Risk stratification for low extremity amputation in critical limb ischemia patients who have undergone endovascular revascularization: A survival tree analysis.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Huang HL
PROVIDER: S-EPMC6831177 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Aug
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Risk stratification for low extremity amputation in critical limb ischemia patients who have undergone endovascular revascularization: A survival tree analysis.
Huang Hsuan-Li HL Juang Jyh-Ming Jimmy JJ Hsieh Chien-An CA Chou Hsin-Hua HH Jang Shih-Jung SJ Ko Yu-Lin YL
Medicine 20190801 33
Patients with peripheral artery disease (PAD) are a heterogeneous population and differ in risk of mortality and low extremity amputation (LEA), which complicates clinical decision-making. This study aimed to develop a simple risk scale using decision tree methodology to guide physicians in managing critical limb ischemia (CLI) patients who will benefit from endovascular therapy (EVT).A total of 736 patients with CLI, Rutherford classification (RC) stage ≥4, and prior successful EVT were include ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:ObjectiveOur objective was to analyze periprocedural and 1-year outcomes of peripheral endovascular intervention (PVI) for critical limb ischemia (CLI).MethodsWe reviewed 1244 patients undergoing 1414 PVIs for CLI (rest pain, 29%; tissue loss, 71%) within the Vascular Study Group of New England (VSGNE) from January 2010 to December 2011. Overall survival (OS), amputation-free survival (AFS), and freedom from major amputation at 1 year were analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method. Cox proportional hazards models were used to calculate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs).ResultsThe number of arteries treated during each procedure were 1 (49%), 2 (35%), 3 (12%), and ≥4 (5%). Target arterial segments and TransAtlantic Inter-Society Consensus classifications were aortoiliac, 27% (A, 48%; B, 28%; C, 12%; and D, 12%); femoral-popliteal, 48% (A, 29%; B, 34%; C, 20%; and D, 17%); and infrapopliteal, 25% (A, 17%; B, 14%; C, 25%; D, 44%). Technical success was 92%. Complications included access site hematoma (5.0%), occlusion (0.3%), and distal embolization (2.4%). Mortality and major amputation rates were 2.8% and 2.2% at 30 days, respectively. Overall percutaneous or open reintervention rate was 8.0% during the first year. At 1-year, OS, AFS, and freedom from major amputation were 87%, 87%, and 94% for patients with rest pain and 80%, 71%, and 81% for patients with tissue loss. Independent predictors of reduced 1-year OS (C index = .74) included dialysis (HR, 3.8; 95% CI, 2.8-5.1; P < .01), emergency procedure (HR, 2.5; 95% CI, 1.0-6.2; P = .05), age >80 years (HR, 2.2; 95% CI, 1.7-2.8; P < .01), not living at home preoperatively (HR, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.4-2.8; P < .01), creatinine >1.8 mg/dL (HR, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.3-2.8; P < .01), congestive heart failure (HR, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.3-2.2; P < .01), and chronic β-blocker use (HR, 1.4; 95% CI, 1.0-1.9; P = .03), whereas independent preoperative ambulation (HR, 0.7; 95% CI, 0.6-0.9; P = .014) was protective. Independent predictors of major amputation (C index = .69) at 1 year included dialysis (HR, 2.7; 95% CI, 1.6-4.5; P < .01), tissue loss (HR, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.1-3.7; P = .02), prior major contralateral amputation (HR, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.1-3.5; P = .02), non-Caucasian race (HR, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.0-2.9; P = .045), and male gender (HR, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.1-2.6; P = .03), whereas smoking (HR, .60; 95% CI, 0.4-1.0; P = .042) was protective.ConclusionsSurvival and major amputation after PVI for CLI are associated with different patient characteristics. Dialysis dependence is a common predictor that portends especially poor outcomes. These data may facilitate efforts to improve patient selection and, after further validation, enable risk-adjusted outcome reporting for CLI patients undergoing PVI.
