Covered Stents vs Bare Metal Stents for Aortoiliac Arterial Diseases: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Covered stents and bare metal stents (BMS) have been regarded as viable treatment options for aortoiliac arterial diseases. We performed this systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the efficacy of covered stents with BMS for aortoiliac arterial diseases. Materials and Methods: The Cochrane Library, Embase, and Medline databases were searched by 2 authors (C.Z. and Z.W.) to retrieve all studies comparing the outcomes of covered stents vs BMS for aortoiliac arterial diseases. The Cochrane tool and the Newcastle–Ottawa scale were used to assess the risk of bias in randomized controlled trials and observational studies, respectively. The outcomes at the same stage reported in at least 2 studies were pooled together. The fixed effects model combined the data when I 2 <50%, otherwise the random effects model was applied. The results for dichotomous variables were presented as odds ratio (OR) or risk difference and 95% confidence interval (CI); continuous variables were reported as mean difference and 95% CI. Results: Herein, 10 studies with a total of 1695 limbs were included. The covered stents significantly increased the freedom from target lesion revascularization (OR 2.85, 95% CI: 1.28–6.33, p=0.010) compared to the BMS during a 24-month follow-up. However, no statistically significant difference was found in the technical success, primary patency, secondary patency, major adverse events (MAEs), ankle-brachial index (ABI) improvement, limb salvage, and survival between the two groups. Conclusion: Compared to BMS, covered stents appear to have similar technical success, primary patency, secondary patency, MAEs, ABI improvement, limb salvage, and survival but may have advantages in reducing target lesion revascularization. More well-designed, prospective studies are warranted to determine such findings. Clinical Impact Covered stents may increase freedom from target lesion revascularization (TLR) compared to bare metal stents (BMS) in the treatment of aortoiliac arterial diseases. However, technical success, primary patency, secondary patency, major adverse events (MAEs), ABI improvement, limb salvage, and survival were similar. The aforementioned results are still not sufficient to draw a solid conclusion about the selection of stents for aortoiliac arterial diseases. More well-designed, prospective studies are warranted to determine such findings.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.037 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".