Suppr超能文献

覆膜与非覆膜金属支架治疗恶性胃出口梗阻:系统评价和荟萃分析。

Covered versus uncovered metal stents for malignant gastric outlet obstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

机构信息

Endoscopy Unit, Conegliano Hospital Italy, Conegliano, Italy.

Endoscopy Unit, Humanitas Hospital, Milan, Italy.

出版信息

Gastrointest Endosc. 2020 Dec;92(6):1153-1163.e9. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2020.06.033. Epub 2020 Jun 18.

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Self-expandable metal stents (SEMSs) are used for palliation of malignant gastric outlet obstruction (GOO). Studies comparing covered SEMSs (C-SEMSs) and uncovered SEMSs (U-SEMSs) have led to inconclusive results. We compared efficacy and safety of C-SEMSs versus U-SEMSs in patients with GOO.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library from 2000 to 2019 to identify available studies comparing C-SEMSs versus U-SEMSs in patients with GOO. Primary outcomes were stent survival and patient survival, whereas secondary outcomes were clinical and technical success, Gastric Outlet Obstruction Score System (GOOSS) score after the procedure, overall adverse events, reintervention rate, dysfunction rate, stent occlusion, and stent migration.

RESULTS

Overall, 7 randomized controlled trials and 9 observational studies were identified that included 1741 patients. C-SEMSs were associated with higher stent survival (hazard ratio, .68; 95% confidence interval [CI], .48-.96), whereas patient survival did not statistically significantly differ between C-SEMS and U-SEMS groups (hazard ratio, .96; 95% CI, .75-1.23). Clinical and technical success were not statistically different between groups (odds ratios, 1.1 [95% CI, .76-1.61] and .69 [95% CI, .21-2.3], respectively). There were no differences in terms of overall adverse events, reintervention rate, dysfunction rate, and GOOSS rate ≥2 after SEMS placement. U-SEMSs were associated with a higher rate of occlusion (odds ratio, .34; 95% CI, .21-.53) and C-SEMSs with a higher rate of migration (odds ratio, 4.28; 95% CI, 2.79-6.57).

CONCLUSIONS

C-SEMSs were associated with higher stent survival (time between stent deployment and stent dysfunction) compared with U-SEMSs, whereas no differences in terms of patient survival (time between stent deployment and patient's death) emerged. However, U-SEMSs were associated with higher risk of occlusion and C-SEMSs with higher risk of migration. Further studies using new C-SEMSs with an antimigration system are needed.

摘要

背景与目的

自膨式金属支架(SEMS)用于缓解恶性胃出口梗阻(GOO)。比较覆膜 SEMS(C-SEMS)和无覆膜 SEMS(U-SEMS)的研究结果尚无定论。我们比较了 GOO 患者中 C-SEMS 和 U-SEMS 的疗效和安全性。

方法

我们检索了 2000 年至 2019 年的 MEDLINE、EMBASE 和 Cochrane 图书馆,以确定比较 GOO 患者中 C-SEMS 和 U-SEMS 的可用研究。主要结局为支架生存率和患者生存率,次要结局为临床和技术成功率、术后胃出口梗阻评分系统(GOOSS)评分、总不良事件、再介入率、功能障碍率、支架闭塞和支架迁移。

结果

共纳入 7 项随机对照试验和 9 项观察性研究,共纳入 1741 例患者。C-SEMS 组支架生存率较高(风险比,.68;95%置信区间 [CI],.48-.96),而 C-SEMS 和 U-SEMS 组患者生存率无统计学差异(风险比,.96;95%CI,.75-1.23)。两组间临床和技术成功率无统计学差异(比值比,1.1 [95%CI,.76-1.61] 和.69 [95%CI,.21-2.3])。两组间总不良事件、再介入率、功能障碍率和 SEMS 放置后 GOOSS 评分≥2 发生率无差异。U-SEMS 组支架闭塞发生率较高(比值比,.34;95%CI,.21-.53),C-SEMS 组支架迁移发生率较高(比值比,4.28;95%CI,2.79-6.57)。

结论

与 U-SEMS 相比,C-SEMS 组支架生存率(支架放置至支架功能障碍的时间)较高,而患者生存率(支架放置至患者死亡的时间)无差异。然而,U-SEMS 组支架闭塞风险较高,C-SEMS 组支架迁移风险较高。需要进一步研究使用具有抗迁移系统的新型 C-SEMS。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验