ArticleMedicine2019
Double stent insertion for combined malignant airway and superior vena cava obstruction.
Article in Medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Endovascular Stenting in Superior Vena Cava Syndrome: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Cardiovascular and interventional radiology · 2022Pooled it
- Developing an innovative interventional approach for stenting trachea.BMJ surgery, interventions, & health technologies · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The present study sought to assess the feasibility and effectiveness of double stent insertion as a means of managing combined malignant airway and superior vena cava (SVC) obstruction (CMASO).From July 2010 to January 2018, twelve consecutive patients with CMASO were treated by double stent insertion (airway and SVC stents) in our centers. We assessed data pertaining to both technical and clinical success rates, as well as to long-term patient outcomes.The use of double stents (12 airway stents and 19 SVC stents) was technically successful in all study subjects, with a 0 to 92 days period between the 2 stent insertions (mean 27.8 days). Patients did not show evidence of any procedure-related complications. Mean patient Hugh-Jones grades improved from 4.4 ± 0.5 before inserting the airway stent down to 1.2 ± 0.4 following this insertion (P < .001). Mean SVC pressure was reduced from 17.5 ± 2.8 mm Hg before the stent insertion down to 6.7 ± 1.4 mm Hg following this insertion (P < .001). Fifty-six days after insertion, a single patient experienced re-obstruction of their SVC stent. All patients died within the follow-up period, with a median survival time of 113 days for these 12 patients.This double stent insertion protocol is both effective and safe as a means of offering palliative care to those with CMASO.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.