| S-EPMC5315445 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundCritical limb ischemia remains a difficult disease to treat, with limited level one data. The BEST-CLI trial (Best Endovascular vs Best Open Surgical Therapy in Patients with Critical Limb Ischemia) is attempting to answer whether initial treatment with open surgical bypass or endovascular therapy improves outcomes, although it remains in enrollment. This study aims to compare amputation-free survival and reintervention rates in patients treated with initial open surgical bypass or endovascular intervention for ischemic ulcers of the lower extremities.Methods and resultsUsing California nonfederal hospital data linked to statewide death data, all patients with lower extremity ulcers and a diagnosis of peripheral artery disease who underwent a revascularization procedure from 2005 to 2013 were identified. Propensity scores were formulated from baseline patient characteristics. Inverse probability weighting was used with Kaplan-Meier analysis to determine amputation-free survival and time to reintervention for open versus endovascular treatment. Mixed-effects Cox proportional hazards modeling was used to adjust for patient ability to manage their disease and hospital revascularization volume. A total of 16 800 patients were identified. Open surgical bypass was the initial treatment in 5970 (36%) while 10 830 (64%) underwent endovascular interventions. Patients in the endovascular group were slightly younger compared with the open group (70 versus 71 years, ±12 years; P<0.001). Endovascular-first patients were more likely to have comorbid renal failure (36% versus 24%), coronary artery disease (34% versus 32%), congestive heart failure (19% versus 15%), and diabetes mellitus (65% versus 58%; all P values <0.05). After inverse propensity weighting as well as adjustment for patient ability to manage their disease and hospital revascularization experience, open surgery first was associated with a worse amputation-free survival (hazard ratio, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.13-1.20) with no difference in mortality (hazard ratio, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.89-1.11). Endovascular first was associated with higher rates of reintervention (hazard ratio, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.14-1.23).ConclusionsPatients with critical limb ischemia have multiple comorbidities, and initial surgical bypass is associated with poorer amputation-free survival compared with an endovascular-first approach, perhaps due to increased severity of wounds at the time of presentation.
| S-EPMC6668925 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesThe purpose of this study was to evaluate the prognostic value of single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT)/computed tomography (CT) imaging of angiosome foot perfusion for predicting amputation outcomes in patients with critical limb ischemia (CLI) and diabetes mellitus (DM).BackgroundRadiotracer imaging can assess microvascular foot perfusion and identify regional perfusion abnormalities in patients with critical limb ischemia CLI and DM, but the relationship between perfusion response to revascularization and subsequent clinical outcomes has not been evaluated.MethodsPatients with CLI, DM, and nonhealing foot ulcers (n = 25) were prospectively enrolled for SPECT/CT perfusion imaging of the feet before and after revascularization. CT images were used to segment angiosomes (i.e., 3-dimensional vascular territories) of the foot. Relative changes in radiotracer uptake after revascularization were evaluated within the ulcerated angiosome. Incidence of amputation was assessed at 3 and 12 months after revascularization.ResultsSPECT/CT detected a significantly lower microvascular perfusion response for patients who underwent amputation compared with those who remained amputation free at 3 (p = 0.01) and 12 (p = 0.01) months after revascularization. The cutoff percent change in perfusion for predicting amputation at 3 months was 7.55%, and 11.56% at 12 months. The area under the curve based on the amputation outcome was 0.799 at 3 months and 0.833 at 12 months. The probability of amputation-free survival was significantly higher at 3 (p = 0.002) and 12 months (p = 0.03) for high-perfusion responders than low-perfusion responders to revascularization.ConclusionsSPECT/CT imaging detects regional perfusion responses to lower extremity revascularization and provides prognostic value in patients with CLI (Radiotracer-Based Perfusion Imaging of Patients With Peripheral Arterial Disease; NCT03622359).
