Suppr超能文献

覆膜支架与裸金属支架治疗主髂动脉闭塞性疾病的疗效与安全性:一项系统评价和荟萃分析

Efficacy and Safety of Covered Stents Versus Bare-Metal Stents for Aortoiliac Occlusive Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

作者信息

Hu Chenming, Chen Lang, Wu Min, Ye Qianling, Zou Jun, Zhao Bin, Li Xiang, Wu Huaping

机构信息

School of Clinical Medicine, North Sichuan Medical College, Nanchong, China.

Department of Vascular Surgery, Dazhou Central Hospital, Dazhou, China.

出版信息

J Endovasc Ther. 2024 Mar 16:15266028241237387. doi: 10.1177/15266028241237387.

Abstract

PURPOSE

This study aimed to assess the efficacy and safety outcome of covered stents (CSs), as compared with bare-metal stents (BMSs), for the treatment of patients with aortoiliac occlusive disease (AIOD).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library up to August 2023 to identify all studies comparing efficacy and safety outcomes of CSs versus BMSs for treating AIOD. Our outcome was primary patency, secondary patency, technical success, ankle-brachial index (ABI) variation, target lesion revascularization (TLR), limb salvage, complications, and long-term survival. Dichotomous outcomes were pooled as relative risks (RR) or hazard ratio with the 95% confidence interval (CI). Continuous outcomes were pooled as weighted mean differences and 95% CI. Model selection was based on the heterogeneity of the included studies.

RESULTS

There were 10 studies (2 randomized controlled trials, 8 retrospective cohort studies), comprising 1676 sample size. Compared with BMSs, CSs use was associated with better primary patency of patients with a Trans-Atlantic Inter-Society Consensus II (TASC) D lesion (RR, 1.15, 95% CI, 1.04 to 1.27, p=0.007), TLR (RR, 0.39, 95% CI, 0.27 to 0.56, p<0.001), technical success (RR, 1.01, 95% CI, 1.00 to 1.02, p=0.010), and long-term survival (RR, 1.06, 95% CI, 1.01 to 1.11, p=0.020). There is no difference between CSs and BMSs regarding primary patency of all patients, secondary patency, variation in ABI, limb salvage, and complications.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with BMSs, CSs used in AIOD was associated with more favorable primary patency in patients with TASC D lesions, TLR, technical success rates, and patient long-term survival. These results provide evidence of the advantages of using CSs for AIOD treatment. Future studies focusing on long-term variations in ABI, primary patency of different degrees of calcification, vascular segments, and TASC classification are warranted.

CLINICAL IMPACT

Although several studies evaluated the clinical efficacy of CS in the context of AIOD treatment, the significance and consistency of these findings were not determined to date. We found that CS was used in AIOD associated with better technical success rate, long-term patient survival, lower target lesion revascularization, and higher primary patency of patients with a Trans-Atlantic Inter-Society Consensus II D lesion when compared with BMSs. Our study provides evidence supporting the superiority of CSs over BMSs in the treatment of AIOD, and furnishing clinicians with guidance for treatment decisions.

摘要

目的

本研究旨在评估覆膜支架(CS)与裸金属支架(BMS)相比,在治疗主髂动脉闭塞性疾病(AIOD)患者中的疗效和安全性结果。

材料与方法

截至2023年8月,在PubMed、Embase和Cochrane图书馆进行了系统的文献检索,以确定所有比较CS与BMS治疗AIOD疗效和安全性结果的研究。我们的结果指标为主通畅率、次通畅率、技术成功率、踝肱指数(ABI)变化、靶病变血运重建(TLR)、肢体挽救、并发症和长期生存率。二分法结果合并为相对风险(RR)或风险比及95%置信区间(CI)。连续结果合并为加权平均差和95%CI。模型选择基于纳入研究的异质性。

结果

共有10项研究(2项随机对照试验,8项回顾性队列研究),样本量为1676例。与BMS相比,使用CS与跨大西洋血管外科学会共识II(TASC)D病变患者更好的主通畅率(RR,1.15,95%CI,1.04至1.27,p = 0.007)、TLR(RR,0.39,95%CI,0.27至0.56,p < 0.001)、技术成功率(RR,1.01,95%CI,1.00至1.02,p = 0.010)和长期生存率(RR,1.06,95%CI,1.01至1.11,p = 0.020)相关。在所有患者的主通畅率、次通畅率、ABI变化、肢体挽救和并发症方面,CS与BMS之间没有差异。

结论

与BMS相比,AIOD中使用的CS与TASC D病变患者更有利的主通畅率、TLR、技术成功率和患者长期生存率相关。这些结果提供了使用CS治疗AIOD优势的证据。未来有必要开展关注ABI长期变化、不同钙化程度、血管节段和TASC分类的主通畅率的研究。

临床意义

尽管多项研究评估了CS在AIOD治疗中的临床疗效,但这些发现的意义和一致性至今尚未确定。我们发现,与BMS相比,AIOD中使用CS与更高的技术成功率、患者长期生存率、更低的靶病变血运重建以及TASC II D病变患者更高的主通畅率相关。我们的研究提供了支持CS在AIOD治疗中优于BMS的证据,并为临床医生的治疗决策提供了指导。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验