Chronic mesenteric ischemia: open surgery versus percutaneous angioplasty and stenting.

OBJECTIVE The aim of the study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of percutaneous angioplasty and stenting (PAS) in comparison with traditional open surgical (OS) revascularization for the treatment of chronic mesenteric ischemia. METHODS Over a 3.5-year period, 28 patients (32 vessels) underwent PAS (balloon angioplasty alone, 5 [18%] of 28; angioplasty and stenting, 23 [82%] of 28) for symptoms of chronic mesenteric ischemia. These patients were compared with a previously published series of 85 patients (130 vessels) treated with OS (bypass grafting, 60 [71%] of 85; transaortic endarterectomy, 19 [22%] of 85; or patch angioplasty, 6 [7%] of 85). RESULTS The PAS and OS groups were similar with respect to baseline comorbidities, duration of symptoms (median: 6.7 vs 10.5 months, P =.52), and the number of vessels involved, but the patients differed in their age at presentation (median: 72 vs 65 years, P =.005). Fewer vessels were revascularized per patient in the PAS group (1.1 +/- 0.4) compared with the OS group (1.5 +/- 0.6, P =.001). Overall, 85.7% (24/28) had one vessel and 14.3% (4/28) had two vessels revascularized in the PAS group versus 48.2% (41/85) with one-vessel and 47.1% (40/85) with two-vessel revascularization in the OS group. No difference was noted in the early in-hospital complications (median: 17.9% [PAS] vs 32.9% [OS], P =.12) or mortality rate (10.7% [PAS] vs 8.2% [OS], P =.71). A reduced length of hospital stay in the PAS patients did not attain statistical significance (median: 5 days [PAS] vs 13 days [OS], P =.08). Although the 3-year cumulative recurrent stenosis (P =.62) and mortality rate (P =.99) did not differ, the PAS treatment group had a higher incidence of recurrent symptoms (P =.001). CONCLUSION Although the results of PAS and OS were similar with respect to morbidity, death, and recurrent stenosis, PAS was associated with a significantly higher incidence of recurrent symptoms. These findings suggest that OS should be preferentially offered to patients deemed fit for open revascularization.