ArticleJournal of thoracic disease2025
Proximal stent graft combined with distal bare stent
Article in Journal of thoracic disease, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The combination of a proximal stent graft (PSG) and a distal bare stent (DBS) has a number of advantages over standard thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) in the treatment of complicated Stanford type B aortic dissection (TBAD). However, direct comparisons between these two treatment approaches remain limited. This meta-analysis aimed to compare the efficacy of these techniques in the treatment of complicated Stanford TBAD. Methods: The Cochrane Library, Embase, PubMed, and Web of Science databases were searched using the following key terms: "provisional extension to induce complete attachment technique", "petticoat", "restrictive stent", "protective stent", "bare stent", and "aortic dissection". All articles relevant to the topic were included in the meta-analysis. The following variables were compared between the two approaches: aortic-related mortality (ARM), false lumen (FL) thrombosis, and complications, such as endoleak, aortic rupture, paraplegia or paraparesis, stroke, renal failure, retrograde dissection, conversion to open repair, reintervention, and stent graft-induced new entry (SINE). Results: A total of 15 studies comprising 1,462 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Of the patients, 635 received a bare stent (the BS group) and 827 received a standard TEVAR (the non-BS group). There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups in terms of the 30-day ARM rate [risk ratio (RR): 0.59; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.26-1.34; P=0.21], endoleak (RR: 0.87; 95% CI: 0.49-1.53; P=0.62), aortic rupture (RR: 0.65; 95% CI: 0.22-1.94; P=0.44), paraplegia or paraparesis (RR: 0.54; 95% CI: 0.22-1.32; P=0.17), stroke (RR: 0.91; 95% CI: 0.38-2.15; P=0.83), renal failure (RR: 2.35; 95% CI: 0.75-7.43; P=0.14), and retrograde dissection (RR: 1.06; 95% CI: 0.33-3.40; P=0.92). However, the >30-day ARM rate (RR: 0.58; 95% CI: 0.34-0.98; P=0.048), overall ARM rate (RR: 0.58; 95% CI: 0.38-0.88; P=0.01), conversion to open repair (RR: 0.28; 95% CI: 0.08-0.99; P=0.052), reintervention (RR: 0.40; 95% CI: 0.26-0.61; P<0.001), and SINE (RR: 0.14; 95% CI: 0.06-0.32; P<0.001) were significantly reduced in the BS group compared to the non-BS group. Additionally, while there was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of complete FL thrombosis at the thoracic level (RR: 1.20; 95% CI: 0.95-1.52; P=0.13), the two groups differed significantly in terms of complete FL thrombosis at the abdominal level (RR: 2.49; 95% CI: 1.37-4.53; P=0.003). Conclusions: Compared with standard TEVAR, combining a PSG with a DBS moderately reduces postoperative complications, and enhances remodeling of the aorta, and thus has advantages in the treatment of complicated Stanford TBAD.
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.