Metal stents versus plastic stents for the management of pancreatic walled-off necrosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Fateh Bazerbachi, Tarek Sawas, Eric J. Vargas, Larry J. Prokop, Suresh T Chari, Ferga C. Gleeson, Michael J. Levy, John Martin, Bret Thomas Petersen, Randall K. Pearson, Mark Topazian, Santhi Swaroop Vege, Barham K. Abu Dayyeh

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

23 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background and Aims: Endoscopic transluminal drainage of symptomatic walled-off necrosis (WON) is a good management option, although the optimal choice of drainage site stent is unclear. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare metal stents (MSs) and plastic stents (PSs) in terms of WON resolution, likelihood of resolution after 1 procedure, and adverse events. Methods: An expert librarian queried several databases to identify studies that assessed WON management, and selection was according to a priori criteria. Publication bias, heterogeneity, and study quality were evaluated with the appropriate tools. We performed single and 2-arm meta-analyses for noncomparative and comparative studies using event rate random-effects model and odds ratio (OR)/difference in means, respectively. Results: We included 41 studies involving 2213 patients. In 2-arm study meta-analysis, WON resolution was more likely with MSs compared with PSs (OR, 2.8; 95% confidence interval, 1.7-4.6; P < .001). Resolution with a single endoscopic procedure was similar between stents (47% vs 44%), although for those cases requiring more than 1 intervention, the MS group had fewer interventions, favored by a mean difference of -.9 procedures (95% CI, -1.283 to -.561). In single-arm study meta-analysis, when compared with PSs, MS use was associated with lower bleeding (5.6% vs 12.6%; P = .02), a trend toward lower perforation and stent occlusion (2.8% vs 4.3%, P = .2, and 9.5% vs 17.4%, P = .07), although with higher migration (8.1% vs 5.1%; P = .1). Conclusion: Evidence suggests that MSs are superior for WON resolution, with fewer bleeding events, trend toward less occlusion and perforation rate, but increased migration rate compared with PSs.

Original languageEnglish (US)
JournalGastrointestinal Endoscopy
DOIs
StateAccepted/In press - 2017

Fingerprint

Plastics
Stents
Meta-Analysis
Necrosis
Metals
Drainage
Odds Ratio
Hemorrhage
Librarians
Publication Bias
Databases
Confidence Intervals

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging
  • Gastroenterology

Cite this

Bazerbachi, F., Sawas, T., Vargas, E. J., Prokop, L. J., Chari, S. T., Gleeson, F. C., ... Abu Dayyeh, B. K. (Accepted/In press). Metal stents versus plastic stents for the management of pancreatic walled-off necrosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2017.08.025

Metal stents versus plastic stents for the management of pancreatic walled-off necrosis : A systematic review and meta-analysis. / Bazerbachi, Fateh; Sawas, Tarek; Vargas, Eric J.; Prokop, Larry J.; Chari, Suresh T; Gleeson, Ferga C.; Levy, Michael J.; Martin, John; Petersen, Bret Thomas; Pearson, Randall K.; Topazian, Mark; Vege, Santhi Swaroop; Abu Dayyeh, Barham K.

In: Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, 2017.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Bazerbachi, Fateh ; Sawas, Tarek ; Vargas, Eric J. ; Prokop, Larry J. ; Chari, Suresh T ; Gleeson, Ferga C. ; Levy, Michael J. ; Martin, John ; Petersen, Bret Thomas ; Pearson, Randall K. ; Topazian, Mark ; Vege, Santhi Swaroop ; Abu Dayyeh, Barham K. / Metal stents versus plastic stents for the management of pancreatic walled-off necrosis : A systematic review and meta-analysis. In: Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. 2017.
@article{4becb63e49e6481b9725e91a4af2b1b2,
title = "Metal stents versus plastic stents for the management of pancreatic walled-off necrosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis",
abstract = "Background and Aims: Endoscopic transluminal drainage of symptomatic walled-off necrosis (WON) is a good management option, although the optimal choice of drainage site stent is unclear. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare metal stents (MSs) and plastic stents (PSs) in terms of WON resolution, likelihood of resolution after 1 procedure, and adverse events. Methods: An expert librarian queried several databases to identify studies that assessed WON management, and selection was according to a priori criteria. Publication bias, heterogeneity, and study quality were evaluated with the appropriate tools. We performed single and 2-arm meta-analyses for noncomparative and comparative studies using event rate random-effects model and odds ratio (OR)/difference in means, respectively. Results: We included 41 studies involving 2213 patients. In 2-arm study meta-analysis, WON resolution was more likely with MSs compared with PSs (OR, 2.8; 95{\%} confidence interval, 1.7-4.6; P < .001). Resolution with a single endoscopic procedure was similar between stents (47{\%} vs 44{\%}), although for those cases requiring more than 1 intervention, the MS group had fewer interventions, favored by a mean difference of -.9 procedures (95{\%} CI, -1.283 to -.561). In single-arm study meta-analysis, when compared with PSs, MS use was associated with lower bleeding (5.6{\%} vs 12.6{\%}; P = .02), a trend toward lower perforation and stent occlusion (2.8{\%} vs 4.3{\%}, P = .2, and 9.5{\%} vs 17.4{\%}, P = .07), although with higher migration (8.1{\%} vs 5.1{\%}; P = .1). Conclusion: Evidence suggests that MSs are superior for WON resolution, with fewer bleeding events, trend toward less occlusion and perforation rate, but increased migration rate compared with PSs.",
author = "Fateh Bazerbachi and Tarek Sawas and Vargas, {Eric J.} and Prokop, {Larry J.} and Chari, {Suresh T} and Gleeson, {Ferga C.} and Levy, {Michael J.} and John Martin and Petersen, {Bret Thomas} and Pearson, {Randall K.} and Mark Topazian and Vege, {Santhi Swaroop} and {Abu Dayyeh}, {Barham K.}",
year = "2017",
doi = "10.1016/j.gie.2017.08.025",
language = "English (US)",
journal = "Gastrointestinal Endoscopy",
issn = "0016-5107",
publisher = "Mosby Inc.",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Metal stents versus plastic stents for the management of pancreatic walled-off necrosis

