scholarly journals Comparative Efficacy of Various Stents for Palliation in Patients with Malignant Extrahepatic Biliary Obstruction: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 86
Author(s):  
Chan Hyuk Park ◽  
Se Woo Park ◽  
Jang Han Jung ◽  
Eun Suk Jung ◽  
Jung Hee Kim ◽  
...  

Although many studies have investigated the efficacy of stent placement for patients with malignant extrahepatic biliary obstruction, the clinical outcomes and adverse events of biliary stenting have not been comprehensively evaluated. We searched all relevant randomized-controlled trials that evaluated the comparative efficacy of biliary stents, including the plastic stents, uncovered self-expandable metal stents (SEMSs), and covered SEMSs in patients with malignant extrahepatic biliary obstructions. Twenty-one studies with 2326 patients were included. Both uncovered and covered SEMSs had a lower risk of recurrent biliary obstruction (RBO) compared to plastic stents (risk ratio (RR) (95% confidence interval [CI]): uncovered vs. plastic, 0.46 (0.35–0.62); covered vs. plastic, 0.46 (0.34–0.62)). A comparison of the groups using SEMSs revealed that tumor ingrowth was common in the uncovered SEMS group, while stent migration, tumor overgrowth, and occlusion by sludge were common in the covered SEMS group; however, the overall risk of RBO did not differ between these groups (RR (95% CI): uncovered vs. covered: 1.02 (0.80–1.30)). Although the main causes of RBO vary across stents, RBO risk was similar between uncovered and covered SEMS groups. Both SEMSs have superior efficacy in terms of RBO compared to plastic stents.

2020 ◽  
Vol 08 (11) ◽  
pp. E1639-E1653
Author(s):  
Vinay Chandrasekhara ◽  
Marc Barthet ◽  
Jacques Devière ◽  
Fateh Bazerbachi ◽  
Sundeep Lakhtakia ◽  
...  

Abstract Background and study aims Lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMS) are increasingly used for drainage of walled-off pancreatic necrosis (WON). Recent studies suggested greater adverse event (AE) rates with LAMS for WON. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the safety and efficacy of LAMS with double-pigtail plastic stents (DPPS) for endoscopic drainage of WON. The primary aim was to evaluate stent-related AEs. Methods In October 2019, we searched the Ovid (Embase, MEDLINE, Cochrane) and Scopus databases for studies assessing a specific LAMS or DPPS for WON drainage conducted under EUS guidance. Safety outcomes were AE rates of bleeding, stent migration, perforation, and stent occlusion. Efficacy outcomes were WON resolution and number of procedures needed to achieve resolution. A subanalysis including non-EUS-guided cases was performed. Results Thirty studies including one randomized controlled trial (total 1,524 patients) were analyzed. LAMS were associated with similar bleeding (2.5 % vs. 4.6 %, P = 0.39) and perforation risk (0.5 % vs. 1.1 %, P = 0.35) compared to DPPS. WON resolution (87.4 % vs. 87.5 %, P = 0.99), number of procedures to achieve resolution (2.09 vs. 1.88, P = 0.72), stent migration (5.9 % vs. 6.8 %, P = 0.79), and stent occlusion (3.8 % vs. 5.2 %, P = 0.78) were similar for both groups. Inclusion of non-EUS-guided cases led to significantly higher DPPS bleeding and perforation rates. Conclusions LAMS and DPPS were associated with similar rates of AEs and WON resolution when limiting analysis to EUS-guided cases. Higher bleeding rates were seen in historical studies of DPPS without EUS guidance. Additional high-quality studies of WON treatment using consistent outcome definitions are needed.


2015 ◽  
Vol 82 (2) ◽  
pp. 256-267.e7 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tarek Sawas ◽  
Shadi Al Halabi ◽  
Mansour A. Parsi ◽  
John J. Vargo

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document