Apostolis Papaefthymiou, Daryl Ramai, Marcello Maida, Georgios Tziatzios, Antonio Facciorusso, Konstantinos Triantafyllou, Marianna Arvanitakis, Gavin Johnson, Simon Phillpotts, George Webster, Paraskevas Gkolfakis
{"title":"不同类型支架对肝移植后吻合口胆道狭窄的疗效:系统综述和荟萃分析。","authors":"Apostolis Papaefthymiou, Daryl Ramai, Marcello Maida, Georgios Tziatzios, Antonio Facciorusso, Konstantinos Triantafyllou, Marianna Arvanitakis, Gavin Johnson, Simon Phillpotts, George Webster, Paraskevas Gkolfakis","doi":"10.20524/aog.2024.0886","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Stent selection in the endoscopic management of post-liver-transplant anastomotic biliary strictures remains controversial. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the potential differences between available stents.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>MEDLINE, Cochrane, and Scopus databases were searched until April 2023 for comparative studies evaluating stricture management using multiple plastic stents (MPS) and self-expandable metal stents (SEMS), including fully-covered (FC)- and intraductal (ID)-SEMS. The primary outcome was stricture resolution, while secondary outcomes included stricture recurrence, stent migration and adverse events. Meta-analyses were based on a random-effects model and the results were reported as odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Subgroup analyses by type of metal stent and a cost-effectiveness analysis were also performed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Nine studies (687 patients) were finally included. Considering stricture resolution, SEMS and MPS did not differ significantly (OR 0.99, 95%CI 0.48-2.01; <i>I</i> <sup>2</sup>=35%). Stricture recurrence, migration rates and adverse events were also comparable (OR 1.71, 95%CI 0.87-3.38; <i>I</i> <sup>2</sup>=55%, OR 0.73, 95%CI 0.32-1.68; <i>I</i> <sup>2</sup>=56%, and OR 1.47, 95%CI 0.89-2.43; <i>I</i> <sup>2</sup>=24%, respectively). In the subgroup analysis, stricture resolution and recurrence rates did not differ for ID-SEMS vs. MPS or FC-SEMS vs. MPS. Migration rates were lower for ID-SEMS compared to MPS (OR 0.28, 95%CI 0.11-0.70; <i>I</i> <sup>2</sup>=0%), and complication rates were higher after FC-SEMS compared to MPS (OR 1.76, 95%CI 1.06-2.93; <i>I</i> <sup>2</sup>=0%). Finally, ID-SEMS were the most cost-effective approach, with the lowest incremental cost-effectiveness ratio: 3447.6 £/QALY.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Stent type did not affect stricture resolution and recurrence; however, ID-SEMS placement was the most cost-effective approach compared to the alternatives.</p>","PeriodicalId":7978,"journal":{"name":"Annals of Gastroenterology","volume":"37 4","pages":"485-492"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11226740/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Efficacy of different stent types in post-liver-transplant anastomotic biliary strictures: a systematic review and meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Apostolis Papaefthymiou, Daryl Ramai, Marcello Maida, Georgios Tziatzios, Antonio Facciorusso, Konstantinos Triantafyllou, Marianna Arvanitakis, Gavin Johnson, Simon Phillpotts, George Webster, Paraskevas Gkolfakis\",\"doi\":\"10.20524/aog.2024.0886\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Stent selection in the endoscopic management of post-liver-transplant anastomotic biliary strictures remains controversial. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the potential differences between available stents.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>MEDLINE, Cochrane, and Scopus databases were searched until April 2023 for comparative studies evaluating stricture management using multiple plastic stents (MPS) and self-expandable metal stents (SEMS), including fully-covered (FC)- and intraductal (ID)-SEMS. The primary outcome was stricture resolution, while secondary outcomes included stricture recurrence, stent migration and adverse events. Meta-analyses were based on a random-effects model and the results were reported as odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Subgroup analyses by type of metal stent and a cost-effectiveness analysis were also performed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Nine studies (687 patients) were finally included. Considering stricture resolution, SEMS and MPS did not differ significantly (OR 0.99, 95%CI 0.48-2.01; <i>I</i> <sup>2</sup>=35%). Stricture recurrence, migration rates and adverse events were also comparable (OR 1.71, 95%CI 0.87-3.38; <i>I</i> <sup>2</sup>=55%, OR 0.73, 95%CI 0.32-1.68; <i>I</i> <sup>2</sup>=56%, and OR 1.47, 95%CI 0.89-2.43; <i>I</i> <sup>2</sup>=24%, respectively). In the subgroup analysis, stricture resolution and recurrence rates did not differ for ID-SEMS vs. MPS or FC-SEMS vs. MPS. Migration rates were lower for ID-SEMS compared to MPS (OR 0.28, 95%CI 0.11-0.70; <i>I</i> <sup>2</sup>=0%), and complication rates were higher after FC-SEMS compared to MPS (OR 1.76, 95%CI 1.06-2.93; <i>I</i> <sup>2</sup>=0%). Finally, ID-SEMS were the most cost-effective approach, with the lowest incremental cost-effectiveness ratio: 3447.6 £/QALY.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Stent type did not affect stricture resolution and recurrence; however, ID-SEMS placement was the most cost-effective approach compared to the alternatives.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":7978,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Annals of Gastroenterology\",\"volume\":\"37 4\",\"pages\":\"485-492\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11226740/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Annals of Gastroenterology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.20524/aog.2024.0886\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/6/14 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of Gastroenterology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.20524/aog.2024.0886","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/6/14 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Efficacy of different stent types in post-liver-transplant anastomotic biliary strictures: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Background: Stent selection in the endoscopic management of post-liver-transplant anastomotic biliary strictures remains controversial. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the potential differences between available stents.
Methods: MEDLINE, Cochrane, and Scopus databases were searched until April 2023 for comparative studies evaluating stricture management using multiple plastic stents (MPS) and self-expandable metal stents (SEMS), including fully-covered (FC)- and intraductal (ID)-SEMS. The primary outcome was stricture resolution, while secondary outcomes included stricture recurrence, stent migration and adverse events. Meta-analyses were based on a random-effects model and the results were reported as odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Subgroup analyses by type of metal stent and a cost-effectiveness analysis were also performed.
Results: Nine studies (687 patients) were finally included. Considering stricture resolution, SEMS and MPS did not differ significantly (OR 0.99, 95%CI 0.48-2.01; I2=35%). Stricture recurrence, migration rates and adverse events were also comparable (OR 1.71, 95%CI 0.87-3.38; I2=55%, OR 0.73, 95%CI 0.32-1.68; I2=56%, and OR 1.47, 95%CI 0.89-2.43; I2=24%, respectively). In the subgroup analysis, stricture resolution and recurrence rates did not differ for ID-SEMS vs. MPS or FC-SEMS vs. MPS. Migration rates were lower for ID-SEMS compared to MPS (OR 0.28, 95%CI 0.11-0.70; I2=0%), and complication rates were higher after FC-SEMS compared to MPS (OR 1.76, 95%CI 1.06-2.93; I2=0%). Finally, ID-SEMS were the most cost-effective approach, with the lowest incremental cost-effectiveness ratio: 3447.6 £/QALY.
Conclusion: Stent type did not affect stricture resolution and recurrence; however, ID-SEMS placement was the most cost-effective approach compared to the alternatives.