PURPOSE: To evaluate outcomes of expanded polytetrafluoroethylene (ePTFE)-covered stents and compare them with outcomes of uncovered stents in patients with malignant superior vena cava (SVC) syndrome. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study was approved by the institutional review board and written informed consent was obtained. Thirty-seven consecutive patients (33 men, four women; mean age, 60.3 years; range, 35-81 years) who underwent ePTFE-covered stent placement for SVC syndrome were enrolled in a prospective study between January 2009 and September 2011. Their data were compared with retrospective data of 36 consecutive patients (31 men, five women; mean age, 62.3 years; range, 41-81 years) who underwent uncovered stent placement for SVC syndrome between January 2005 and December 2008. The causes of malignant SVC syndrome were squamous cell carcinoma (n = 27), adenocarcinoma (n = 25), small cell carcinoma (n = 15), thymic carcinoma (n = 3), invasive thymoma (n = 2), and breast cancer (n = 1). Stent patency and patient survival rates were calculated by using the Kaplan-Meier method, and groups were compared with the log-rank test. RESULTS: Stent placement was technically successful in all patients. Complications did not occur in either group. Kaplan-Meier analysis revealed that covered stents had higher cumulative patency (97%, 94%, 94%, and 94% at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months, respectively) than uncovered stents (97%, 79%, 67%, and 48% at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months, respectively; P = .038). Clinical success rates did not significantly differ (P = .674), nor did patient survival (P = .549). Median survival in the covered stent group was 141 days (95% confidence interval: 81, 201 days) and 100 days in the uncovered stent group (95% confidence interval: 60, 140 days). CONCLUSION: Endovascular placement of ePTFE-covered stents appeared to be a safe and effective method to treat patients with malignant SVC syndrome and seemed to be superior to uncovered stents in terms of stent patency.
PURPOSE: To evaluate outcomes of expanded polytetrafluoroethylene (ePTFE)-covered stents and compare them with outcomes of uncovered stents in patients with malignant superior vena cava (SVC) syndrome. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study was approved by the institutional review board and written informed consent was obtained. Thirty-seven consecutive patients (33 men, four women; mean age, 60.3 years; range, 35-81 years) who underwent ePTFE-covered stent placement for SVC syndrome were enrolled in a prospective study between January 2009 and September 2011. Their data were compared with retrospective data of 36 consecutive patients (31 men, five women; mean age, 62.3 years; range, 41-81 years) who underwent uncovered stent placement for SVC syndrome between January 2005 and December 2008. The causes of malignant SVC syndrome were squamous cell carcinoma (n = 27), adenocarcinoma (n = 25), small cell carcinoma (n = 15), thymic carcinoma (n = 3), invasive thymoma (n = 2), and breast cancer (n = 1). Stent patency and patient survival rates were calculated by using the Kaplan-Meier method, and groups were compared with the log-rank test. RESULTS: Stent placement was technically successful in all patients. Complications did not occur in either group. Kaplan-Meier analysis revealed that covered stents had higher cumulative patency (97%, 94%, 94%, and 94% at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months, respectively) than uncovered stents (97%, 79%, 67%, and 48% at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months, respectively; P = .038). Clinical success rates did not significantly differ (P = .674), nor did patient survival (P = .549). Median survival in the covered stent group was 141 days (95% confidence interval: 81, 201 days) and 100 days in the uncovered stent group (95% confidence interval: 60, 140 days). CONCLUSION: Endovascular placement of ePTFE-covered stents appeared to be a safe and effective method to treat patients with malignant SVC syndrome and seemed to be superior to uncovered stents in terms of stent patency.
Authors: Susanne Anton; T Oechtering; E Stahlberg; F Jacob; M Kleemann; J Barkhausen; J P Goltz Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2017-12-22 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Karin Hohloch; Nick Bertram; Lorenz Trümper; Tim Beissbarth; Frank Griesinger Journal: J Cancer Res Clin Oncol Date: 2014-07-06 Impact factor: 4.553
Authors: Christian A Barrera; Hansel J Otero; Ammie M White; David Saul; David M Biko Journal: Int J Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2019-01-25 Impact factor: 2.357
Authors: Tamir Friedman; Keith B Quencer; Sirish A Kishore; Ronald S Winokur; David C Madoff Journal: Semin Intervent Radiol Date: 2017-12-14 Impact factor: 1.513