• Annals of medicine · Dec 2022

    Meta Analysis

    Post-ERCP pancreatitis occurs more frequently in self-expandable metallic stents than multiple plastic stents on benign biliary strictures: a meta-analysis.

    • Hui Yang, Zhenzhen Yang, and Junbo Hong.
    • Department of Gastroenterology, First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University, Nanchang, China.
    • Ann. Med. 2022 Dec 1; 54 (1): 243924492439-2449.

    BackgroundThe occurrence of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP) after using covered self-expandable metallic stents (CSEMS) and multiple plastic stents (MPS) in the therapy of benign biliary strictures (BBS) remains ambiguous, this analysis aimed to evaluate the outcomes.ConclusionsCompared with MPS, CSEMS caused a significantly higher incidence of PEP but fewer ERCP procedures, while the rate of stricture resolution, recurrence, and overall adverse events were comparable. Prevention methods of PEP should be further evaluated in BBS when undergoing CSEMS placement.MethodsA systematic search of electronic databases (PubMed, Web of Science and Cochrane Library) was conducted for randomised controlled trials (RCTs), and the included studies were published between 2008 and 2021. The primary outcome was PEP, while the secondary outcomes were stricture resolution, recurrence, overall adverse events, costs, and ERCP sessions. Pooled effect sizes were calculated with the random-effects model or fixed-effects model depending on the heterogeneity.ResultsSix RCTs contained 444 patients (221 with CSEMS, 223 with MPS) finally included in the meta-analysis. The present analysis shows that compared to MPS, PEP is more likely to occur in CSEMS (OR [odds ratio] = 3.34, 95% confidence intervals [CI]:1.44-7.77, p = .005). CSEMS needs fewer ERCP sessions (Mean Deviation [MD]: -1.56; 95%CI:-2.66, -0.46], p = .006). The difference in stricture resolution and recurrence was not significant between the two stent types (OR = 0.87, 95%CI: 0.49-1.56, p = .64; and OR = 2.3, 95%CI: 0.68-7.76, p = .18). The incidence of overall adverse events was comparable between CSEMS and the MPS group (OR = 1.49, 95% CI: 0.97-2.29, p = .07).Systematic Review RegistrationPROSPERO CRD42022314864. Key messagesCSEMS and MPS placement remain a mainstay for patients with BBS, and severe complications after stent placement have not been compared.The incidence of PEP was higher after deployment of CSEMS compared to MPS.Prevention methods of PEP should be evaluated in BBS when undergoing CSEMS placement.

      Pubmed     Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…