| S-EPMC8113329 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceThe Bypass Versus Angioplasty for Severe Ischemia of the Leg randomized controlled trial showed comparable outcomes between endovascular revascularization (ER) and surgical revascularization (SR) for patients with critical limb ischemia (CLI). However, several observational studies showed mixed results. Most of these studies were conducted before advanced endovascular technologies were available.ObjectiveTo compare ER and SR treatment strategies for 6-month outcomes among patients with CLI.Design, setting, and participantsThis retrospective, population-based cohort study used the Nationwide Readmissions Database to identify 66 277 patients with CLI who underwent ER or SR from January 1, 2016, to December 31, 2018. Data analyses were conducted from January 1, 2022, to February 8, 2022. A propensity score with 1:1 matching was applied. Patients with CLI who underwent ER or SR were identified, and those with missing information on the length of stay and/or younger than 18 years were excluded.ExposuresEndovascular or surgical revascularization.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was a major amputation at 6 months. Significant secondary outcomes were in-hospital and 6-month mortality and an in-hospital safety composite of acute kidney injury, major bleeding, and vascular complication. Subgroup analysis was conducted for major amputation in high-volume centers.ResultsA total of 66 277 patients were identified between 2016 and 2018 who underwent ER or SR for CLI. The Nationwide Readmissions Database does not provide racial and ethnic categories. The mean (SD) age of the cohort was 69.3 (12) years, and 62.5% of patients were male. A total of 54 546 patients (82.3%) underwent ER and 11 731 (17.7%) underwent SR. After propensity score matching, 11 106 matched pairs were found. Endovascular revascularization was associated with an 18% higher risk of major amputation compared with SR (997 of 10 090 [9.9%] vs 869 of 10 318 [8.4%]; hazard ratio, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.08-1.29; P = .001). However, no difference was observed in major amputation risk when both procedures were performed in high-volume centers. Endovascular revascularization and SR had similar mortality rates (517 of 11 106 [4.7%] vs 490 of 11 106 [4.4%]; hazard ratio, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.93-1.20; P = .39). However, the ER group had a 17% lower risk of in-hospital safety outcomes compared with the SR group (2584 of 11 106 [23.3%] vs 2979 of 11 106 [26.8%]; odds ratio, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.78-0.88; P < .001).Conclusions and relevanceThe results of this study suggest that ER was safer, without any difference in mortality, but ER was associated with an increased risk of major amputation compared with SR. However, the risk of major amputation was similar when both procedures were performed at high-volume centers.
| S-EPMC9391961 | biostudies-literature
Project description:OBJECTIVE:Lower extremity bypass (LEB) has traditionally been the "gold standard" in the treatment of critical limb ischemia (CLI). Infrainguinal endovascular intervention (IEI) has become more commonly performed than LEB, but comparative outcomes are limited. We sought to compare rates of major adverse limb events (MALEs) and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) after LEB and IEI in a propensity score-matched, national cohort of patients with CLI. METHODS:The National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) vascular targeted files (2011-2014) for LEB and IEI were merged. CLI patients were identified by ischemic rest pain or tissue loss. Patients were matched on a 1:1 basis for propensity to undergo LEB or IEI. Primary outcomes were 30-day MALEs and MACEs. Within the propensity-matched cohort, multivariate logistic regression was used to identify independent predictors of MALEs and MACEs. RESULTS:A total of 13,294 LEBs and IEIs were identified, with 8066 cases performed for CLI. Propensity matching identified 3848 cases (1924 per group). There were no differences in preoperative variables between the propensity-matched LEB and IEI groups (all P > .05). At 30 days, rates of MALEs were significantly lower in the LEB group (9.2% LEB vs IEI 12.2%; P = .003). On multivariate logistic regression, bypass with single-segment saphenous vein vs IEI (odds ratio [OR], 0.7; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.54-0.92; P = .01), bypass with alternative conduit (prosthetic, spliced vein, or composite) vs IEI (OR, 0.7; 95% CI, 0.56-0.98; P = .04), antiplatelet therapy (OR, 0.8; 95% CI, 0.58-1.00; P = .049), and statin therapy (OR, 0.8; 95% CI, 0.62-0.99; P = .04) were protective against MALEs, whereas infrageniculate intervention (OR, 1.4; 95% CI, 1.09-1.72; P = .01) and a history of prior bypass of the same arterial segment (OR, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.41-2.41; P <. 0001) were predictive. Rates of 30-day MACEs were not significantly different (4.9% LEB vs 3.7% IEI; P = .07) between the groups. Independent predictors of MACEs included age (OR, 1.02; 95% CI, 1.01-1.04; P = .01), steroid use (OR, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.08-2.99; P = .03), congestive heart failure (OR, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.00-1.96; P = .02), beta blocker use (OR, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.09-1.43; P = .01), dialysis (OR, 2.3; 95% CI, 1.55-3.45; P < .0001), totally dependent functional status (OR, 3.1; 95% CI, 1.25-7.58; P = .02), and suboptimal conduit for LEB compared with IEI (OR, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.08-2.36; P = .02). CONCLUSIONS:Within this large, propensity-matched, national cohort, LEB predicted lower risk-adjusted 30-day MALE rate compared with IEI. Furthermore, there was no difference in 30-day MACE rate between the groups despite higher inherent risk with open surgical procedures. Therefore, this study supports the effectiveness and primacy of LEB for revascularization in CLI.
