Evaluating safety and efficacy of plastic versus metal stenting in malignant hilar biliary obstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

IF 3.6 4区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Xinjie Luo, Zhicheng Huang, Kamran Ali, Khizar Hayat
{"title":"Evaluating safety and efficacy of plastic versus metal stenting in malignant hilar biliary obstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.","authors":"Xinjie Luo, Zhicheng Huang, Kamran Ali, Khizar Hayat","doi":"10.1093/postmj/qgae165","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Stenting malignant hilar biliary obstruction (MHBO) is challenging due to its complex structure, and it is less effective than blockages in the distal bile duct area. Plastic stents (PSs) and metal stents (MSs) are commonly used for stenting MHBO. This study aims to compare the outcomes of PSs and MSs in MHBO patients.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a search of medical databases up to March 2024. Using a fixed-effect model, we analyzed the risk ratios (RRs) of the outcomes between the PS and MS groups. We calculated the RR for clinical and technical success, reinterventions, and adverse events, as well as the hazard ratio (HR) for survival and stent patency.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>This analysis includes five randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that met the inclusion criteria, comprising a total of 322 patients (156 in the PS group and 166 in the MS group). Significant differences (P < .05) in favor of the MS group were found in the reinterventions (RR 1.80, 95% CI 1.07-3.04), and stent patency (HR 0.54, 95% CI 0.32-0.90). There were no significant differences (P > 0.05) between the PS and MS groups regarding technical success (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.94-1.09), clinical success (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.69-1.07), overall survival (HR 0.71, 95% CI 0.47-1.05), stent migration (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.08-6.02), stent occlusion (RR1.32, 95% CI 0.97-1.81), and adverse events (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.53-1.20).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Both PS and MS are effective for managing MHBO, while MS offers greater efficacy in increased stent patency and lower reintervention rates. Key message What is already known on this topic Metal stents (MSs) and plastic stents (PSs) are used for palliative treatment of malignant hilar biliary obstruction (MHBO). MSs significantly reduced the need for reinterventions compared to PSs in patients with MHBO. What this study adds There were no significant differences between MSs and PSs in terms of technical success, clinical success, overall survival, stent migration, stent occlusion, or adverse events. How this study might affect research, practice, or policy The study's findings may prompt researchers to design more targeted studies to further investigate these specific outcomes in MHBO patients. The results encourage endoscopists to consider patient-specific factors, such as life expectancy and preference for minimizing recurrent procedures, when choosing between MSs and PSs for MHBO.</p>","PeriodicalId":20374,"journal":{"name":"Postgraduate Medical Journal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Postgraduate Medical Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/postmj/qgae165","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Stenting malignant hilar biliary obstruction (MHBO) is challenging due to its complex structure, and it is less effective than blockages in the distal bile duct area. Plastic stents (PSs) and metal stents (MSs) are commonly used for stenting MHBO. This study aims to compare the outcomes of PSs and MSs in MHBO patients.

Methods: We conducted a search of medical databases up to March 2024. Using a fixed-effect model, we analyzed the risk ratios (RRs) of the outcomes between the PS and MS groups. We calculated the RR for clinical and technical success, reinterventions, and adverse events, as well as the hazard ratio (HR) for survival and stent patency.

Results: This analysis includes five randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that met the inclusion criteria, comprising a total of 322 patients (156 in the PS group and 166 in the MS group). Significant differences (P < .05) in favor of the MS group were found in the reinterventions (RR 1.80, 95% CI 1.07-3.04), and stent patency (HR 0.54, 95% CI 0.32-0.90). There were no significant differences (P > 0.05) between the PS and MS groups regarding technical success (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.94-1.09), clinical success (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.69-1.07), overall survival (HR 0.71, 95% CI 0.47-1.05), stent migration (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.08-6.02), stent occlusion (RR1.32, 95% CI 0.97-1.81), and adverse events (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.53-1.20).

Conclusion: Both PS and MS are effective for managing MHBO, while MS offers greater efficacy in increased stent patency and lower reintervention rates. Key message What is already known on this topic Metal stents (MSs) and plastic stents (PSs) are used for palliative treatment of malignant hilar biliary obstruction (MHBO). MSs significantly reduced the need for reinterventions compared to PSs in patients with MHBO. What this study adds There were no significant differences between MSs and PSs in terms of technical success, clinical success, overall survival, stent migration, stent occlusion, or adverse events. How this study might affect research, practice, or policy The study's findings may prompt researchers to design more targeted studies to further investigate these specific outcomes in MHBO patients. The results encourage endoscopists to consider patient-specific factors, such as life expectancy and preference for minimizing recurrent procedures, when choosing between MSs and PSs for MHBO.

评估塑料支架与金属支架在恶性胆道梗阻中的安全性和有效性:随机对照试验的系统回顾和荟萃分析。
背景:由于恶性肝胆管梗阻(MHBO)结构复杂,支架治疗具有挑战性,而且效果不如远端胆管区域的堵塞。塑料支架(PS)和金属支架(MS)是常用的恶性胆道梗阻支架。本研究旨在比较塑料支架和金属支架对 MHBO 患者的治疗效果:我们检索了截至 2024 年 3 月的医学数据库。采用固定效应模型,我们分析了PS组和MS组结果的风险比(RR)。我们计算了临床和技术成功、再介入和不良事件的风险比,以及存活率和支架通畅率的危险比(HR):本分析包括五项符合纳入标准的随机对照试验(RCT),共涉及 322 名患者(PS 组 156 人,MS 组 166 人)。PS 组和 MS 组在技术成功率(RR 1.01,95% CI 0.94-1.09)、临床成功率(RR 0.86,95% CI 0.69-1.07)、总生存率(HR 0.71,95% CI 0.47-1.05)、支架移位(RR 0.69,95% CI 0.08-6.02)、支架闭塞(RR1.32,95% CI 0.97-1.81)和不良事件(RR 0.80,95% CI 0.53-1.20):结论:PS和MS都能有效控制MHBO,而MS在提高支架通畅率和降低再介入率方面疗效更好。关键信息 关于本主题的已知信息 金属支架(MS)和塑料支架(PS)可用于恶性胆道梗阻(MHBO)的姑息治疗。与塑料支架相比,金属支架大大减少了恶性胆道梗阻患者再次介入治疗的需要。本研究补充的内容 在技术成功率、临床成功率、总生存率、支架移位、支架闭塞或不良事件方面,MS和PS没有明显差异。本研究对研究、实践或政策有何影响 本研究的发现可能会促使研究人员设计更有针对性的研究,以进一步调查 MHBO 患者的这些特定结果。研究结果鼓励内镜医师在选择MS和PS治疗MHBO时考虑患者的具体因素,如预期寿命和尽量减少复发手术的偏好。
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
Postgraduate Medical Journal
Postgraduate Medical Journal 医学-医学:内科
CiteScore
8.50
自引率
2.00%
发文量
131
审稿时长
2.5 months
期刊介绍: Postgraduate Medical Journal is a peer reviewed journal published on behalf of the Fellowship of Postgraduate Medicine. The journal aims to support junior doctors and their teachers and contribute to the continuing professional development of all doctors by publishing papers on a wide range of topics relevant to the practicing clinician and teacher. Papers published in PMJ include those that focus on core competencies; that describe current practice and new developments in all branches of medicine; that describe relevance and impact of translational research on clinical practice; that provide background relevant to examinations; and papers on medical education and medical education research. PMJ supports CPD by providing the opportunity for doctors to publish many types of articles including original clinical research; reviews; quality improvement reports; editorials, and correspondence on clinical matters.
×
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