Comparative efficacy of stents in endoscopic ultrasonography‐guided peripancreatic fluid collection drainage: A systematic review and network meta‐analysis

Background Although many studies have reported the efficacy of different stents for endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS)‐guided peripancreatic fluid collection (PFC) drainage, they have not completely determined which stent is superior. This network meta‐analysis comprehensively evaluated the comparativ...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of gastroenterology and hepatology 2020-06, Vol.35 (6), p.941-952
Main Authors: Park, Chan Hyuk, Park, Se Woo, Nam, Eunwoo, Jung, Jang Han, Jo, Jung Hyun
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Bayesian analysis
Bleeding
endoscopic ultrasound
Endoscopy
Implants
Meta-analysis
network meta‐analysis
peripancreatic fluid collections
Stents
Success
Surgical drains
Ultrasonic imaging
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Background Although many studies have reported the efficacy of different stents for endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS)‐guided peripancreatic fluid collection (PFC) drainage, they have not completely determined which stent is superior. This network meta‐analysis comprehensively evaluated the comparative efficacy of stents used in EUS‐guided PFC. Methods We searched all relevant studies published up to February 2019 that examined the efficacy of double pigtail plastic stent (DPPS), fully covered self‐expanding metal stent (FCSEMS), and lumen‐apposing metal stent (LAMS) in EUS‐guided PFC drainage. We performed a Bayesian network meta‐analysis for clinical efficacy and adverse events. Results Fifteen studies comprising 1746 patients were included in the meta‐analysis. In terms of clinical success, no significant differences were noted in LAMS versus DPPS or LAMS versus FCSEMS (risk ratio [RR] 1.04 [95% credible interval (CrI) 0.99–1.11] and RR 0.96 [95% CrI 0.91–1.03]), respectively). FCSEMS was superior in terms of clinical success to DPPS (RR 1.09, 95% CrI 1.02–1.15). There was no significant difference in the recurrence of PFC among groups. Regarding adverse events, LAMS had a higher bleeding risk than FCSEMS (RR 6.70, 95% CrI 1.77–36.27) and tended to have a higher risk of bleeding than DPPS (RR 2.67, 95% CI 0.71–9.28). In terms of stent migration, there was no significant difference between any two groups compared. Conclusions FCSEMS had superior efficacy in terms of clinical success compared with DPPS stents. Significant superiority of LAMS to DPPS was not identified. Additionally, LAMS had the higher risk of bleeding than FCSEMS.
ISSN:0815-9319
1440-1746
DOI:10.1111/jgh.14960