| S-EPMC5612844 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Although open surgical bypass remains the standard revascularization strategy for patients with critical limb ischemia (CLI), many centers now perform peripheral endovascular intervention (PVI) as the first-line treatment for these patients. We sought to determine the effect of a prior ipsilateral PVI (iPVI) on the outcome of subsequent lower extremity bypass (LEB) in patients with CLI.A retrospective cohort analysis of all patients undergoing infrainguinal LEB between 2003 and 2009 within hospitals comprising the Vascular Study Group of New England (VSGNE) was performed. Primary study endpoints were major amputation and graft occlusion at 1 year postoperatively. Secondary outcomes included in-hospital major adverse events (MAE), 1-year mortality, and composite 1-year major adverse limb events (MALE). Event rates were determined using life table analyses and comparisons were performed using the log-rank test. Multivariate predictors were determined using a Cox proportional hazards model with multilevel hierarchical adjustment.Of 1880 LEBs performed, 32% (n = 603) had a prior infrainguinal revascularization procedure (iPVI, 7%; ipsilateral bypass, 15%; contralateral PVI, 3%; contralateral bypass, 17%). Patients with prior iPVI, compared with those without a prior iPVI, were more likely to be women (32 vs 41%; P = .04), less likely to have tissue loss (52% vs 63%; P = .02), more likely to require arm vein conduit (16% vs 5%; P = .001), and more likely to be on statin (71% vs 54%; P = .01) and beta blocker therapy (92% vs 81%; P = .01) at the time of their bypass procedure. Other demographic factors were similar between these groups. Prior PVI or bypass did not alter 30-day MAE and 1-year mortality after the index bypass. In contrast, 1-year major amputation and 1-year graft occlusion rates were significantly higher in patients who had prior iPVI than those without (31% vs 20%; P = .046 and 28% vs 18%; P = .009), similar to patients who had a prior ipsilateral bypass (1 year major amputation, 29% vs 20%; P = .022; 1 year graft occlusion, 33% vs 18%; P = .001). Independent multivariate predictors of higher 1-year amputation and graft occlusion rates were prior iPVI, prior ipsilateral bypass, dialysis dependence, prosthetic conduit and distal (tibial and pedal) bypass target.Prior iPVI is highly predictive for poor outcome in patients undergoing LEB for CLI with higher 1-year amputation and graft occlusion rates than those without prior revascularization, similar to prior ipsilateral bypass These findings provide information, which may help with the complex decisions surrounding revascularization options in patients with CLI.
