TY - JOUR
T1 - Covered stents versus uncovered stents for unresectable malignant biliary strictures
T2 - A meta-analysis
AU - Chen, Ming Yu
AU - Lin, Jia Wei
AU - Zhu, He Pan
AU - Zhang, Bin
AU - Jiang, Guang Yi
AU - Yan, Pei Jian
AU - Cai, Xiu Jun
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2016 Ming-Yu Chen et al.
PY - 2016/1/1
Y1 - 2016/1/1
N2 - Aim. To summarize the covered or uncovered SEMS for treatment of unresectable malignant distal biliary obstruction, comparing the stent patency, patient survival, and incidence of adverse events between the two SEMSs. Methods. The meta-analysis search was performed independently by two of the authors, using MEDLINE, EMBASE, OVID, and Cochrane databases on all studies between 2010 and 2015. Pooled effect was calculated using either the fixed or the random effects model. Results. Statistics shows that there is no difference between SEMSs in the hazard ratio for patient survival (HR 1.04; 95% CI, 0.92-1.17; P=0.55) and stent patency (HR 0.87, 95% CI: 0.58 to 1.30, P=0.5). However, incidence of adverse events (OR: 0.74, 95% CI: 0.57 to 0.97, P=0.03) showed significant different results in the covered SEMS, with dysfunctions events (OR: 0.75, 95% CI: 0.56 to 1.00, P=0.05) playing a more important role than complications (OR: 0.87, 95% CI: 0.58 to 1.30, P=0.50). Conclusions. Covered SEMS group had lower incidence of adverse events. There is no significant difference in dysfunctions, but covered SEMS trends to be better, with no difference in stent patency, patient survival, and complications.
AB - Aim. To summarize the covered or uncovered SEMS for treatment of unresectable malignant distal biliary obstruction, comparing the stent patency, patient survival, and incidence of adverse events between the two SEMSs. Methods. The meta-analysis search was performed independently by two of the authors, using MEDLINE, EMBASE, OVID, and Cochrane databases on all studies between 2010 and 2015. Pooled effect was calculated using either the fixed or the random effects model. Results. Statistics shows that there is no difference between SEMSs in the hazard ratio for patient survival (HR 1.04; 95% CI, 0.92-1.17; P=0.55) and stent patency (HR 0.87, 95% CI: 0.58 to 1.30, P=0.5). However, incidence of adverse events (OR: 0.74, 95% CI: 0.57 to 0.97, P=0.03) showed significant different results in the covered SEMS, with dysfunctions events (OR: 0.75, 95% CI: 0.56 to 1.00, P=0.05) playing a more important role than complications (OR: 0.87, 95% CI: 0.58 to 1.30, P=0.50). Conclusions. Covered SEMS group had lower incidence of adverse events. There is no significant difference in dysfunctions, but covered SEMS trends to be better, with no difference in stent patency, patient survival, and complications.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84962081987&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84962081987&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1155/2016/6408067
DO - 10.1155/2016/6408067
M3 - Review article
C2 - 27051667
AN - SCOPUS:84962081987
SN - 2314-6133
VL - 2016
JO - BioMed Research International
JF - BioMed Research International
M1 - 6408067
ER -