Coaxial plastic stent placement within lumen-apposing metal stents for the management of pancreatic fluid collections: a systemic review and meta-analysis.
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":"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}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
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.