| S-EPMC5292259 | biostudies-literature
Project description:To determine whether diabetes mellitus has an independent impact on major limb outcomes at 1 year after endovascular treatment of lower extremity peripheral artery disease (PAD).The study involved 1906 consecutive patients (mean age 66 years; 1469 men) enrolled in the observational Excellence in Peripheral Artery Disease (XLPAD) registry ( ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT01904851) between January 2005 and October 2015 after undergoing index endovascular procedures in 2426 limbs for arterial occlusive disease. Patient outcomes included 12-month target limb amputation (above ankle) and target limb revascularization as well as all-cause death. Kaplan-Meier analysis and adjusted Cox proportional hazard models were used for time-to-event analysis of outcomes for the entire study sample as well as for the critical limb ischemia (CLI) and claudication subgroups. Results of the Cox regression models are reported as the hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence interval (CI).Diabetics undergoing endovascular procedures had higher rates of comorbid conditions (p<0.001), CLI (p<0.001), heavily calcified lesions (p=0.002), multivessel disease (p=0.030), and fewer infrapopliteal runoff vessels (p<0.001). Regression analysis after adjusting for confounders revealed significantly higher target limb major amputation in diabetics compared with nondiabetics (HR 5.02, 95% CI 1.44 to 17.56, p=0.011). However, repeat revascularization rates were similar. When considering CLI and claudication subgroups, diabetes was associated with a nonsignificant increased risk of 12-month major amputation only for patients presenting with CLI (HR 3.48, 95% CI 0.97 to 12.51, p=0.056). Diabetes was also associated with an increased risk of 12-month all-cause mortality in the overall study sample (HR 4.64, 95% CI 2.01 to 10.70, p<0.001) and in the CLI subgroup (HR 14.15, 95% CI 3.16 to 63.32, p<0.001) but not in the claudication subgroup (HR 1.42, 95% CI 0.45 to 4.54, p=0.552).Diabetes increases the risk of major amputation and all-cause death at 12 months following endovascular revascularization in patients with symptomatic PAD. These risks are especially heightened in patients presenting with CLI.
| S-EPMC5624231 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPatients with critical limb ischemia (CLI) are a heterogeneous population with respect to risk for mortality and limb loss, complicating clinical decision-making. Endovascular options, compared with bypass, offer a tradeoff between reduced procedural risk and inferior durability. Risk stratified data predictive of amputation-free survival (AFS) may improve clinical decision making and allow for better assessment of new technology in the CLI population.MethodsThis was a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data from patients who underwent infrainguinal vein bypass surgery for CLI. Two datasets were used: the PREVENT III randomized trial (n = 1404) and a multicenter registry (n = 716) from three distinct vascular centers (two academic, one community-based). The PREVENT III cohort was randomly assigned to a derivation set (n = 953) and to a validation set (n = 451). The primary endpoint was AFS. Predictors of AFS identified on univariate screen (inclusion threshold, P < .20) were included in a stepwise selection Cox model. The resulting five significant predictors were assigned an integer score to stratify patients into three risk groups. The prediction rule was internally validated in the PREVENT III validation set and externally validated in the multicenter cohort.ResultsThe estimated 1-year AFS in the derivation, internal validation, and external validation sets were 76.3%, 72.5%, and 77.0%, respectively. In the derivation set, dialysis (hazard ratio [HR] 2.81, P < .0001), tissue loss (HR 2.22, P =.0004), age >or=75 (HR 1.64, P = .001), hematocrit <or=30 (HR 1.61, P = .012), and advanced CAD (HR 1.41, P = .021) were significant predictors for AFS in the multivariable model. An integer score, derived from the ss coefficients, was used to generate three risk categories (low <or= 3 [44.4% of cohort], medium 4-7 [46.7% of cohort], high >or=8 [8.8% of cohort]). Stratification of the patients, in each dataset, according to risk category yielded three significantly different Kaplan-Meier estimates for 1-year AFS (86%, 73%, and 45% for low, medium, and high risk groups, respectively). For a given risk category, the AFS estimate was consistent between the derivation and validation sets.ConclusionAmong patients selected to undergo surgical bypass for infrainguinal disease, this parsimonious risk stratification model reliably identified a category of CLI patients with a >50% chance of death or major amputation at 1 year. Calculation of a "PIII risk score" may be useful for surgical decision making and for clinical trial designs in the CLI population.
