Search

Inferior vena cava (IVC) stenting may provide benefit to patients with symptomatic obstruction; however, there are no devices currently licensed for use in the IVC and systematic reviews on the topic are lacking. The aim of this study was to carry out a systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis to investigate the safety and efficacy of IVC stenting in all adult patient groups. The Medline and Embase databases were searched for studies reporting outcomes for safety and effectiveness of IVC stenting for any indication in series of 10 or more patients. A systematic review of the literature was carried out according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Thirty-three studies were included describing 1 575 patients. Indications for stenting were malignant IVC syndrome (229 patients), thrombotic disease (807 patients), Budd–Chiari syndrome (501 patients), and IVC stenosis post liver transplantation (47 patients). The male:female ratio was 2:1 and the median age ranged from 30 to 61 years. The studies included were not suitable for formal meta-analysis as 30/33 were single centre retrospective studies with no control groups and there was considerable inconsistency in outcome reporting. There was significant risk of bias in 94% of studies. Median reported technical success was 100% (range 78 – 100%), primary patency was 75% (38 – 98%), and secondary patency was 91.5% (77 – 100%). Major complications were pulmonary embolism (three cases), stent migration (12 cases), and major bleeding (15 cases), and there were three deaths in the immediate post-operative period. Most studies reported improvement in clinical symptoms but formal reporting tools were not used consistently. The evidence base for IVC stenting consists of predominantly single centre, retrospective, observational studies that have a high risk of bias. Nonetheless the procedure appears safe with few major adverse events, and studies that reported clinical outcomes demonstrate improvement in symptoms and quality of life. Randomised controlled trials and prospective registry based studies with larger patient numbers and standardised outcome are required to improve the evidence base for this procedure. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Endovascular stenting of the deep venous system has been proposed as a method to treat patients with symptomatic iliofemoral outflow obstruction. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare the effectiveness of this treatment at 1-year following the development of dedicated venous stents. Method and results: We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE for studies evaluating the effectiveness of venous stent placement. Data were extracted by disease pathogenesis: non-thrombotic iliac vein lesions (NIVL), acute thrombotic (DVT), or post-thrombotic syndrome (PTS). Main outcomes included technical success, stent patency at 1 year and symptom relief. A total of 49 studies reporting outcomes in 5154 patients (NIVL, 1431; DVT, 950; PTS, 2773) were included in the meta-analysis. Technical success rates were comparable among groups (97%-100%). There were no periprocedural deaths. Minor bleeding was reported in up to 5% of patients and major bleeding in 0.5% upon intervention. Transient back pain was noted in 55% of PTS patients following intervention. There was significant heterogeneity between studies reporting outcomes in PTS patients. Primary and cumulative patency at 1 year was: NIVL—96% and 100%; DVT—91% and 97%; PTS (stents above the ligament)—77% and 94%, and; PTS (stents across the ligament)—78% and 94%. There were insufficient data to compare patency outcomes of dedicated and nondedicated venous stents in patients with acute DVT. In NIVL and PTS patients, stent patency was comparable at 1 year. There was inconsistency in the use of validated tools for the measurement of symptoms before and after intervention. When reported, venous claudication, improved in 83% of PTS patients and 90% of NIVL patients, and ulcer healing occurred in 80% of PTS patients and 32% of NIVL patients. Conclusions: The first generation of dedicated venous stents perform comparably in terms of patency and clinical outcomes to non-dedicated technologies at 1 year for the treatment of patients with NIVL and PTS. However, significant heterogeneity exists between studies and standardized criteria are urgently needed to report outcomes in patients undergoing deep venous stenting. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]