同轴双尾纤支架是否能减少腔内金属支架置入胰腺液收集后的不良事件?系统综述和荟萃分析。

IF 3 Q2 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY
Therapeutic Advances in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Pub Date : 2023-09-19 eCollection Date: 2023-01-01 DOI:10.1177/26317745231199364
Suprabhat Giri, Sidharth Harindranath, Shivaraj Afzalpurkar, Sumaswi Angadi, Sridhar Sundaram
{"title":"同轴双尾纤支架是否能减少腔内金属支架置入胰腺液收集后的不良事件?系统综述和荟萃分析。","authors":"Suprabhat Giri,&nbsp;Sidharth Harindranath,&nbsp;Shivaraj Afzalpurkar,&nbsp;Sumaswi Angadi,&nbsp;Sridhar Sundaram","doi":"10.1177/26317745231199364","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Lumen apposing metal stents (LAMSs) have a higher clinical success rate for managing pancreatic fluid collections. But they are associated with adverse events (AEs) like bleeding, migration, buried stent, occlusion, and infection. It has been hypothesized that placing a double pigtail stent (DPS) within LAMS may mitigate these AEs. The present systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to compare the outcome and AEs associated with LAMS with or without a coaxial DPS (LAMS-DPS).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A comprehensive literature search of three databases from January 2010 to August 2022 was conducted for studies comparing the outcome and AEs of LAMS alone and LAMS-DPS. Pooled incidence and risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for all the dichotomous outcomes.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Overall, eight studies (<i>n</i> = 460) were included in the final analysis. The clinical success rate (RR 1.00, 95% CI: 0.87-1.14) and the risk of overall AEs (RR 1.60, 95% CI: 0.95-2.68) remained comparable between both groups. There was no difference in the risk of bleeding between LAMS alone and LAMS-DPS (RR 1.80, 95% CI: 0.83-3.88). Individual analysis of other AEs, including infection, stent migration, occlusion, and reintervention, showed no difference in the risk between both procedures.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The present meta-analysis shows that coaxial DPS within LAMS may not reduce AE rates or improve clinical outcomes. Further larger studies, including patients with walled-off necrosis, are required to demonstrate the benefit of coaxial DPS within LAMS.</p>","PeriodicalId":40947,"journal":{"name":"Therapeutic Advances in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy","volume":"16 ","pages":"26317745231199364"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/ed/73/10.1177_26317745231199364.PMC10510348.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Does a coaxial double pigtail stent reduce adverse events after lumen apposing metal stent placement for pancreatic fluid collections? A systematic review and meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Suprabhat Giri,&nbsp;Sidharth Harindranath,&nbsp;Shivaraj Afzalpurkar,&nbsp;Sumaswi Angadi,&nbsp;Sridhar Sundaram\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/26317745231199364\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Lumen apposing metal stents (LAMSs) have a higher clinical success rate for managing pancreatic fluid collections. But they are associated with adverse events (AEs) like bleeding, migration, buried stent, occlusion, and infection. It has been hypothesized that placing a double pigtail stent (DPS) within LAMS may mitigate these AEs. The present systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to compare the outcome and AEs associated with LAMS with or without a coaxial DPS (LAMS-DPS).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A comprehensive literature search of three databases from January 2010 to August 2022 was conducted for studies comparing the outcome and AEs of LAMS alone and LAMS-DPS. Pooled incidence and risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for all the dichotomous outcomes.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Overall, eight studies (<i>n</i> = 460) were included in the final analysis. The clinical success rate (RR 1.00, 95% CI: 0.87-1.14) and the risk of overall AEs (RR 1.60, 95% CI: 0.95-2.68) remained comparable between both groups. There was no difference in the risk of bleeding between LAMS alone and LAMS-DPS (RR 1.80, 95% CI: 0.83-3.88). Individual analysis of other AEs, including infection, stent migration, occlusion, and reintervention, showed no difference in the risk between both procedures.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The present meta-analysis shows that coaxial DPS within LAMS may not reduce AE rates or improve clinical outcomes. Further larger studies, including patients with walled-off necrosis, are required to demonstrate the benefit of coaxial DPS within LAMS.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":40947,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Therapeutic Advances in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy\",\"volume\":\"16 \",\"pages\":\"26317745231199364\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/ed/73/10.1177_26317745231199364.PMC10510348.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Therapeutic Advances in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/26317745231199364\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Therapeutic Advances in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/26317745231199364","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:管腔贴壁金属支架(LAMSs)在管理胰液收集方面具有较高的临床成功率。但它们与不良事件(AE)有关,如出血、迁移、支架埋置、闭塞和感染。据推测,在LAMS内放置双尾纤支架(DPS)可以减轻这些AE。本系统综述和荟萃分析旨在比较有或无同轴DPS(LAMS-DPS)的LAMS的疗效和不良事件。计算所有二分结果的合并发病率和风险比(RR),置信区间为95%。结果:总体而言,8项研究(n = 460)被包括在最终分析中。两组之间的临床成功率(RR 1.00,95%CI:0.87-11.14)和总不良事件风险(RR 1.60,95%CI:0.95-2.68)保持可比性。单用LAMS和LAMS-DPS的出血风险没有差异(RR 1.80,95%CI:0.83-3.88)。对其他AE的个体分析,包括感染、支架移位、闭塞和再干预,显示两种手术的风险没有差异。结论:目前的荟萃分析表明,LAMS内的同轴DPS可能不会降低AE发生率或改善临床结果。需要进一步的大型研究,包括有壁坏死的患者,来证明LAMS内同轴DPS的益处。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Does a coaxial double pigtail stent reduce adverse events after lumen apposing metal stent placement for pancreatic fluid collections? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Does a coaxial double pigtail stent reduce adverse events after lumen apposing metal stent placement for pancreatic fluid collections? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Does a coaxial double pigtail stent reduce adverse events after lumen apposing metal stent placement for pancreatic fluid collections? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Does a coaxial double pigtail stent reduce adverse events after lumen apposing metal stent placement for pancreatic fluid collections? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background: Lumen apposing metal stents (LAMSs) have a higher clinical success rate for managing pancreatic fluid collections. But they are associated with adverse events (AEs) like bleeding, migration, buried stent, occlusion, and infection. It has been hypothesized that placing a double pigtail stent (DPS) within LAMS may mitigate these AEs. The present systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to compare the outcome and AEs associated with LAMS with or without a coaxial DPS (LAMS-DPS).

Methods: A comprehensive literature search of three databases from January 2010 to August 2022 was conducted for studies comparing the outcome and AEs of LAMS alone and LAMS-DPS. Pooled incidence and risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for all the dichotomous outcomes.

Results: Overall, eight studies (n = 460) were included in the final analysis. The clinical success rate (RR 1.00, 95% CI: 0.87-1.14) and the risk of overall AEs (RR 1.60, 95% CI: 0.95-2.68) remained comparable between both groups. There was no difference in the risk of bleeding between LAMS alone and LAMS-DPS (RR 1.80, 95% CI: 0.83-3.88). Individual analysis of other AEs, including infection, stent migration, occlusion, and reintervention, showed no difference in the risk between both procedures.

Conclusion: The present meta-analysis shows that coaxial DPS within LAMS may not reduce AE rates or improve clinical outcomes. Further larger studies, including patients with walled-off necrosis, are required to demonstrate the benefit of coaxial DPS within LAMS.

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
CiteScore
4.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
8
审稿时长
13 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