Tariq Hammad1,2, Muhammad Ali Khan3, Yaseen Alastal1, Wade Lee4, Ali Nawras1, Mohammad Kashif Ismail3, Michel Kahaleh5. 1. Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Toledo, Toledo, OH, USA. 2. Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA. 3. Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Tennessee Health Science Center, Memphis, TN, USA. 4. Carlson and Mulford Libraries, University of Toledo, Toledo, OH, USA. 5. Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Weill Cornell Medical College, 1305 York Avenue, 4th Floor, New York, NY, 10021, USA. mkahaleh@gmail.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided transmural drainage has been increasingly utilized as a first-line therapeutic modality for drainage of pancreatic fluid collections (PFC). Recently, lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMS) have been utilized for management of PFCs. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the cumulative efficacy and safety of LAMS in the management of PFC (primary outcome). We also compared the efficacy and safety of LAMS with multiple plastic stents (MPS) in the management of PFC (secondary outcome). METHODS: We searched Medline, Embase and Cochrane databases from inception to November 5, 2016, to identify studies (with ≥ 10 patients) reporting technical success, clinical success, and adverse events (AE) of EUS-guided transmural drainage of PFC using LAMS. Weighted pooled rates (WPR) were calculated for technical success, clinical success and AE. Risk ratios (RR) were calculated and pooled to compare LAMS with MPS in terms of technical success, clinical success, and AE. Pooled mean difference (MD) was calculated to compare the number of endoscopic sessions required by each type of stent to achieve clinical success. All analyses were done using random effects model. RESULTS: Eleven studies with 688 patients were included in this meta-analysis. WPR for technical success of LAMS in PFC management was 98% (96, 99%), (I 2 = 15%). WPR for clinical success was 93% (89, 96%) with moderate heterogeneity (I 2 = 50%). There was no difference in clinical success for pseudocysts (PP) versus walled-off pancreatic necrosis (WON) (P = 0.51). WPR for AE was 13% (9, 20%), (I 2 = 64%). AE were 10% more in WON as compared to PP (P = 0.009). Most common AE requiring intervention was stent migration (4.2%), followed by infection (3.8%), bleeding (2.4%), and stent occlusion (1.9%). Six studies with 504 patients compared the performance of LAMS with MPS. Pooled RR for technical success was 1.71 (0.38, 7.37). Pooled RR for clinical success was 0.37 (0.20, 0.67) in favor of LAMS. Pooled RR for AE was 0.39 (0.18, 0.84), (I 2 = 50%). Pooled MD for number of endoscopic sessions was - 0.84 (- 1.69, 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: LAMS seem to have excellent efficacy and safety in the management of PFCs. They may be preferred over plastic stents as they are associated with better clinical success and lesser adverse events.
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided transmural drainage has been increasingly utilized as a first-line therapeutic modality for drainage of pancreatic fluid collections (PFC). Recently, lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMS) have been utilized for management of PFCs. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the cumulative efficacy and safety of LAMS in the management of PFC (primary outcome). We also compared the efficacy and safety of LAMS with multiple plastic stents (MPS) in the management of PFC (secondary outcome). METHODS: We searched Medline, Embase and Cochrane databases from inception to November 5, 2016, to identify studies (with ≥ 10 patients) reporting technical success, clinical success, and adverse events (AE) of EUS-guided transmural drainage of PFC using LAMS. Weighted pooled rates (WPR) were calculated for technical success, clinical success and AE. Risk ratios (RR) were calculated and pooled to compare LAMS with MPS in terms of technical success, clinical success, and AE. Pooled mean difference (MD) was calculated to compare the number of endoscopic sessions required by each type of stent to achieve clinical success. All analyses were done using random effects model. RESULTS: Eleven studies with 688 patients were included in this meta-analysis. WPR for technical success of LAMS in PFC management was 98% (96, 99%), (I 2 = 15%). WPR for clinical success was 93% (89, 96%) with moderate heterogeneity (I 2 = 50%). There was no difference in clinical success for pseudocysts (PP) versus walled-off pancreatic necrosis (WON) (P = 0.51). WPR for AE was 13% (9, 20%), (I 2 = 64%). AE were 10% more in WON as compared to PP (P = 0.009). Most common AE requiring intervention was stent migration (4.2%), followed by infection (3.8%), bleeding (2.4%), and stent occlusion (1.9%). Six studies with 504 patients compared the performance of LAMS with MPS. Pooled RR for technical success was 1.71 (0.38, 7.37). Pooled RR for clinical success was 0.37 (0.20, 0.67) in favor of LAMS. Pooled RR for AE was 0.39 (0.18, 0.84), (I 2 = 50%). Pooled MD for number of endoscopic sessions was - 0.84 (- 1.69, 0.01). CONCLUSIONS:LAMS seem to have excellent efficacy and safety in the management of PFCs. They may be preferred over plastic stents as they are associated with better clinical success and lesser adverse events.
