将同轴塑料支架放置于腔隙贴合金属支架内以治疗胰腺积液:系统回顾和荟萃分析。

IF 2.1 Q3 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY
Clinical Endoscopy Pub Date : 2024-09-01 Epub Date: 2024-07-24 DOI:10.5946/ce.2023.297
Jad AbiMansour, Veeravich Jaruvongvanich, Saran Velaga, Ryan Law, Andrew C Storm, Mark Topazian, Michael J Levy, Ryan Alexander, Eric J Vargas, Aliana Bofill-Garica, John A Martin, Bret T Petersen, Barham K Abu Dayyeh, Vinay Chandrasekhara
{"title":"将同轴塑料支架放置于腔隙贴合金属支架内以治疗胰腺积液:系统回顾和荟萃分析。","authors":"Jad AbiMansour, Veeravich Jaruvongvanich, Saran Velaga, Ryan Law, Andrew C Storm, Mark Topazian, Michael J Levy, Ryan Alexander, Eric J Vargas, Aliana Bofill-Garica, John A Martin, Bret T Petersen, Barham K Abu Dayyeh, Vinay Chandrasekhara","doi":"10.5946/ce.2023.297","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background/aims: </strong>Coaxial placement of double pigtail plastic stents (DPPS) through lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMSs) is commonly performed to reduce the risk of LAMS obstruction, bleeding, and stent migration when used for the drainage of pancreatic fluid collections (PFCs). A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed to compare the outcomes of LAMS alone and LAMS with coaxial DPPS placement in the management of PFCs.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic review was conducted to identify studies comparing LAMS and LAMS/DPPS for PFC drainage. Primary outcomes included the rate of clinical success, overall adverse events (AEs), bleeding, infection, occlusion, and stent migration. The pooled effect size was summarized using a random-effects model and compared between LAMS and LAMS/DPPS by calculating odds ratios (ORs).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Nine studies involving 709 patients were identified (338 on LAMS and 371 on LAMS/DPPS). LAMS/DPPS was associated with a reduced risk of stent obstruction (OR, 0.59; p=0.004) and infection (OR, 0.55; p=0.001). No significant differences were observed in clinical success (OR, 0.96; p=0.440), overall AEs (OR, 0.57; p=0.060), bleeding (OR, 0.61; p=0.120), or stent migration (OR, 1.03; p=0.480).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Coaxial DPPS for LAMS drainage of PFCs is associated with a reduced risk of stent occlusion and infection; however, no difference was observed in the overall AE rates or bleeding.</p>","PeriodicalId":10351,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Endoscopy","volume":" ","pages":"595-603"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11474481/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Coaxial plastic stent placement within lumen-apposing metal stents for the management of pancreatic fluid collections: a systemic review and meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Jad AbiMansour, Veeravich Jaruvongvanich, Saran Velaga, Ryan Law, Andrew C Storm, Mark Topazian, Michael J Levy, Ryan Alexander, Eric J Vargas, Aliana Bofill-Garica, John A Martin, Bret T Petersen, Barham K Abu Dayyeh, Vinay Chandrasekhara\",\"doi\":\"10.5946/ce.2023.297\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background/aims: </strong>Coaxial placement of double pigtail plastic stents (DPPS) through lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMSs) is commonly performed to reduce the risk of LAMS obstruction, bleeding, and stent migration when used for the drainage of pancreatic fluid collections (PFCs). A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed to compare the outcomes of LAMS alone and LAMS with coaxial DPPS placement in the management of PFCs.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic review was conducted to identify studies comparing LAMS and LAMS/DPPS for PFC drainage. Primary outcomes included the rate of clinical success, overall adverse events (AEs), bleeding, infection, occlusion, and stent migration. The pooled effect size was summarized using a random-effects model and compared between LAMS and LAMS/DPPS by calculating odds ratios (ORs).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Nine studies involving 709 patients were identified (338 on LAMS and 371 on LAMS/DPPS). LAMS/DPPS was associated with a reduced risk of stent obstruction (OR, 0.59; p=0.004) and infection (OR, 0.55; p=0.001). No significant differences were observed in clinical success (OR, 0.96; p=0.440), overall AEs (OR, 0.57; p=0.060), bleeding (OR, 0.61; p=0.120), or stent migration (OR, 1.03; p=0.480).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Coaxial DPPS for LAMS drainage of PFCs is associated with a reduced risk of stent occlusion and infection; however, no difference was observed in the overall AE rates or bleeding.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10351,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical Endoscopy\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"595-603\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11474481/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical Endoscopy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5946/ce.2023.297\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/7/24 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Endoscopy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5946/ce.2023.297","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/7/24 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景/目的:在用于引流胰腺积液(PFCs)时,通常会将双尾塑料支架(DPPS)通过腔隙贴合金属支架(LAMSs)同轴放置,以降低LAMS阻塞、出血和支架移位的风险。我们进行了一项系统性回顾和荟萃分析,以比较单纯 LAMS 和 LAMS 与同轴 DPPS 置入治疗 PFCs 的结果:方法:进行了一项系统性综述,以确定比较 LAMS 和 LAMS/DPPS 用于 PFC 引流的研究。主要结果包括临床成功率、总体不良事件(AE)、出血、感染、闭塞和支架移位。采用随机效应模型总结了汇集效应大小,并通过计算几率比(ORs)对 LAMS 和 LAMS/DPPS 进行了比较:结果:共发现了九项研究,涉及 709 名患者(其中 338 人使用 LAMS,371 人使用 LAMS/DPPS)。LAMS/DPPS与支架阻塞(OR,0.59;p=0.004)和感染(OR,0.55;p=0.001)风险降低有关。在临床成功率(OR,0.96;p=0.440)、总体AEs(OR,0.57;p=0.060)、出血(OR,0.61;p=0.120)或支架移位(OR,1.03;p=0.480)方面未观察到明显差异:结论:同轴 DPPS 用于 LAMS 引流 PFCs 可降低支架闭塞和感染的风险;但在总体 AE 率或出血方面未观察到差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Coaxial plastic stent placement within lumen-apposing metal stents for the management of pancreatic fluid collections: a systemic review and meta-analysis.

Background/aims: Coaxial placement of double pigtail plastic stents (DPPS) through lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMSs) is commonly performed to reduce the risk of LAMS obstruction, bleeding, and stent migration when used for the drainage of pancreatic fluid collections (PFCs). A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed to compare the outcomes of LAMS alone and LAMS with coaxial DPPS placement in the management of PFCs.

Methods: A systematic review was conducted to identify studies comparing LAMS and LAMS/DPPS for PFC drainage. Primary outcomes included the rate of clinical success, overall adverse events (AEs), bleeding, infection, occlusion, and stent migration. The pooled effect size was summarized using a random-effects model and compared between LAMS and LAMS/DPPS by calculating odds ratios (ORs).

Results: Nine studies involving 709 patients were identified (338 on LAMS and 371 on LAMS/DPPS). LAMS/DPPS was associated with a reduced risk of stent obstruction (OR, 0.59; p=0.004) and infection (OR, 0.55; p=0.001). No significant differences were observed in clinical success (OR, 0.96; p=0.440), overall AEs (OR, 0.57; p=0.060), bleeding (OR, 0.61; p=0.120), or stent migration (OR, 1.03; p=0.480).

Conclusions: Coaxial DPPS for LAMS drainage of PFCs is associated with a reduced risk of stent occlusion and infection; however, no difference was observed in the overall AE rates or bleeding.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Clinical Endoscopy
Clinical Endoscopy GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY-
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
8.00%
发文量
95
审稿时长
26 weeks
×
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