Stenting for XXXX : A current comprehensive meta-analysis and systematic review.

@entity1 @entity548 @entity75 @entity4 @entity1066 @entity2979 @entity1030 @entity158
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this article was to summarize the efficacy and safety of venous stents in @entity1030 ( @entity1030 ) including @entity2979 ( @entity2979 ) and @entity75 ( @entity75 ). METHODS: We searched PubMed for case series (prospective and retrospective) that focused on venous stents in the treatment of @entity1030 published between 1st January, 2000 and 15th July, 2014. Then, we analyzed the perioperative complications, subsequent antithrombotic treatment, clinical outcomes, and long-term patency of this procedure. RESULTS: Overall, 1987 @entity1 from 14 studies were included in our study. The incidence of the 30-day thrombotic events was 2.0% (4.0% in @entity2979 vs. 0.8% in @entity75 , p   =   0.0002). The rates of access site complications and stent migration were 1.7% and 1.3%, respectively. The incidence of retroperitoneal @entity548 and contrast extravasation was 1.8%. Back @entity158 was more common with a rate of 62.9%. With stent placement, there was a significant @entity158 and @entity4 relief in @entity1030 @entity1 and the clinical-etiology-anatomy-pathophysiology scores declined. The rate of @entity1066 was 72.1% (70.3% in @entity2979 vs. 86.9% in @entity75 , p   =   0.0022), and the @entity1066 recurrence rate was 8.7%. The primary, assisted primary, and secondary patency rates were 91.4%, 95.0%, and 97.8%, respectively, at 12 months and 77.1%, 92.3%, and 94.3%, respectively, at 36 months; however, the patency rates in @entity2979 were lower than those in @entity75 . CONCLUSIONS: Stents may be a relatively effective and safe approach for @entity2979 and @entity75 @entity1 because of the low incidence of perioperative complications and satisfying long-term patency. Some outcomes of stents in @entity75 @entity1 may be better than those in @entity2979 @entity1 .
