经皮胆道内射频消融术和支架置入术治疗不可切除的恶性胆道梗阻:倾向评分匹配回顾性研究。

IF 4.6 Q2 MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS
Wei Cui, Jing-Zhi Huang, Qi Wang, Feng Shi, Qing Gou, Xiao-Ming Chen, Jing Zhang, Jia-Ping Li, Rongde Xu
{"title":"经皮胆道内射频消融术和支架置入术治疗不可切除的恶性胆道梗阻:倾向评分匹配回顾性研究。","authors":"Wei Cui, Jing-Zhi Huang, Qi Wang, Feng Shi, Qing Gou, Xiao-Ming Chen, Jing Zhang, Jia-Ping Li, Rongde Xu","doi":"10.1186/s12876-024-03357-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Whether endobiliary radiofrequency ablation (EB-RFA) changes the standard role of stent placement in treating unresectable malignant biliary obstruction (MBO) remains unclear. The aim of this study is to compare percutaneous EB-RFA and metal stent placement (RFA-Stent) with metal stent placement alone (Stent) in treating unresectable MBO using a propensity score matching (PSM) analysis.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>From June 2013 to June 2018, clinical data from 163 patients with malignant biliary obstruction who underwent percutaneous RFA-Stent or stenting alone were retrospectively analyzed using a nearest-neighbor algorithm to one-to-one PSM analysis to compare primary and secondary stent patency (PSP, SSP), overall survival (OS) and complications between the two groups.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Before matching, for whole patients, RFA-Stent resulted in longer median PSP (8.0 vs. 5.1 months, P = 0.003), SSP (9.8 vs. 5.1 months, P < 0.001) and OS (7.0 vs. 4.5 months, P = 0.034) than the Stent group. After matching (54 pairs), RFA-Stent also resulted in better median PSP (8.5 vs. 5.1 months, P < 0.001), SSP (11.0 vs. 6.0 months, P < 0.001), and OS (8.0 vs. 4.0 months, P = 0.007) than Stent. RFA-Stent was comparable with Stent for complication rates. In Cox analysis, RFA-Stent modality and serum total bilirubin level were independent prognostic factors for PSP. RFA-Stent modality, performance status score and combination therapy after stent were independent prognostic factors for OS.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Percutaneous RFA-Stent was superior to Stent in terms of PSP, SSP, and OS in selected patients with unresectable MBO.</p>","PeriodicalId":2,"journal":{"name":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","volume":"24 1","pages":"270"},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11331891/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Percutaneous endobiliary radiofrequency ablation and stent placement for unresectable malignant biliary obstruction: a propensity score matching retrospective study.\",\"authors\":\"Wei Cui, Jing-Zhi Huang, Qi Wang, Feng Shi, Qing Gou, Xiao-Ming Chen, Jing Zhang, Jia-Ping Li, Rongde Xu\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s12876-024-03357-x\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Whether endobiliary radiofrequency ablation (EB-RFA) changes the standard role of stent placement in treating unresectable malignant biliary obstruction (MBO) remains unclear. The aim of this study is to compare percutaneous EB-RFA and metal stent placement (RFA-Stent) with metal stent placement alone (Stent) in treating unresectable MBO using a propensity score matching (PSM) analysis.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>From June 2013 to June 2018, clinical data from 163 patients with malignant biliary obstruction who underwent percutaneous RFA-Stent or stenting alone were retrospectively analyzed using a nearest-neighbor algorithm to one-to-one PSM analysis to compare primary and secondary stent patency (PSP, SSP), overall survival (OS) and complications between the two groups.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Before matching, for whole patients, RFA-Stent resulted in longer median PSP (8.0 vs. 5.1 months, P = 0.003), SSP (9.8 vs. 5.1 months, P < 0.001) and OS (7.0 vs. 4.5 months, P = 0.034) than the Stent group. After matching (54 pairs), RFA-Stent also resulted in better median PSP (8.5 vs. 5.1 months, P < 0.001), SSP (11.0 vs. 6.0 months, P < 0.001), and OS (8.0 vs. 4.0 months, P = 0.007) than Stent. RFA-Stent was comparable with Stent for complication rates. In Cox analysis, RFA-Stent modality and serum total bilirubin level were independent prognostic factors for PSP. RFA-Stent modality, performance status score and combination therapy after stent were independent prognostic factors for OS.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Percutaneous RFA-Stent was superior to Stent in terms of PSP, SSP, and OS in selected patients with unresectable MBO.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":2,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"ACS Applied Bio Materials\",\"volume\":\"24 1\",\"pages\":\"270\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11331891/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"ACS Applied Bio Materials\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12876-024-03357-x\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12876-024-03357-x","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:胆道内射频消融(EB-RFA)是否会改变支架置入在治疗不可切除的恶性胆道梗阻(MBO)中的标准作用,目前仍不清楚。本研究旨在通过倾向评分匹配(PSM)分析,比较经皮 EB-RFA 和金属支架置入术(RFA-Stent)与单纯金属支架置入术(Stent)在治疗不可切除的 MBO 中的作用:2013年6月至2018年6月,对163例接受经皮RFA-Stent或单纯支架置入术的恶性胆道梗阻患者的临床数据进行回顾性分析,采用最近邻算法进行一对一PSM分析,比较两组患者的主要和次要支架通畅率(PSP、SSP)、总生存率(OS)和并发症:结果:在匹配前,对于所有患者,RFA-支架的中位PSP(8.0个月 vs. 5.1个月,P = 0.003)和SSP(9.8个月 vs. 5.1个月,P对于选定的不可切除 MBO 患者,经皮 RFA 支架在 PSP、SSP 和 OS 方面优于支架。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Percutaneous endobiliary radiofrequency ablation and stent placement for unresectable malignant biliary obstruction: a propensity score matching retrospective study.

Background: Whether endobiliary radiofrequency ablation (EB-RFA) changes the standard role of stent placement in treating unresectable malignant biliary obstruction (MBO) remains unclear. The aim of this study is to compare percutaneous EB-RFA and metal stent placement (RFA-Stent) with metal stent placement alone (Stent) in treating unresectable MBO using a propensity score matching (PSM) analysis.

Methods: From June 2013 to June 2018, clinical data from 163 patients with malignant biliary obstruction who underwent percutaneous RFA-Stent or stenting alone were retrospectively analyzed using a nearest-neighbor algorithm to one-to-one PSM analysis to compare primary and secondary stent patency (PSP, SSP), overall survival (OS) and complications between the two groups.

Results: Before matching, for whole patients, RFA-Stent resulted in longer median PSP (8.0 vs. 5.1 months, P = 0.003), SSP (9.8 vs. 5.1 months, P < 0.001) and OS (7.0 vs. 4.5 months, P = 0.034) than the Stent group. After matching (54 pairs), RFA-Stent also resulted in better median PSP (8.5 vs. 5.1 months, P < 0.001), SSP (11.0 vs. 6.0 months, P < 0.001), and OS (8.0 vs. 4.0 months, P = 0.007) than Stent. RFA-Stent was comparable with Stent for complication rates. In Cox analysis, RFA-Stent modality and serum total bilirubin level were independent prognostic factors for PSP. RFA-Stent modality, performance status score and combination therapy after stent were independent prognostic factors for OS.

Conclusion: Percutaneous RFA-Stent was superior to Stent in terms of PSP, SSP, and OS in selected patients with unresectable MBO.

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
ACS Applied Bio Materials
ACS Applied Bio Materials Chemistry-Chemistry (all)
CiteScore
9.40
自引率
2.10%
发文量
464
×
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