A Systematic Review of the Safety and Efficacy of Inferior Vena Cava Stenting.

OBJECTIVE

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.

DATA SOURCES

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.

REVIEW METHODS

A systematic review of the literature was carried out according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines.

RESULTS

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.

CONCLUSION

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.