| S-EPMC2765219 | biostudies-literature
Project description:OBJECTIVES:This study sought to describe the distribution of pre-intervention treated-limb ankle-brachial indices (ABIs) among patients with critical limb ischemia (CLI) undergoing percutaneous vascular intervention (PVI) or surgical revascularization (SR). BACKGROUND:CLI is diagnosed by the presence of rest pain, tissue ulceration, or gangrene due to chronic arterial insufficiency. It is unclear what fraction of patients with suspected CLI have severe peripheral artery disease (PAD) on noninvasive functional testing. METHODS:The study included patients who underwent lower extremity revascularization for CLI in a multicenter registry in Michigan from January 2012 through June 2015. ABIs were classified as normal (ABI: 0.91 to 1.40), mild-moderate (ABI: 0.41 to 0.90), and severe (ABI: ≤0.40). Pre- and post-intervention Peripheral Artery Questionnaire summary scores were assessed in a subset of patients. RESULTS:Among 10,756 patients with signs or symptoms of CLI, 9,113 (84.7%) underwent PVI and 1,643 (15.3%) underwent SR. ABIs were recorded in 4,972 (54.6%) PVI and 1,012 (61.6%) SR patients. Patients undergoing PVI had higher ABIs than those undergoing SR, with substantial variation in both groups (PVI: 0.72 ± 0.29 vs. SR: 0.61 ± 0.29; p < 0.001). Nearly a quarter of patients with compressible arteries had normal ABIs (24.0%), whereas severe PAD was uncommon (16.5%). A significant improvement in Peripheral Artery Questionnaire scores was noted after intervention across all ABI categories. CONCLUSIONS:Among patients undergoing revascularization for CLI in contemporary practice, the authors found substantial heterogeneity in pre-intervention ABIs. The disconnect between ABI results and clinical diagnosis calls into question the utility of ABIs in this population and suggests the need for standardization of functional PAD testing.
| S-EPMC6800014 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAcute limb ischemia (ALI) is an important clinical event threatening both life and the affected limbs, but the optimal treatment for ALI remains undefined. The aim of this study was to compare the safety and effectiveness of thrombectomy approaches via either catheter-based thrombectomy (CBT) or catheter-directed thrombolysis (CDT).MethodsA total of 98 patients (mean age 69.7 years, 60 male) who underwent endovascular intervention for ALI from January 2015 to July 2019 were included. Of these, 57 were treated with primary CBT via a large-bore catheter, an AngioJet catheter or Rotarex catheter, and/or underwent low-dose CDT, and 41 were treated with primary CDT. The safety and effectiveness of CBT compared to conventional CDT and other various endovascular techniques were evaluated.ResultsMore Rutherford IIb patients were treated with primary CBT (68.4%) than CDT (26.8%; P < .001). Patients who underwent primary CDT achieved a higher technical success rate than those who underwent primary CBT in a shorter procedure time (P < .001), whereas 42.1% of patients who underwent CBT did not need adjunctive CDT. The duration and dosage of adjunctive CDT in the CBT group were significantly decreased compared with those in the primary CDT group (both P < .001), and the CBT group achieved a shorter in-hospital length of stay (P < .001). Subgroup analysis revealed that patients treated with AngioJet and Rotarex catheters achieved slightly lower dosages, shorter CDT durations and shorter in-hospital stay lengths than those treated with large-bore catheters (P > .05). Clinical success was estimated to be achieved in 98.2% of patients who underwent CBT, which is similar to the 97.6% estimated in those who underwent primary CDT (P = 1.000), and this finding was similar among the CBT subgroups. Patients who underwent CBT had a higher procedure-related distal embolization rate and economic cost than those who underwent primary CDT (P < .05), but it had slightly fewer complications than those who underwent primary CDT (P = .059), especially minor complications (P = .036). The freedom from amputation at 6 and 12 months for CBT and CDT was assessed (93.0% vs 90.2% respectively, P = .625; 89.5% vs 82.9%, respectively, P = .34,). Comparable limb salvage was found for different techniques of large bore catheters, AngioJet catheters and Rotarex catheters. The Kaplan-Meier table analysis also showed similar limb salvage rates between groups.ConclusionsEndovascular treatment of ALI with the use of catheter-based therapies is an effective modality that can reduce the requirement for thrombolysis, with expected reductions in hemorrhagic complications, but at the risk of remediable distal emboli and increased economic cost. It has a similar clinical outcome to conventional CDT alone. Different CBT techniques have comparable efficacy but different adverse event profiles.
| S-EPMC8645071 | biostudies-literature