Fully covered versus partially covered self-expandable metal stents for palliation of distal malignant biliary obstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis

被引:10
作者
Vanella, Giuseppe [1 ]
Coluccio, Chiara [3 ]
Cucchetti, Alessandro [3 ,4 ]
Leone, Roberto [1 ,2 ]
Dell'Anna, Giuseppe [1 ]
Giuffrida, Paolo [3 ,5 ]
Abbatiello, Carmela [3 ,6 ]
Binda, Cecilia [3 ]
Fabbri, Carlo [3 ]
Arcidiacono, Paolo Giorgio [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Vita Salute San Raffaele, IRCCS San Raffaele Sci Inst, Pancreatobiliary Endoscopy & Endosonog Div, Pancreas Translat & Clin Res Ctr, Via Olgettina 60, I-20132 MIilan, Italy
[2] Univ Vita Salute San Raffaele, Int MD Program, Milan, Italy
[3] Morgagni Pierantoni Hosp, Gastroenterol Dept, Forli, Italy
[4] Alma Mater Studiorum Univ Bologna, Pancreatobiliary Endoscopy & Endosonog Div, Bologna, Italy
[5] Univ Palermo, Dept Hlth Promot Sci Maternal & Infant Care Intern, Sect Gastroenterol & Hepatol, Palermo, Italy
[6] Univ Salerno, Digest Dis Postgrad Sch, Salerno, Italy
关键词
EFFICACY;
D O I
10.1016/j.gie.2023.10.023
中图分类号
R57 [消化系及腹部疾病];
学科分类号
摘要
Background and Aims: Self-expandable metal stents (SEMSs) are standardly used for distal malignant biliary obstruction (dMBO). Although data suggest that covered versus uncovered SEMSs increase the time to recurrent biliary obstruction (TRBO), no data are available for fully covered (FC) versus partially covered (PC) designs. Methods: PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane databases were screened up to January 2023 for studies concerning dMBO treated by an FC- or PC-SEMS and describing adverse events (AEs), recurrences, or TRBO for specific design subpopulations. Pooled proportions or means were calculated using a random-effects model. Several subanalyses were preplanned, including a subanalysis restricted to prospective studies and unresectable diseases. Heterogeneity and publication bias were explored. Standardized differences (d-values) were calculated between groups. Results: From 1290 records, 62 studies (3327 using FC-SEMSs and 2322 using PC-SEMSs) were included. FC- versus PC-SEMSs showed negligible differences in the rate of total AEs (12% vs 9.9%) and all specific AEs, including cholecystitis (2.5% vs 2.6%). In a subanalysis restricted to prospective studies and unresectable diseases, the rate of RBO was comparable between FC-SEMSs (27.3% [95% confidence interval {CI}, 23.7-31.2], I2 = 35.34%) and PC-SEMSs (25.3% [95% CI, 20.2-30.7], I2 = 85.09%), despite small differences (d-values between .186 and .216) in the rate of ingrowth (.5% vs 2.9%) favoring FC-SEMSs and migration (9.8% vs 4.3%) favoring PC-SEMSs. TRBO was shorter for FC-SEMSs (238 days [95% CI, 191-286], I2 = 63.1%) versus PC-SEMSs (369 days [95% CI, 290-449], I2 = 71.9%; d-value = .116). Conclusions: Despite considerable heterogeneity and small standardized differences, PC-SEMSs consistently exhibited longer TRBO than FC-SEMSs across analyses, without any other differences in AE rates, potentially proposing PC-SEMSs as the standard comparator and TRBO as the primary outcome for future randomized studies on dMBO. (Clinical trial registration number: CRD42023393965.) (Gastrointest Endosc 2024;99:314-22.)
引用
收藏
页码:314 / 322.e19
页数:28
相关论文
共 25 条
  • [1] ASGE guideline: the role of ERCP in diseases of the biliary tract and the pancreas
    Adler, DG
    Baron, TH
    Davila, RE
    Egan, J
    Hirota, WK
    Leighton, JA
    Qureshi, W
    Rajan, E
    Zuckerman, MJ
    Fanelli, R
    Wheeler-Harbaugh, J
    Faigel, DO
    [J]. GASTROINTESTINAL ENDOSCOPY, 2005, 62 (01) : 1 - 8
  • [2] Approximate is better than "exact" for interval estimation of binomial proportions
    Agresti, A
    Coull, BA
    [J]. AMERICAN STATISTICIAN, 1998, 52 (02) : 119 - 126
  • [3] Forest Plot Viewer A New Graphing Tool
    Boyles, Abee L.
    Harris, Shawn F.
    Rooney, Andrew A.
    Thayer, Kristina A.
    [J]. EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2011, 22 (05) : 746 - 747
  • [4] Caixeta DC, 2022, SAO PAULO MED J, V140, P818, DOI [10.1590/1516-3180.2021.0816.R2.19052022, 10.1590/1516-3180.2021.0816.r2.19052022]
  • [5] Saliva as a tool for monitoring hemodialysis: a systematic review and meta-analysis
    Cunha Bernardes Rodrigues, Renata Prata
    Vieira, Walbert de Andrade
    Siqueira, Walter Luiz
    Agostini, Bernardo Antonio
    Moffa, Eduardo Buozi
    Paranhos, Luiz Renato
    [J]. BRAZILIAN ORAL RESEARCH, 2021, 35
  • [6] Endoscopic biliary stenting: indications, choice of stents, and results: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Clinical Guideline - Updated October 2017
    Dumonceau, Jean-Marc
    Tringali, Andrea
    Papanikolaou, Ioannis S.
    Blero, Daniel
    Mangiavillano, Benedetto
    Schmidt, Arthur
    Vanbiervliet, Geoffroy
    Costamagna, Guido
    Deviere, Jacques
    Garcia-Cano, Jesus
    Gyoekeres, Tibor
    Hassan, Cesare
    Prat, Frederic
    Siersema, Peter D.
    van Hooft, Jeanin E.
    [J]. ENDOSCOPY, 2018, 50 (09) : 910 - 930
  • [7] TRANSFORMATIONS RELATED TO THE ANGULAR AND THE SQUARE ROOT
    FREEMAN, MF
    TUKEY, JW
    [J]. ANNALS OF MATHEMATICAL STATISTICS, 1950, 21 (04): : 607 - 611
  • [8] Cost-effectiveness and clinical efficacy of biliary stents in patients undergoing neoadjuvant therapy for pancreatic adenocarcinoma in a randomized controlled trial
    Gardner, Timothy B.
    Spangler, Chad C.
    Byanova, Katerina L.
    Ripple, Gregory H.
    Rockacy, Matthew J.
    Levenick, John M.
    Smith, Kerrington D.
    Colacchio, Thomas A.
    Barth, Richard J.
    Zaki, Bassem I.
    Tsapakos, Michael J.
    Gordon, Stuart R.
    [J]. GASTROINTESTINAL ENDOSCOPY, 2016, 84 (03) : 460 - 466
  • [9] Hedges L, 1985, STAT METHODS METAANA
  • [10] TOKYO criteria 2014 for transpapillary biliary stenting
    Isayama, Hiroyuki
    Hamada, Tsuyoshi
    Yasuda, Ichiro
    Itoi, Takao
    Ryozawa, Shomei
    Nakai, Yousuke
    Kogure, Hirofumi
    Koike, Kazuhiko
    [J]. DIGESTIVE ENDOSCOPY, 2015, 27 (02) : 259 - 264