Authors: Gordon H Guyatt; Andrew D Oxman; Gunn E Vist; Regina Kunz; Yngve Falck-Ytter; Pablo Alonso-Coello; Holger J Schünemann Journal: BMJ Date: 2008-04-26
Authors: Sundeep Lakhtakia; Jahangeer Basha; Rupjyoti Talukdar; Rajesh Gupta; Zaheer Nabi; Mohan Ramchandani; B V N Kumar; Partha Pal; Rakesh Kalpala; P Manohar Reddy; R Pradeep; Jagadish R Singh; G V Rao; D Nageshwar Reddy Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2016-11-11 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Venkata S Akshintala; Payal Saxena; Atif Zaheer; Uzma Rana; Susan M Hutfless; Anne Marie Lennon; Marcia I Canto; Anthony N Kalloo; Mouen A Khashab; Vikesh K Singh Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2013-12-04 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Raj J Shah; Janak N Shah; Irving Waxman; Thomas E Kowalski; Andres Sanchez-Yague; Jose Nieto; Brian C Brauer; Monica Gaidhane; Michel Kahaleh Journal: Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2014-10-05 Impact factor: 11.382
Authors: Sujievvan Chandran; Marios Efthymiou; Arthur Kaffes; John Wei Chen; Vu Kwan; Michael Murray; David Williams; Nam Quoc Nguyen; William Tam; Christine Welch; Andre Chong; Saurabh Gupta; Ben Devereaux; Peter Tagkalidis; Frank Parker; Rhys Vaughan Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2014-08-02 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Ali A Siddiqui; Thomas E Kowalski; David E Loren; Ammara Khalid; Ayesha Soomro; Syed M Mazhar; Laura Isby; Michel Kahaleh; Kunal Karia; Joseph Yoo; Andrew Ofosu; Beverly Ng; Reem Z Sharaiha Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2016-08-24 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Reem Z Sharaiha; Amy Tyberg; Mouen A Khashab; Nikhil A Kumta; Kunal Karia; Jose Nieto; Uzma D Siddiqui; Irving Waxman; Virendra Joshi; Petros C Benias; Peter Darwin; Christopher J DiMaio; Christopher J Mulder; Shai Friedland; David G Forcione; Divyesh V Sejpal; Tamas A Gonda; Frank G Gress; Monica Gaidhane; Ann Koons; Ersilia M DeFilippis; Sanjay Salgado; Kristen R Weaver; John M Poneros; Amrita Sethi; Sammy Ho; Vivek Kumbhari; Vikesh K Singh; Alan H Tieu; Viviana Parra; Alisa Likhitsup; Craig Womeldorph; Brenna Casey; Sreeni S Jonnalagadda; Amit P Desai; David L Carr-Locke; Michel Kahaleh; Ali A Siddiqui Journal: Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2016-05-14 Impact factor: 11.382
Authors: Abed Al Lehibi; Abdullah Al Jabri; Shahem Abbarh; Areej Al Balkhi; Nawwaf Al Otaibi; Thamer Almasoudi; Abdullah Al Mtawa; Adel AlGhamdi; Ahmad Al Eid; Ahmed Al Ghamdi; Abdullah Al Khathlan; Adel Qutub; Khalid Al Sayari; Shameem Ahmad Journal: Saudi J Gastroenterol Date: 2021 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 2.485
Authors: Prabin Sharma; Thomas R McCarty; Ankit Chhoda; Antonio Costantino; Caroline Loeser; Thiruvengadam Muniraj; Marvin Ryou; Christopher C Thompson Journal: World J Gastroenterol Date: 2020-06-07 Impact factor: 5.742
Authors: Benjamin D Renelus; Daniel S Jamorabo; Hashroop K Gurm; Niel Dave; William M Briggs; Mukul Arya Journal: Ther Adv Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2019-05-14