Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Efficacy and Safety of Lumen-Apposing Metal Stents in Management of Pancreatic Fluid Collections: Are They Better Than Plastic Stents? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Efficacy and Safety of Lumen-Apposing Metal Stents in Management of Pancreatic Fluid Collections: Are They Better Than Plastic Stents? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Do you wish to request the book?
Efficacy and Safety of Lumen-Apposing Metal Stents in Management of Pancreatic Fluid Collections: Are They Better Than Plastic Stents? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Efficacy and Safety of Lumen-Apposing Metal Stents in Management of Pancreatic Fluid Collections: Are They Better Than Plastic Stents? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
2018
Overview
Background and AimsEndoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided transmural drainage has been increasingly utilized as a first-line therapeutic modality for drainage of pancreatic fluid collections (PFC). Recently, lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMS) have been utilized for management of PFCs. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the cumulative efficacy and safety of LAMS in the management of PFC (primary outcome). We also compared the efficacy and safety of LAMS with multiple plastic stents (MPS) in the management of PFC (secondary outcome).MethodsWe searched Medline, Embase and Cochrane databases from inception to November 5, 2016, to identify studies (with ≥ 10 patients) reporting technical success, clinical success, and adverse events (AE) of EUS-guided transmural drainage of PFC using LAMS. Weighted pooled rates (WPR) were calculated for technical success, clinical success and AE. Risk ratios (RR) were calculated and pooled to compare LAMS with MPS in terms of technical success, clinical success, and AE. Pooled mean difference (MD) was calculated to compare the number of endoscopic sessions required by each type of stent to achieve clinical success. All analyses were done using random effects model.ResultsEleven studies with 688 patients were included in this meta-analysis. WPR for technical success of LAMS in PFC management was 98% (96, 99%), (I2 = 15%). WPR for clinical success was 93% (89, 96%) with moderate heterogeneity (I2 = 50%). There was no difference in clinical success for pseudocysts (PP) versus walled-off pancreatic necrosis (WON) (P = 0.51). WPR for AE was 13% (9, 20%), (I2 = 64%). AE were 10% more in WON as compared to PP (P = 0.009). Most common AE requiring intervention was stent migration (4.2%), followed by infection (3.8%), bleeding (2.4%), and stent occlusion (1.9%). Six studies with 504 patients compared the performance of LAMS with MPS. Pooled RR for technical success was 1.71 (0.38, 7.37). Pooled RR for clinical success was 0.37 (0.20, 0.67) in favor of LAMS. Pooled RR for AE was 0.39 (0.18, 0.84), (I2 = 50%). Pooled MD for number of endoscopic sessions was − 0.84 (− 1.69, 0.01).ConclusionsLAMS seem to have excellent efficacy and safety in the management of PFCs. They may be preferred over plastic stents as they are associated with better clinical success and lesser adverse events.
Publisher
Springer Nature B.V
Subject
We currently cannot retrieve any items related to this title. Kindly check back at a later time.