4.5 Review

Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Iliofemoral Stenting for Post-thrombotic Syndrome

Journal

Publisher

W B SAUNDERS CO LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejvs.2018.09.022

Keywords

Post-thrombotic syndrome; Stents; Outcomes; Vascular patency; Systematic review; Meta-analysis

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: Stent placements are considered as a treatment for post-thrombotic syndrome (PTS) with iliofemoral obstruction, but the application of these iliofemoral venous stents has also caused a lot of controversy. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to summarise the efficacy and safety of venous stents in PTS with obstruction in iliofemoral venous segments. Methods: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register for Controlled Trials databases and key references were searched up to 15 January 2018. The main relevant outcomes included technical success, peri-operative complications, symptom resolution, a change of symptom scores, and long-term patency of the stents. Results: Overall, 504 limbs of 489 patients from seven studies were included in this study. A GRADE assessment showed the quality of the evidence was very low for 11 relevant outcomes. The technical success rate was 95%. The pooled rate of complications including 30 day thrombotic event, per-operative venous injury, and back pain was 3.4%, 18.14%, and 52%, respectively. The rates of ulcer healing, pain and oedema relief were 75.66%, 52%, and 42%, respectively. The primary, assisted primary and secondary patency rates were 83.36%, 90.59%, and 94.32%, respectively, at 12 months and 67.98%, 82.26%, and 86.10%, respectively, at 36 months. Conclusions: Endovenous stenting has the potential to be effective and has a low risk of peri-operative complications. The quality of evidence to support this treatment is very low. Endovenous iliofemoral stenting should be considered a treatment option for PTS with iliofemoral obstruction.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available