approximately 250 million people globally. Multiple randomised controlled trials have compared bypass and endovascular interventions but the optimum revascularisation approach remains unclear. The recently published BEST-CLI and BASIL-2 trials provide current and robust data addressing this question, however their findings are not concordant. This systematic review and meta-analysis provides an overview of the worldwide randomised evidence comparing bypass surgery and endovascular revascularisation in lower limb peripheral artery disease.

Methods: A comprehensive literature search of MEDLINE, Embase and CENTRAL databases was performed of all time periods up to 7 May 2023 to identify randomised controlled trials comparing bypass and endovascular revascularisation for treating lower limb peripheral artery disease. The primary outcome was major amputation. Secondary outcomes were mortality, re-intervention, 30-day adverse events and 30-day mortality. Odds ratios were calculated and pooled using the random-effects model. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias 2 tool.

Results: Fourteen cohorts were identified across thirteen studies, enrolling 3840 patients. There was no significant difference in major amputation (OR 1.12; 95% CI 0.80-1.57) or mortality (OR 0.96; 95% CI 0.79-1.17) between the bypass and endovascular groups. Bypass was associated with a significant reduction in re-intervention compared with endovascular treatment (OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.40-0.82).

Conclusions: These findings suggest that rates of major amputation and mortality are similar following bypass and endovascular interventions. Patients who undergo bypass surgery have a significantly lower re-intervention rate post-operatively.