The Journal of international medical research · 2023
Is endoscopic radiofrequency ablation plus stent placement superior to stent placement alone for the treatment of malignant biliary obstruction? A systematic review and meta-analysis.
МетаанализСистематический обзорСтатьяНазвание 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.
Liu Chenming, Dong Jiaming, Liu Yuxing, Zhang Siyuan, Chen Ruanchang, Tang Haijun
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: Malignant biliary obstruction (MBO) is a rare disease with a poor prognosis. Recent studies have shown that endoscopic radiofrequency ablation (ERFA) may improve survival. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the efficacy of ERFA in combination with biliary stent placement for the treatment of MBO.
METHODS: The study was registered in INPLASY (number 202340096). The PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Embase databases were searched from inception to April 2023. We selected studies comparing the efficacy of ERFA plus stent placement with stent placement alone. The primary outcomes were pooled hazard ratios (HRs) for overall survival and stent patency; the secondary outcomes were the odds ratios (ORs) for adverse events.
RESULTS: Eleven studies (four randomized controlled trials and seven observational studies) were included in the meta-analysis. Pooled analysis showed a difference in survival time between the two groups (HR 0.65, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.58-0.73, I2 = 40%). However, there were no differences in the duration of stent patency or the incidence of adverse events (HR 1.04, 95% CI 0.84-1.29, I2 = 46%; OR 1.41, 95% CI 1.02-1.96, I2 = 29%).
CONCLUSIONS: ERFA has a significant survival benefit for MBO, but does not increase the risk of adverse events.
METHODS: The study was registered in INPLASY (number 202340096). The PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Embase databases were searched from inception to April 2023. We selected studies comparing the efficacy of ERFA plus stent placement with stent placement alone. The primary outcomes were pooled hazard ratios (HRs) for overall survival and stent patency; the secondary outcomes were the odds ratios (ORs) for adverse events.
RESULTS: Eleven studies (four randomized controlled trials and seven observational studies) were included in the meta-analysis. Pooled analysis showed a difference in survival time between the two groups (HR 0.65, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.58-0.73, I2 = 40%). However, there were no differences in the duration of stent patency or the incidence of adverse events (HR 1.04, 95% CI 0.84-1.29, I2 = 46%; OR 1.41, 95% CI 1.02-1.96, I2 = 29%).
CONCLUSIONS: ERFA has a significant survival benefit for MBO, but does not increase the risk of adverse events.