Covered Stents vs Bare Metal Stents for Aortoiliac Arterial Diseases: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Abstract

Purpose: Covered stents and bare metal stents (BMS) have been regarded as viable treatment options for aortoiliac arterial diseases. We performed this systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the efficacy of covered stents with BMS for aortoiliac arterial diseases.

Materials and methods: The Cochrane Library, Embase, and Medline databases were searched by 2 authors (C.Z. and Z.W.) to retrieve all studies comparing the outcomes of covered stents vs BMS for aortoiliac arterial diseases. The Cochrane tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa scale were used to assess the risk of bias in randomized controlled trials and observational studies, respectively. The outcomes at the same stage reported in at least 2 studies were pooled together. The fixed effects model combined the data when I²<50%, otherwise the random effects model was applied. The results for dichotomous variables were presented as odds ratio (OR) or risk difference and 95% confidence interval (CI); continuous variables were reported as mean difference and 95% CI.

Results: Herein, 10 studies with a total of 1695 limbs were included. The covered stents significantly increased the freedom from target lesion revascularization (OR 2.85, 95% CI: 1.28-6.33, p=0.010) compared to the BMS during a 24-month follow-up. However, no statistically significant difference was found in the technical success, primary patency, secondary patency, major adverse events (MAEs), ankle-brachial index (ABI) improvement, limb salvage, and survival between the two groups.

Conclusion: Compared to BMS, covered stents appear to have similar technical success, primary patency, secondary patency, MAEs, ABI improvement, limb salvage, and survival but may have advantages in reducing target lesion revascularization. More well-designed, prospective studies are warranted to determine such findings.Clinical ImpactCovered stents may increase freedom from target lesion revascularization (TLR) compared to bare metal stents (BMS) in the treatment of aortoiliac arterial diseases. However, technical success, primary patency, secondary patency, major adverse events (MAEs), ABI improvement, limb salvage, and survival were similar. The aforementioned results are still not sufficient to draw a solid conclusion about the selection of stents for aortoiliac arterial diseases. More well-designed, prospective studies are warranted to determine such findings.