Surgical endoscopy · 2024
Efficacy and safety of long-term indwelling plastic stents after resolution of pancreatic fluid collections with endoscopic transmural drainage: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
СтатьяСистематический обзорМетаанализНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Hawa Fadi, Chalhoub Jean M, Vilela Ana, Quingalahua Elit, Shannon Carol, Philips George M, Kwon Richard S, Wamsteker Erik-Jan, Schulman Allison R, DiMagno Matthew J, Machicado Jorge D
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Pancreatic fluid collections (PFCs) may recur after resolution with endoscopic transmural drainage (ETD) and standard stent removal (SSR). Herein, we compared the efficacy and safety of leaving long-term indwelling plastic stents (LTIS) vs. standard stent removal after PFC resolution with ETD.
METHODS: We performed a systematic review of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Scopus, and Cochrane databases from inception to September 2022. Full-text articles comparing long-term (> 6 months) outcomes of LTIS and SSR were eligible, as well as single-arm studies with ≥ 10 patients with LTIS. Two independent reviewers selected studies, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Measured outcomes included the following: (A) PFC recurrence; (B) interventions for PFC recurrence; (C) technical success; and (D) adverse events (AEs). Meta-analysis was carried out using random-effects models.
RESULTS: We included 16 studies, encompassing 1285 patients. Compared to SSR after PFC resolution with ETD, LTIS was associated with significantly lower risk of PFC recurrence (3% vs. 23%; OR 0.22 [95%CI 0.09-0.52]; I2 = 45%) and need for interventions (2% vs. 14%; OR 0.35 [95%CI 0.16-0.78]; I2 = 0%). The superiority of LTIS on reducing PFC recurrence was found with walled-off necrosis, with or without disconnected pancreatic duct, and with placement of ≥ 2 LTIS. When using LTIS, the pooled proportion of AEs was 8% (95%CI 4-11%) and technical success was 93% (95%CI 86-99%).
CONCLUSIONS: Our results show that LTIS after PFC resolution with ETD is feasible, safe, and superior to SSR in reducing the risk of PFC recurrence and need for interventions.
METHODS: We performed a systematic review of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Scopus, and Cochrane databases from inception to September 2022. Full-text articles comparing long-term (> 6 months) outcomes of LTIS and SSR were eligible, as well as single-arm studies with ≥ 10 patients with LTIS. Two independent reviewers selected studies, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Measured outcomes included the following: (A) PFC recurrence; (B) interventions for PFC recurrence; (C) technical success; and (D) adverse events (AEs). Meta-analysis was carried out using random-effects models.
RESULTS: We included 16 studies, encompassing 1285 patients. Compared to SSR after PFC resolution with ETD, LTIS was associated with significantly lower risk of PFC recurrence (3% vs. 23%; OR 0.22 [95%CI 0.09-0.52]; I2 = 45%) and need for interventions (2% vs. 14%; OR 0.35 [95%CI 0.16-0.78]; I2 = 0%). The superiority of LTIS on reducing PFC recurrence was found with walled-off necrosis, with or without disconnected pancreatic duct, and with placement of ≥ 2 LTIS. When using LTIS, the pooled proportion of AEs was 8% (95%CI 4-11%) and technical success was 93% (95%CI 86-99%).
CONCLUSIONS: Our results show that LTIS after PFC resolution with ETD is feasible, safe, and superior to SSR in reducing the risk of PFC recurrence and need for interventions.