Tian Y, Yin C, Ma Y, Fu G, Liu R, Ran H, Pan T, Xiao Y, Wen X. Lumen-apposing metal stents versus traditional self-expanding metal stents for endoscopic ultrasound-guided drainage of pancreatic fluid collections: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Surg Endosc 2024;
38:586-596. [PMID:
38151677 DOI:
10.1007/s00464-023-10636-3]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/29/2023] [Accepted: 11/29/2023] [Indexed: 12/29/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND
Endoscopic drainage has become the preferred treatment for pancreatic fluid collections (PFCs). There is still a lack of reliable evidence to prove which metal stent is the best choice for endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided drainage of PFCs. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMS) compared to traditional self-expanding metal stents (SEMS) in meta-analysis.
METHODS
We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library up to July 15, 2023. Relevant publications that compared LAMS with traditional SEMS for drainage of patients' PFCs under EUS-guidance were included. This meta-analysis assessed endpoints using Review Manager 5.3 and Stata 14.0 statistical software.
RESULT
Nine citations comprising 707 patients with PFCs were included. The clinical success rate of LAMS tended to be higher than that of SEMS (RR = 1.07, 95%CI [1.00, 1.15], P = 0.05). LAMS had a lower technical success rate (RR = 0.97, 95%CI [0.94, 0.99], P = 0.02) and faster procedure time (minutes) (MD = - 24.29, 95%CI [- 25.59, - 22.99], P < 0.00001) compared to SEMS. In addition, LAMS had fewer overall adverse events (RR = 0.64, 95%CI [0.48, 0.87], P = 0.004). For specific adverse events, LAMS had fewer migration (RR = 0.37, 95%CI [0.19, 0.72], P = 0.003), occlusion (RR = 0.43, 95%CI [0.22, 0.82], P = 0.01) and infection (RR = 0.38, 95%CI [0.20, 0.70], P = 0.002). There was no significant difference in bleeding and perforation between the two stents. For hospital stay (days), LAMS group was similar to SEMS group (MD = - 3.34, 95%CI [- 7.71, - 1.03], P = 0.13). Regarding recurrence, LAMS group was fewer than SEMS group (RR = 0.41, 95%CI [0.21, 0.78], P = 0.007).
CONCLUSION
Compared to traditional SEMS, LAMS has a higher clinical success rate, faster procedure time, fewer adverse events, similar hospital stay and lower recurrence rate in EUS-guided drainage of PFCs. LAMS is a good choice with a high technical success rate over 95%, and using a shorter length or "one-step" operation can further improve it. Richer placement experience is required for LAMS placement under EUS-guidance.
Collapse