Systematic Review of Femoral Artery Stent Fractures

IF 1.4 Q3 PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE
{"title":"Systematic Review of Femoral Artery Stent Fractures","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.ejvsvf.2024.08.001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objective</h3><p>Primary stenting for long femoropopliteal (FP) lesions remains controversial because of the high risk of stent fracture (SF). This study aimed to summarise current knowledge on SF from randomised control trials about FP stenting.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>A systematic review of the Medline database was performed by a combined strategy of MeSH terms: femoral artery, popliteal artery, stenting, and stent fracture. SF was classified according to a standard classification: 1 = single strut fracture; 2 = ≥ two struts fracture; 3 = type 2 with deformation; 4 = multiple struts fracture with acquired transection; 5, type 4 with gap in the stent body.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>The literature search identified 25 publications including covered stents (CSs; <em>n</em> = 3), drug eluting stents (DESs; <em>n</em> = 8), bare metal stents (BMS; <em>n</em> = 17), and bioabsorbable stents (<em>n</em> = 1). Data were extracted from 4 047 patients; mean age ± standard deviation was 68.9 ± 3.0 years and 69% were male. The median lesion length was 87.6 mm (interquartile range [IQR] 70.0, 149) with a median chronic total occlusion proportion of 36.8% (IQR 29.0, 56.5). In 208 patients treated with CS, SF rates ranged from none to 2.6% at 36 months with no clinical correlation. In 1 106 patients treated with DES, SF rates were relatively low in large cohorts, ranging from 0% at 12 months to 1.9% at 60 months. In smaller cohorts (under 100 patients per group), they ranged from 12.5% at six months to 46.7% at 12 months, with no clinical repercussion. In 1 610 patients treated with BMS, SF rates ranged from 2% to 32.7% at 12 months and from 2.9% to 48.9% at 24 months, with no clinical repercussion.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>SF rates in large cohorts were low in CF and DES, and quite common in BMS, although none of them had clinical consequences. However, longer follow up and detailed, accurate reports are needed to assess eventual real clinical outcomes.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":36502,"journal":{"name":"EJVES Vascular Forum","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666688X24001382/pdfft?md5=32f3b60fece57fb23a506c1d930b4df9&pid=1-s2.0-S2666688X24001382-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"EJVES Vascular Forum","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666688X24001382","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective

Primary stenting for long femoropopliteal (FP) lesions remains controversial because of the high risk of stent fracture (SF). This study aimed to summarise current knowledge on SF from randomised control trials about FP stenting.

Methods

A systematic review of the Medline database was performed by a combined strategy of MeSH terms: femoral artery, popliteal artery, stenting, and stent fracture. SF was classified according to a standard classification: 1 = single strut fracture; 2 = ≥ two struts fracture; 3 = type 2 with deformation; 4 = multiple struts fracture with acquired transection; 5, type 4 with gap in the stent body.

Results

The literature search identified 25 publications including covered stents (CSs; n = 3), drug eluting stents (DESs; n = 8), bare metal stents (BMS; n = 17), and bioabsorbable stents (n = 1). Data were extracted from 4 047 patients; mean age ± standard deviation was 68.9 ± 3.0 years and 69% were male. The median lesion length was 87.6 mm (interquartile range [IQR] 70.0, 149) with a median chronic total occlusion proportion of 36.8% (IQR 29.0, 56.5). In 208 patients treated with CS, SF rates ranged from none to 2.6% at 36 months with no clinical correlation. In 1 106 patients treated with DES, SF rates were relatively low in large cohorts, ranging from 0% at 12 months to 1.9% at 60 months. In smaller cohorts (under 100 patients per group), they ranged from 12.5% at six months to 46.7% at 12 months, with no clinical repercussion. In 1 610 patients treated with BMS, SF rates ranged from 2% to 32.7% at 12 months and from 2.9% to 48.9% at 24 months, with no clinical repercussion.

Conclusion

SF rates in large cohorts were low in CF and DES, and quite common in BMS, although none of them had clinical consequences. However, longer follow up and detailed, accurate reports are needed to assess eventual real clinical outcomes.

股动脉支架骨折的系统回顾
目的由于支架断裂(SF)的高风险,对股骨腘动脉(FP)长病变进行初级支架植入术仍存在争议。本研究旨在总结有关股腘动脉支架置入术的随机对照试验中有关 SF 的现有知识。方法采用 MeSH 术语:股动脉、腘动脉、支架置入术和支架骨折,对 Medline 数据库进行了系统性回顾。SF 按照标准分类法进行分类:结果文献检索发现了25篇文献,包括覆盖支架(CS;n = 3)、药物洗脱支架(DES;n = 8)、裸金属支架(BMS;n = 17)和生物可吸收支架(n = 1)。从 4 047 名患者中提取了数据;平均年龄(标准差)为 68.9 ± 3.0 岁,69% 为男性。病变长度中位数为 87.6 毫米(四分位数间距 [IQR] 70.0,149),慢性全闭塞比例中位数为 36.8%(IQR 29.0,56.5)。在208名接受CS治疗的患者中,36个月时的SF率从无到2.6%不等,且无临床相关性。在1 106例接受DES治疗的患者中,大样本队列的SF率相对较低,从12个月时的0%到60个月时的1.9%不等。在较小的队列中(每组不足100人),SF率从6个月时的12.5%到12个月时的46.7%不等,没有临床反响。在1610名接受BMS治疗的患者中,12个月时的SF率从2%到32.7%不等,24个月时的SF率从2.9%到48.9%不等,没有临床反响。然而,要评估最终的实际临床结果,还需要更长时间的随访和详细准确的报告。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
EJVES Vascular Forum
EJVES Vascular Forum Medicine-Surgery
CiteScore
1.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
145
审稿时长
102 days
文献相关原料
公司名称 产品信息 采购帮参考价格
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信