Esophageal self-expandable metallic stents-indications, practice, techniques, and complications: Results of a national survey

Francisco C Ramirez, B. Dennert, S. T. Zierer, R. A. Sanowski

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

119 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: The gastroenterology community's experience with esophageal self-expandable metallic stents (SEMS) is unknown. Methods: In order to assess indications, perioperative management, and self-reported complications associated with SEMS placement, a survey was mailed to ASGE members. Results: Of 3414 surveys mailed, 212 (6.2%) were completed and returned. One hundred twenty-eight physicians had experience with a total of 434 SEMS. Most physicians practiced in the private sector (72%), and 75% had placed 3 or fewer SEMS. Perceived ease of placement was the most common reason for choosing a SEMS (55%). Fluoroscopic and endoscopic guidance was used by 83% of respondents, and 81% allowed liquid diet after correct position and patency had been confirmed; 56% of respondents discharged their patients within 24 hours of SEMS placement. The rates of failure for full expansion (7.1%), stent misplacement (4.8%), and failure to deploy (3%) were higher than previously reported. Acute patient complications and delayed bleeding occurred less frequently than in reported series but mortality rates were similar. Conclusions: Ease of placement is the main reason for choosing a SEMS. Differences in complication rates, compared to previous studies on SEMS, may be related to operator experience and protocol requirements. When compared to plastic stents, complications were less frequent.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)360-364
Number of pages5
JournalGastrointestinal Endoscopy
Volume45
Issue number5
StatePublished - 1997
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Stents
Physicians
Private Sector
Surveys and Questionnaires
Self Expandable Metallic Stents
Gastroenterology
Plastics
Hemorrhage
Diet
Mortality

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Gastroenterology

Cite this

Esophageal self-expandable metallic stents-indications, practice, techniques, and complications : Results of a national survey. / Ramirez, Francisco C; Dennert, B.; Zierer, S. T.; Sanowski, R. A.

In: Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, Vol. 45, No. 5, 1997, p. 360-364.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{6ea58e51a5e248caa3c67f679a0b8325,
title = "Esophageal self-expandable metallic stents-indications, practice, techniques, and complications: Results of a national survey",
abstract = "Background: The gastroenterology community's experience with esophageal self-expandable metallic stents (SEMS) is unknown. Methods: In order to assess indications, perioperative management, and self-reported complications associated with SEMS placement, a survey was mailed to ASGE members. Results: Of 3414 surveys mailed, 212 (6.2{\%}) were completed and returned. One hundred twenty-eight physicians had experience with a total of 434 SEMS. Most physicians practiced in the private sector (72{\%}), and 75{\%} had placed 3 or fewer SEMS. Perceived ease of placement was the most common reason for choosing a SEMS (55{\%}). Fluoroscopic and endoscopic guidance was used by 83{\%} of respondents, and 81{\%} allowed liquid diet after correct position and patency had been confirmed; 56{\%} of respondents discharged their patients within 24 hours of SEMS placement. The rates of failure for full expansion (7.1{\%}), stent misplacement (4.8{\%}), and failure to deploy (3{\%}) were higher than previously reported. Acute patient complications and delayed bleeding occurred less frequently than in reported series but mortality rates were similar. Conclusions: Ease of placement is the main reason for choosing a SEMS. Differences in complication rates, compared to previous studies on SEMS, may be related to operator experience and protocol requirements. When compared to plastic stents, complications were less frequent.",
author = "Ramirez, {Francisco C} and B. Dennert and Zierer, {S. T.} and Sanowski, {R. A.}",
year = "1997",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "45",
pages = "360--364",
journal = "Gastrointestinal Endoscopy",
issn = "0016-5107",
publisher = "Mosby Inc.",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Esophageal self-expandable metallic stents-indications, practice, techniques, and complications

T2 - Results of a national survey

AU - Ramirez, Francisco C

AU - Dennert, B.

AU - Zierer, S. T.

AU - Sanowski, R. A.

PY - 1997

Y1 - 1997

N2 - Background: The gastroenterology community's experience with esophageal self-expandable metallic stents (SEMS) is unknown. Methods: In order to assess indications, perioperative management, and self-reported complications associated with SEMS placement, a survey was mailed to ASGE members. Results: Of 3414 surveys mailed, 212 (6.2%) were completed and returned. One hundred twenty-eight physicians had experience with a total of 434 SEMS. Most physicians practiced in the private sector (72%), and 75% had placed 3 or fewer SEMS. Perceived ease of placement was the most common reason for choosing a SEMS (55%). Fluoroscopic and endoscopic guidance was used by 83% of respondents, and 81% allowed liquid diet after correct position and patency had been confirmed; 56% of respondents discharged their patients within 24 hours of SEMS placement. The rates of failure for full expansion (7.1%), stent misplacement (4.8%), and failure to deploy (3%) were higher than previously reported. Acute patient complications and delayed bleeding occurred less frequently than in reported series but mortality rates were similar. Conclusions: Ease of placement is the main reason for choosing a SEMS. Differences in complication rates, compared to previous studies on SEMS, may be related to operator experience and protocol requirements. When compared to plastic stents, complications were less frequent.

AB - Background: The gastroenterology community's experience with esophageal self-expandable metallic stents (SEMS) is unknown. Methods: In order to assess indications, perioperative management, and self-reported complications associated with SEMS placement, a survey was mailed to ASGE members. Results: Of 3414 surveys mailed, 212 (6.2%) were completed and returned. One hundred twenty-eight physicians had experience with a total of 434 SEMS. Most physicians practiced in the private sector (72%), and 75% had placed 3 or fewer SEMS. Perceived ease of placement was the most common reason for choosing a SEMS (55%). Fluoroscopic and endoscopic guidance was used by 83% of respondents, and 81% allowed liquid diet after correct position and patency had been confirmed; 56% of respondents discharged their patients within 24 hours of SEMS placement. The rates of failure for full expansion (7.1%), stent misplacement (4.8%), and failure to deploy (3%) were higher than previously reported. Acute patient complications and delayed bleeding occurred less frequently than in reported series but mortality rates were similar. Conclusions: Ease of placement is the main reason for choosing a SEMS. Differences in complication rates, compared to previous studies on SEMS, may be related to operator experience and protocol requirements. When compared to plastic stents, complications were less frequent.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0030764222&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0030764222&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

C2 - 9165315

AN - SCOPUS:0030764222

VL - 45

SP - 360

EP - 364

JO - Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

JF - Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

SN - 0016-5107

IS - 5

ER -