-
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
-
Clin Endosc 2024;57(5):595-603. Published online July 24, 2024
-
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5946/ce.2023.297
-
-
 Graphical Abstract
 Abstract
 PDF Supplementary Material PubReader ePub
 - 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.
|
KSGE
