Dataset Information

Outcomes of Acute Limb Ischaemia in Patients with Underlying Malignancy: A Systematic Review.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

Previous studies have demonstrated amputation and mortality rates to be 14.3% - 30% and 11.4% - 28.9%, respectively, for all patients presenting with acute limb ischaemia (ALI). Rates of ALI are higher in patients with malignancy than in those without. Despite this, there remains uncertainty with regards to the most appropriate management for patients with cancer presenting with ALI. This is because of previously published high rates of associated morbidity and mortality in this population. The aim of this review was to summarise the available evidence reporting on outcomes of ALI in patients with underlying malignancy.

Method

A systematic review was performed in August 2020 in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. The Medline, Scopus, Cochrane, and Embase databases were searched with the following search string ((acute limb ischaemia) OR (acute limb ischemia)) AND ((cancer) OR (malignancy)). A total of 849 papers were identified and reviewed; six studies were included. Studies were assessed for bias using the National Institute of Health/National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute Quality Assessment Tool. Data including demographics, Rutherford classification, baseline performance scores, method of revascularisation, and peri-procedural outcomes were extracted and analysed. Data were pooled based on outcomes of interest and pooled prevalence was reported with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

Results

Six studies with 284 patients with cancer were included for analysis. The pooled overall risk of amputation was 15% (95% CI 5.9 - 26.9). The pooled 30 day mortality rate was 24% (95% CI 14.7 - 34.6).

Conclusion

Despite limitations of interstudy selection bias and some clinical heterogeneity, the included studies demonstrated acceptable short and medium term outcomes for patients with cancer undergoing revascularisation for acute limb ischaemia. This is in line with current recommendations that patients with underlying malignancy should be considered strongly for revascularisation.

SUBMITTER: Kelly A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8685981 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo estimate the incidence of acute mesenteric ischaemia (AMI), proportions of its different forms and short-term and long-term mortality.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.Data sourcesMEDLINE (Ovid), Web of Science, Scopus and Cochrane Library were searched until 26 July 2022.Eligibility criteriaStudies reporting data on the incidence and outcomes of AMI in adult populations.Data extraction and synthesisData extraction and quality assessment with modified Newcastle-Ottawa scale were performed using predeveloped standard forms. The outcomes were the incidence of AMI and its different forms in the general population and in patients admitted to hospital, and the mortality of AMI in its different forms.ResultsFrom 3064 records, 335 full texts were reviewed and 163 included in the quantitative analysis. The mean incidence of AMI was 6.2 (95% CI 1.9 to 12.9) per 100 000 person years. On average 5.0 (95% CI 3.3 to 7.1) of 10 000 hospital admissions were due to AMI. Occlusive arterial AMI was the most common form constituting 68.6% (95% CI 63.7 to 73.2) of all AMI cases, with similar proportions of embolism and thrombosis.Overall short-term mortality (in-hospital or within 30 days) of AMI was 59.6% (95% CI 55.5 to 63.6), being 68.7% (95% CI 60.8 to 74.9) in patients treated before the year 2000 and 55.0% (95% CI 45.5 to 64.1) in patients treated from 2000 onwards (p<0.05). The mid/long-term mortality of AMI was 68.2% (95% CI 60.7 to 74.9). Mortality due to mesenteric venous thrombosis was 24.6% (95% CI 17.0 to 32.9) and of non-occlusive mesenteric ischaemia 58.4% (95% CI 48.6 to 67.7). The short-term mortality of revascularised occlusive arterial AMI was 33.9% (95% CI 30.7 to 37.4).ConclusionsIn adult patients, AMI is a rarely diagnosed condition with high mortality, although with improvement of treatment results over the last decades. Two thirds of AMI cases are of occlusive arterial origin with potential for better survival if revascularised.Prospero registration numberCRD42021247148.

