Evaluating safety and efficacy of plastic versus metal stenting in malignant hilar biliary obstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Xinjie Luo, Zhicheng Huang, Kamran Ali, Khizar Hayat
{"title":"Evaluating safety and efficacy of plastic versus metal stenting in malignant hilar biliary obstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.","authors":"Xinjie Luo, Zhicheng Huang, Kamran Ali, Khizar Hayat","doi":"10.1093/postmj/qgae165","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Stenting malignant hilar biliary obstruction (MHBO) is challenging due to its complex structure, and it is less effective than blockages in the distal bile duct area. Plastic stents (PSs) and metal stents (MSs) are commonly used for stenting MHBO. This study aims to compare the outcomes of PSs and MSs in MHBO patients.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a search of medical databases up to March 2024. Using a fixed-effect model, we analyzed the risk ratios (RRs) of the outcomes between the PS and MS groups. We calculated the RR for clinical and technical success, reinterventions, and adverse events, as well as the hazard ratio (HR) for survival and stent patency.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>This analysis includes five randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that met the inclusion criteria, comprising a total of 322 patients (156 in the PS group and 166 in the MS group). Significant differences (P < .05) in favor of the MS group were found in the reinterventions (RR 1.80, 95% CI 1.07-3.04), and stent patency (HR 0.54, 95% CI 0.32-0.90). There were no significant differences (P > 0.05) between the PS and MS groups regarding technical success (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.94-1.09), clinical success (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.69-1.07), overall survival (HR 0.71, 95% CI 0.47-1.05), stent migration (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.08-6.02), stent occlusion (RR1.32, 95% CI 0.97-1.81), and adverse events (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.53-1.20).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Both PS and MS are effective for managing MHBO, while MS offers greater efficacy in increased stent patency and lower reintervention rates. Key message What is already known on this topic Metal stents (MSs) and plastic stents (PSs) are used for palliative treatment of malignant hilar biliary obstruction (MHBO). MSs significantly reduced the need for reinterventions compared to PSs in patients with MHBO. What this study adds There were no significant differences between MSs and PSs in terms of technical success, clinical success, overall survival, stent migration, stent occlusion, or adverse events. How this study might affect research, practice, or policy The study's findings may prompt researchers to design more targeted studies to further investigate these specific outcomes in MHBO patients. The results encourage endoscopists to consider patient-specific factors, such as life expectancy and preference for minimizing recurrent procedures, when choosing between MSs and PSs for MHBO.</p>","PeriodicalId":20374,"journal":{"name":"Postgraduate Medical Journal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Postgraduate Medical Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/postmj/qgae165","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: Stenting malignant hilar biliary obstruction (MHBO) is challenging due to its complex structure, and it is less effective than blockages in the distal bile duct area. Plastic stents (PSs) and metal stents (MSs) are commonly used for stenting MHBO. This study aims to compare the outcomes of PSs and MSs in MHBO patients.
Methods: We conducted a search of medical databases up to March 2024. Using a fixed-effect model, we analyzed the risk ratios (RRs) of the outcomes between the PS and MS groups. We calculated the RR for clinical and technical success, reinterventions, and adverse events, as well as the hazard ratio (HR) for survival and stent patency.
Results: This analysis includes five randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that met the inclusion criteria, comprising a total of 322 patients (156 in the PS group and 166 in the MS group). Significant differences (P < .05) in favor of the MS group were found in the reinterventions (RR 1.80, 95% CI 1.07-3.04), and stent patency (HR 0.54, 95% CI 0.32-0.90). There were no significant differences (P > 0.05) between the PS and MS groups regarding technical success (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.94-1.09), clinical success (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.69-1.07), overall survival (HR 0.71, 95% CI 0.47-1.05), stent migration (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.08-6.02), stent occlusion (RR1.32, 95% CI 0.97-1.81), and adverse events (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.53-1.20).
Conclusion: Both PS and MS are effective for managing MHBO, while MS offers greater efficacy in increased stent patency and lower reintervention rates. Key message What is already known on this topic Metal stents (MSs) and plastic stents (PSs) are used for palliative treatment of malignant hilar biliary obstruction (MHBO). MSs significantly reduced the need for reinterventions compared to PSs in patients with MHBO. What this study adds There were no significant differences between MSs and PSs in terms of technical success, clinical success, overall survival, stent migration, stent occlusion, or adverse events. How this study might affect research, practice, or policy The study's findings may prompt researchers to design more targeted studies to further investigate these specific outcomes in MHBO patients. The results encourage endoscopists to consider patient-specific factors, such as life expectancy and preference for minimizing recurrent procedures, when choosing between MSs and PSs for MHBO.
期刊介绍:
Postgraduate Medical Journal is a peer reviewed journal published on behalf of the Fellowship of Postgraduate Medicine. The journal aims to support junior doctors and their teachers and contribute to the continuing professional development of all doctors by publishing papers on a wide range of topics relevant to the practicing clinician and teacher. Papers published in PMJ include those that focus on core competencies; that describe current practice and new developments in all branches of medicine; that describe relevance and impact of translational research on clinical practice; that provide background relevant to examinations; and papers on medical education and medical education research. PMJ supports CPD by providing the opportunity for doctors to publish many types of articles including original clinical research; reviews; quality improvement reports; editorials, and correspondence on clinical matters.