Efficacy of esophageal stents as a primary therapeutic option in spontaneous esophageal perforations: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies.

IF 2.1 Q3 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY
Annals of Gastroenterology Pub Date : 2024-03-01 Epub Date: 2024-02-12 DOI:10.20524/aog.2024.0857
Ioannis Margaris, Tania Triantafyllou, Theodoros A Sidiropoulos, Giorgos Sideris, Dimitrios Theodorou, Nikolaos Arkadopoulos, Nikolaos V Michalopoulos
{"title":"Efficacy of esophageal stents as a primary therapeutic option in spontaneous esophageal perforations: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies.","authors":"Ioannis Margaris, Tania Triantafyllou, Theodoros A Sidiropoulos, Giorgos Sideris, Dimitrios Theodorou, Nikolaos Arkadopoulos, Nikolaos V Michalopoulos","doi":"10.20524/aog.2024.0857","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Spontaneous esophageal perforation traditionally mandates urgent surgical treatment. Lately, esophageal stents have been used to reduce the associated morbidity and mortality. The current systematic review aimed to assess the efficacy of stents as a primary treatment option in this scenario.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic search was conducted in PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus and the Cochrane Library for studies published in the English language between 2000 and 2023. We included observational studies reporting on the use of stents, alongside conservative measures and drainage procedures, in patients with spontaneous esophageal perforations. Primary outcomes were sealing rate (persistent leak occlusion) and failure rate (mortality or conversion to a major surgical operation). Secondary outcomes included patients' presentation, sepsis, drainage procedures, and reinterventions. Results for primary outcomes were presented as pooled rates with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), using a random-effects model. Methodological quality was assessed using the MINORS score.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Eighteen studies involving 171 patients were included. Sealing rate was 86% (95%CI 77-93%) and failure rate was 14% (95%CI 7-22%). Weighted mortality rate was 6% (95%CI 2-13%), while conversion to surgical treatment was 2% (95%CI 0-9%). Late presentation was not related to a statistically significant increase in treatment failure (odds ratio 1.85, 95%CI 0.37-9.30; P=0.72). Drainage procedures were required for the majority of patients, with a high rate of surgical and endoscopic reinterventions.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our results imply that stents may offer an effective and safe alternative treatment for patients with spontaneous esophageal perforations. Additional endoscopic and surgical drainage procedures are frequently needed.</p>","PeriodicalId":7978,"journal":{"name":"Annals of Gastroenterology","volume":"37 2","pages":"156-171"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10927622/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of Gastroenterology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.20524/aog.2024.0857","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/2/12 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Spontaneous esophageal perforation traditionally mandates urgent surgical treatment. Lately, esophageal stents have been used to reduce the associated morbidity and mortality. The current systematic review aimed to assess the efficacy of stents as a primary treatment option in this scenario.

Methods: A systematic search was conducted in PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus and the Cochrane Library for studies published in the English language between 2000 and 2023. We included observational studies reporting on the use of stents, alongside conservative measures and drainage procedures, in patients with spontaneous esophageal perforations. Primary outcomes were sealing rate (persistent leak occlusion) and failure rate (mortality or conversion to a major surgical operation). Secondary outcomes included patients' presentation, sepsis, drainage procedures, and reinterventions. Results for primary outcomes were presented as pooled rates with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), using a random-effects model. Methodological quality was assessed using the MINORS score.

Results: Eighteen studies involving 171 patients were included. Sealing rate was 86% (95%CI 77-93%) and failure rate was 14% (95%CI 7-22%). Weighted mortality rate was 6% (95%CI 2-13%), while conversion to surgical treatment was 2% (95%CI 0-9%). Late presentation was not related to a statistically significant increase in treatment failure (odds ratio 1.85, 95%CI 0.37-9.30; P=0.72). Drainage procedures were required for the majority of patients, with a high rate of surgical and endoscopic reinterventions.

Conclusions: Our results imply that stents may offer an effective and safe alternative treatment for patients with spontaneous esophageal perforations. Additional endoscopic and surgical drainage procedures are frequently needed.

食管支架作为自发性食管穿孔主要治疗方案的疗效:观察性研究的系统回顾和荟萃分析。
背景:自发性食管穿孔传统上需要紧急手术治疗。最近,食管支架被用来降低相关的发病率和死亡率。目前的系统性综述旨在评估在这种情况下将支架作为主要治疗方案的疗效:在 PubMed/MEDLINE、Scopus 和 Cochrane 图书馆中对 2000 年至 2023 年间发表的英文研究进行了系统检索。我们纳入了报告自发性食管穿孔患者使用支架、保守措施和引流程序的观察性研究。主要结果是密封率(持续性渗漏闭塞)和失败率(死亡率或转为大型外科手术)。次要结果包括患者的发病情况、败血症、引流程序和再次干预。主要结果采用随机效应模型,以汇总率和 95% 置信区间 (CI) 的形式显示。方法学质量采用 MINORS 评分进行评估:结果:共纳入 18 项研究,涉及 171 名患者。封堵率为 86%(95%CI 77-93%),失败率为 14%(95%CI 7-22%)。加权死亡率为 6%(95%CI 2-13%),而转为手术治疗的死亡率为 2%(95%CI 0-9%)。晚期就诊与治疗失败率的增加无统计学意义(几率比1.85,95%CI 0.37-9.30;P=0.72)。大多数患者需要进行引流手术,手术和内窥镜再干预的比例很高:我们的研究结果表明,支架可为自发性食管穿孔患者提供一种有效、安全的替代治疗方法。结论:我们的研究结果表明,支架可为自发性食管穿孔患者提供有效、安全的替代治疗方法,但经常需要额外的内镜和外科引流手术。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Annals of Gastroenterology
Annals of Gastroenterology GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY-
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
58
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信