Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35821122›Full record

SynthesisCardiovascular and interventional radiology2022

Endovascular Stenting in Superior Vena Cava Syndrome: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Eri Yin-Soe Aung, Maha Khan, Norman Williams, Usman Raja, Mohamad Hamady

Open access · hybridAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Cardiovascular and interventional radiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed
7.8field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

19 citing papers in PubMed, 34 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Contemporary management of superior vena cava syndrome.Journal of vascular surgery. Venous and lymphatic disorders · 2026
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. BMC cancer · 2026
    Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Large-bore catheter selection in endovascular management of superior vena cava syndrome.Journal of vascular surgery cases and innovative techniques · 2025
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Inferior and Superior Vena Cava Reconstruction.Cardiovascular and interventional radiology · 2024
    Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Eri Yin-Soe AungImperial College School of Medicine, Imperial College London, Sir Alexander Fleming Building, Imperial College Road, London, SW72DD, UK. eri.aung@nhs.net.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4113-3881
Maha KhanImperial College School of Medicine, Imperial College London, Sir Alexander Fleming Building, Imperial College Road, London, SW72DD, UK.
Norman WilliamsSurgical and Interventional Trials Unit (SITU), University College London, London, W1W 7JN, UK.
Usman RajaImperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, St Mary's Hospital, London, UK.
Mohamad HamadyGuy's and St Thomas NHS Trust, London, UK.
Imperial College London · GBGuy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust · GBImperial College Healthcare NHS Trust · GBUniversity College London · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeEndovascular stenting has been used to manage superior vena cava syndrome for several decades and has become standard firstline practice. This study aims to investigate the outcomes of endovascular stenting in the management of superior vena cava syndrome (SVCS).

methodsMEDLINE, EMBASE and PUBMED online databases were searched, with studies involving more than ten adult patients included. Studies identified spanned 27 years, from 1993 to 2020. Meta-analyses were performed based on Clopper-Pearson estimation.

resultsFifty-four studies were identified, for a total of 2249 patients, of which 2015 had malignant SVCS and 222 benign SVCS. Pooled technical success and clinical success rates were 96.8% (95% CI 96.0-97.5%) and 92.8% (95% CI 91.7-93.8%). Technical success and clinical success rates for studies investigating benign SVCS alone were identical at 88.8% (95% CI 83.0-93.1%). Pooled patency remained above 90% for the first year. Average complication and re-intervention rates were 5.78% (SD = 9.3182) and 9.11% (SD = 11.190).

conclusionsThis review confirms the effectiveness of endovascular stenting in managing SVCS. Further directions of research may include specific outcomes of endovascular stenting in benign SVCS, and the impact of procedural characteristics, such as the use of anticoagulation and type of stent used, on outcomes. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, systematic review of retrospective cohort studies.

Indexed as

Endovascular ProceduresStentsSuperior Vena Cava SyndromeAdultHumansRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomeEndovascular stentingMeta-analysisSuperior vena cava syndromeSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID35821122
PMCPMC9458578
OpenAlexW4285089836

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.