A meta-analysis of combined proximal stent grafting with or without adjunctive distal bare stent for the management of aortic dissection.

BACKGROUND

The efficacy and safety of placement of a proximal covered stent graft combined with a distal bare stent are controversial because of the lack of evidence. This systematic review and meta-analysis compared the outcomes of combined proximal covered stent grafting with distal bare stenting (BS group) and proximal covered stent grafting without distal bare stenting (non-BS group).

METHODS

The MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases and key references were searched up to January 26, 2019. Predefined outcomes of interest were mortality, morbidity, and postoperative assessment of aortic remodeling. We pooled risk ratios (RRs) of the outcomes of interest using fixed effects model or random effects model.

RESULTS

Overall, eight observational studies involving 914 patients were included. There were no significant differences in overall aorta-related mortality (RR, 0.54; confidence interval [CI], 0.24-1.24; P = .15), complete thoracic false lumen (FL) thrombosis rate (RR, 1.23; CI, 0.83-1.81; P = .30), or complete abdominal FL thrombosis rate (RR, 1.96; CI, 0.68-5.69; P = .21) between the BS group and the non-BS group. The BS group had a lower rate of partial thoracic FL thrombosis (RR, 0.40; CI, 0.25-0.65; P = .0002), a lower stent graft-induced new entry rate (RR, 0.08; CI, 0.02-0.41; P = .003), and a lower reintervention rate (RR, 0.42; CI, 0.26-0.69; P = .0005).

CONCLUSIONS

Combined proximal covered stent grafting with distal adjunctive bare stenting had the potential to reduce the partial thoracic FL thrombosis rate and the rates of stent graft-induced new entry and reintervention but was not associated with lower aorta-related mortality or the complete FL thrombosis rate. Further research with a stricter methodology is needed.