Antireflux valve metal stent versus conventional self-expandable metal stent in distal malignant biliary obstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Biliary malignancy
biliary obstruction
meta-analysis
metal stent
Journal
Annals of gastroenterology
ISSN: 1108-7471
Titre abrégé: Ann Gastroenterol
Pays: Greece
ID NLM: 101121847
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Historique:
received:
16
07
2019
accepted:
23
09
2019
entrez:
9
11
2019
pubmed:
9
11
2019
medline:
9
11
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
In patients with distal malignant biliary obstruction (MBO), endoscopic biliary drainage using the conventional self-expandable metal stent (SEMS) is the gold standard method for palliative treatment. However, there are limited data on the role of the antireflux valve metal stent (ARVMS). The aim of this study was to compare the safety and efficacy of ARVMS and SEMS in patients with distal MBO. We searched PubMed, Ovid, Embase and the Cochrane Library from inception until April 2019 for relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The selected studies provided data regarding technical and clinical success rates, adverse events, and stent dysfunction. Data were meta-analyzed using RevMan software. Three RCTs were selected, enrolling 293 patients (147 ARVMS and 146 SEMS). The rates of technical success were 95.23% and 99.31% for ARVMS and SEMS groups, respectively (odds ratio [OR] 0.13, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.01-1.06; P=0.06). The clinical success rates were 91.57% and 89.36% for ARVMS and SEMS groups, respectively (OR 1.30, 95%CI 0.48-3.51; P=0.61). There was no significant difference between the ARVMS and SEMS groups in terms of adverse events (OR 0.61, 95%CI 0.35-1.05; P=0.07) or stent dysfunction (OR 0.77, 95%CI 0.31-1.95; P=0.58), while the incidence of stent occlusion was significantly lower in the ARVMS group (OR 0.44, 95%CI 0.26-0.76; P=0.003). Our study showed that ARVMS and SEMS had similar technical and clinical success rates. Adverse events were comparable between the 2 arms; however, ARVMS was associated with a lower risk of stent occlusion. Larger RCTs are required to verify the benefit of ARVMS in distal MBO patients.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
In patients with distal malignant biliary obstruction (MBO), endoscopic biliary drainage using the conventional self-expandable metal stent (SEMS) is the gold standard method for palliative treatment. However, there are limited data on the role of the antireflux valve metal stent (ARVMS). The aim of this study was to compare the safety and efficacy of ARVMS and SEMS in patients with distal MBO.
METHODS
METHODS
We searched PubMed, Ovid, Embase and the Cochrane Library from inception until April 2019 for relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The selected studies provided data regarding technical and clinical success rates, adverse events, and stent dysfunction. Data were meta-analyzed using RevMan software.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Three RCTs were selected, enrolling 293 patients (147 ARVMS and 146 SEMS). The rates of technical success were 95.23% and 99.31% for ARVMS and SEMS groups, respectively (odds ratio [OR] 0.13, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.01-1.06; P=0.06). The clinical success rates were 91.57% and 89.36% for ARVMS and SEMS groups, respectively (OR 1.30, 95%CI 0.48-3.51; P=0.61). There was no significant difference between the ARVMS and SEMS groups in terms of adverse events (OR 0.61, 95%CI 0.35-1.05; P=0.07) or stent dysfunction (OR 0.77, 95%CI 0.31-1.95; P=0.58), while the incidence of stent occlusion was significantly lower in the ARVMS group (OR 0.44, 95%CI 0.26-0.76; P=0.003).
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Our study showed that ARVMS and SEMS had similar technical and clinical success rates. Adverse events were comparable between the 2 arms; however, ARVMS was associated with a lower risk of stent occlusion. Larger RCTs are required to verify the benefit of ARVMS in distal MBO patients.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31700238
doi: 10.20524/aog.2019.0427
pii: AnnGastroenterol-32-605
pmc: PMC6826073
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
605-613Informations de copyright
Copyright: © Hellenic Society of Gastroenterology.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Conflict of Interest: None
Références
Gut. 2004 May;53(5):729-34
pubmed: 15082593
Ann Intern Med. 2009 Aug 18;151(4):264-9, W64
pubmed: 19622511
Gastrointest Endosc. 2002 Jul;56(1):72-7
pubmed: 12085038
Am J Gastroenterol. 2005 Sep;100(9):2056-61
pubmed: 16128952
Am J Gastroenterol. 2013 Nov;108(11):1713-22
pubmed: 24042190
Gastrointest Endosc. 2012 Jul;76(1):84-92
pubmed: 22482918
Gastrointest Endosc. 2016 Feb;83(2):404-12
pubmed: 26385187
Endoscopy. 2012 Mar;44(3):277-98
pubmed: 22297801
Dig Endosc. 2019 Sep;31(5):566-574
pubmed: 30803046
Gastrointest Endosc. 2018 Oct;88(4):655-664
pubmed: 30003877
Gastrointest Endosc. 2011 Aug;74(2):321-327.e1-3
pubmed: 21683354
Endoscopy. 2014 Feb;46(2):120-6
pubmed: 24477367
Gastrointest Endosc. 2000 Dec;52(6):725-9
pubmed: 11115903
J Gastroenterol. 2013 Nov;48(11):1293-9
pubmed: 23354624
BMJ. 2011 Oct 18;343:d5928
pubmed: 22008217
Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2010 Feb;33(1):97-106
pubmed: 19495871
Gastrointest Endosc. 2006 May;63(6):792-6
pubmed: 16650540
Gastrointest Endosc. 2002 Jul;56(1):33-9
pubmed: 12085032
Gastrointest Endosc. 2009 Aug;70(2):317-21
pubmed: 19539920