T2 - A systematic review and meta-analysis

AU - Bazerbachi, Fateh

AU - Sawas, Tarek

AU - Vargas, Eric J.

AU - Prokop, Larry J.

AU - Chari, Suresh T

AU - Gleeson, Ferga C.

AU - Levy, Michael J.

AU - Martin, John

AU - Petersen, Bret Thomas

AU - Pearson, Randall K.

AU - Topazian, Mark

AU - Vege, Santhi Swaroop

AU - Abu Dayyeh, Barham K.

PY - 2017

Y1 - 2017

N2 - Background and Aims: Endoscopic transluminal drainage of symptomatic walled-off necrosis (WON) is a good management option, although the optimal choice of drainage site stent is unclear. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare metal stents (MSs) and plastic stents (PSs) in terms of WON resolution, likelihood of resolution after 1 procedure, and adverse events. Methods: An expert librarian queried several databases to identify studies that assessed WON management, and selection was according to a priori criteria. Publication bias, heterogeneity, and study quality were evaluated with the appropriate tools. We performed single and 2-arm meta-analyses for noncomparative and comparative studies using event rate random-effects model and odds ratio (OR)/difference in means, respectively. Results: We included 41 studies involving 2213 patients. In 2-arm study meta-analysis, WON resolution was more likely with MSs compared with PSs (OR, 2.8; 95% confidence interval, 1.7-4.6; P < .001). Resolution with a single endoscopic procedure was similar between stents (47% vs 44%), although for those cases requiring more than 1 intervention, the MS group had fewer interventions, favored by a mean difference of -.9 procedures (95% CI, -1.283 to -.561). In single-arm study meta-analysis, when compared with PSs, MS use was associated with lower bleeding (5.6% vs 12.6%; P = .02), a trend toward lower perforation and stent occlusion (2.8% vs 4.3%, P = .2, and 9.5% vs 17.4%, P = .07), although with higher migration (8.1% vs 5.1%; P = .1). Conclusion: Evidence suggests that MSs are superior for WON resolution, with fewer bleeding events, trend toward less occlusion and perforation rate, but increased migration rate compared with PSs.

AB - Background and Aims: Endoscopic transluminal drainage of symptomatic walled-off necrosis (WON) is a good management option, although the optimal choice of drainage site stent is unclear. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare metal stents (MSs) and plastic stents (PSs) in terms of WON resolution, likelihood of resolution after 1 procedure, and adverse events. Methods: An expert librarian queried several databases to identify studies that assessed WON management, and selection was according to a priori criteria. Publication bias, heterogeneity, and study quality were evaluated with the appropriate tools. We performed single and 2-arm meta-analyses for noncomparative and comparative studies using event rate random-effects model and odds ratio (OR)/difference in means, respectively. Results: We included 41 studies involving 2213 patients. In 2-arm study meta-analysis, WON resolution was more likely with MSs compared with PSs (OR, 2.8; 95% confidence interval, 1.7-4.6; P < .001). Resolution with a single endoscopic procedure was similar between stents (47% vs 44%), although for those cases requiring more than 1 intervention, the MS group had fewer interventions, favored by a mean difference of -.9 procedures (95% CI, -1.283 to -.561). In single-arm study meta-analysis, when compared with PSs, MS use was associated with lower bleeding (5.6% vs 12.6%; P = .02), a trend toward lower perforation and stent occlusion (2.8% vs 4.3%, P = .2, and 9.5% vs 17.4%, P = .07), although with higher migration (8.1% vs 5.1%; P = .1). Conclusion: Evidence suggests that MSs are superior for WON resolution, with fewer bleeding events, trend toward less occlusion and perforation rate, but increased migration rate compared with PSs.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85032897099&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85032897099&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.gie.2017.08.025

DO - 10.1016/j.gie.2017.08.025

M3 - Article

C2 - 28867073

AN - SCOPUS:85032897099

JO - Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

JF - Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

SN - 0016-5107

ER -