OBJECTIVES: The objective of this review is to assess the effects of lumbar sympathectomy by open, laparoscopic and percutaneous methods compared with no treatment or compared with any other method of lumbar sympathectomy in patients with CLI due to non-reconstructable PAD.

SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist (CIS) searched the Specialised Register (January 2016) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2015, Issue 12). In addition, the CIS searched clinical trials databases for details of ongoing and unpublished studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any of the treatment modalities of lumbar sympathectomy, such as open, laparoscopic and chemical percutaneous methods, with no treatment or with any other method of lumbar sympathectomy for CLI due to non-reconstructable PAD were eligible. To decrease the bias of including participants that may be incorrectly diagnosed with CLI, review authors defined CLI as persistently recurring ischaemic rest pain requiring regular analgesia for more than two weeks, or ulceration or gangrene of the foot or toes, attributable to objectively proven arterial occlusive disease by measurement of ankle pressure of < 50 mmHg or toe pressure < 30 mmHg. We defined non-reconstructable PAD as a resting ankle brachial index (ABI) < 0.9 when no reasonable open surgical or endovascular revascularisation treatment option is available, as determined by individual trial vascular specialists.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed studies identified for potential inclusion in the review. We planned to conduct data collection and analysis in accordance with the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Review of Interventions.

MAIN RESULTS: We identified no studies that met the predefined inclusion criteria. To decrease the bias of including participants who may be incorrectly diagnosed with CLI, we based our inclusion criteria on objective tests, as described above. The randomised trials identified by the literature search were performed before such objective criteria for selection were applied and therefore were not eligible for inclusion in the review.

METHODS: We performed a 3 × 2 partial factorial double-blind trial of 17,598 participants with stable cardiovascular disease and peripheral artery disease randomly assigned to groups given pantoprazole (40 mg daily, n = 8791) or placebo (n = 8807). Participants were also randomly assigned to groups that received rivaroxaban (2.5 mg twice daily) with aspirin (100 mg once daily), rivaroxaban (5 mg twice daily), or aspirin (100 mg) alone. We collected data on development of pneumonia, Clostridium difficile infection, other enteric infections, fractures, gastric atrophy, chronic kidney disease, diabetes, chronic obstructive lung disease, dementia, cardiovascular disease, cancer, hospitalizations, and all-cause mortality every 6 months. Patients were followed up for a median of 3.01 years, with 53,152 patient-years of follow-up.

RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference between the pantoprazole and placebo groups in safety events except for enteric infections (1.4% vs 1.0% in the placebo group; odds ratio, 1.33; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.75). For all other safety outcomes, proportions were similar between groups except for C difficile infection, which was approximately twice as common in the pantoprazole vs the placebo group, although there were only 13 events, so this difference was not statistically significant.