Project description:BackgroundAcute mesenteric ischaemia (AMI) is a disease with different pathophysiological mechanisms, leading to a life-threatening condition that is difficult to diagnose based solely on clinical signs. Despite widely acknowledged need for biomarkers in diagnosis of AMI, a broad systematic review on all studied biomarkers in different types of AMI is currently lacking. The aim of this study was to estimate the diagnostic accuracy of all potential biomarkers of AMI studied in humans.MethodsA systematic literature search in PubMed, The Cochrane Library, Web of Science and Scopus was conducted in December 2022. Studies assessing potential biomarkers of AMI in (at least 10) adult patients and reporting their diagnostic accuracy were included. Meta-analyses of biomarkers' sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative likelihood ratios were conducted. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed, and the study quality was assessed with the QUADAS-2 tool.ResultsSeventy-five studies including a total of 9914 patients assessed 18 different biomarkers in serum/plasma and one in urine (each reported in at least two studies), which were included in meta-analyses. None of the biomarkers reached a conclusive level for accurate prediction. The best predictive value overall (all studies with any type and stage of AMI pooled) was observed for Ischaemia-modified albumin (2 studies, sensitivity 94.7 and specificity 90.5), interleukin-6 (n = 4, 96.3 and 82.6), procalcitonin (n = 6, 80.1 and 86.7), and intestinal fatty acid-binding protein (I-FABP) measured in serum (n = 16, 73.9 and 90.5) or in urine (n = 4, 87.9 and 78.9). In assessment of transmural mesenteric ischaemia, urinary I-FABP (n = 2, 92.3 and 85.2) and D-dimer (n = 3, 87.6 and 83.6) showed moderate predictive value. Overall risk of bias was high, mainly because of selected study populations and unclear timings of the biomarker measurements after onset of symptoms. Combinations of biomarkers were rarely studied, not allowing meta-analyses.ConclusionsNone of the studied biomarkers had sufficient sensitivity and specificity to diagnose AMI, although some biomarkers showed moderate predictive accuracy. Future studies should focus on timing of measurements of biomarkers, distinguishing between early stage and transmural necrosis, and between different types of AMI. Additionally, studies on combinations of biomarkers are warranted. PROSPERO registration: CRD42022379341.

Project description:ObjectiveTo investigate which tests of hand sensibility correlate with functional outcomes in patients with upper limb traumatic nerve injuries and to assess if composite scales of sensibility correlate with functions.Data sourcesMEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched in May 2020, with a supplementary search in July 2020. Reference lists of the included publications were hand searched.Study selectionDatabase search found 2437 records. Eligible studies reported on inferential association between sensibility tests and functions pertaining to adults after upper limb nerve repair. Two reviewers independently assessed eligibility. Fifteen publications were included.Data extractionExtracted data contain patient characteristics, surgical procedure, follow-up duration, sensibility tests, and functional assessments. Two reviewers independently assessed data quality.Data synthesisFifteen publications involving 849 patients were reviewed. All publications reported on median and/or ulnar nerve injuries. Monofilament tests correlated with Short-Form Health Survey (r=0.548, P<.05), pick-up test (r=0.45, P<.05), and function domain of Patient-Rated Wrist and Hand Evaluation Questionnaire (PRWHE) (r=0.58, P<.05). The 8 studies of static and moving 2-point discrimination provided conflicting correlations with activities of daily living (ADL) and/or the pick-up test. Data for area localization and object/shape identification were equivocal as well. No data were found for Ten test and vibration tests. Rosén score sensory domain correlated with ADL (r=0.59; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.41-0.72) and PRWHE function domain (r=-0.56, P<.05). Medical Research Council sensory scale was related to pick-up test; return to work status; and Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand questionnaire.ConclusionsMonofilament tests allow practitioners to gather sensibility data meaningful to patients' overall recovery of functions after upper limb nerve trauma. For 2-point discrimination and other sensibility tests, practitioners should be aware that improvement in test performance does not necessarily translate to improved hand function. Findings from the composite scales indicate that hand sensibility, in general, is related to functions. Future research on other common sensibility tests is recommended to explore how the test relates to patients' functions.