Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Bare stent treatment and bare stent-assisted coiling treatment have not been directly compared in symptomatic isolated superior mesenteric artery dissection with a patent false lumen. Thus, we compared the early and mid-term outcomes of bare stent treatment and bare stent-assisted coiling treatment to determine the most effective remedy for patients with this condition. METHODS: Consecutive patients diagnosed with systematic isolated superior mesenteric artery dissection with a patent false lumen admitted to the study hospital between January 2016 and December 2021 were enrolled in this retrospective study. Their demographic data, clinical findings, treatment options, early outcomes, and follow-up results were analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 85 patients (83 men) were included. 34.1% (n = 29) adopted bare stent treatment and 65.9% (n = 56) underwent bare stent-assisted coiling treatment. The symptoms were relieved in all patients (100%) with bare stent treatment and bare stent-assisted coiling treatment. There was no significant difference in the length of hospital stay between the two endovascular treatments (p = 0.354). The cumulative complete remodeling rate was 100% in bare stent-assisted coiling treatment vs. 70.4% in bare stent treatment (p < 0.0001). The prevalence of adverse events for abdominal pain recurrence (none in BST or bare stent-assisted coiling treatment), and formation of the aneurysm (two in bare stent treatment, and none in bare stent-assisted coiling treatment) showed no significant difference at follow-up. CONCLUSION: Both bare stent treatment and bare stent-assisted coiling treatment for symptomatic isolated superior mesenteric artery dissection with a patent false lumen have the same satisfying early outcome. In the midterm follow-up, bare stent-assisted coiling treatment has the higher cumulative complete remodeling rate which could be prioritized to treat this condition.