Aims: Comparing efficacy and safety of FCSEMS vs. USEMS in patients with GOOD Methods: A computerized medical search was performed by using MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, from 2000 to September 2017 aimed at identifying available randomized trials comparing C-SEMS versus U-SEMS in patients with GOOD. Primary outcomes were stent survival and patient survival, while secondary outcomes were clinical and technical success, adverse events, stent occlusion and migration Pooled estimates were computed using the random effects models. Results: Overall 7 RCTs were identified including 635 patients were included. Stent and patient survival did not statistically significantly differ between C-SEMS and U-SEMS groups (HR = 0.93, 95% CI, 0.66 – 1.31; HR = 0.87, 95% CI, 0.64 – 1.19, respectively). Clinical success and technical success were not statistical difference between two groups (OR 1.44 95% CI 0.68 – 3.05, OR 1.17 95% CI 0.39 – 3.52) U-SEMS was associated with lower risk of adverse events (OR 2.20 95% CI 1.37 – 3.54) but with higher risk of tumor ingrowth (OR 0.30 95% CI 0.18 – 0.49). C-SEMS was associated with higher risk of migration (OR 5.24 95% CI 2.26 – 2.12 Conclusions: C-SEMS did not show statistically significant differences in terms of stent and patient survival as compared to U-SEMS although U-SEMS was associated with higher risk of tumor ingrowth and C-SEMS with migration. Further studies using new C-SEMS with anti migration system are needed.

Covered versus uncovered metal stents for malignant gastric outlet obstruction : a systematic review and meta-analysis of RTCs / A. Tringali, M. Cintolo, G. Bonato, L. Cristoferi, M. Rossi, M. Rota, M. Mutignani. - In: ENDOSCOPY. - ISSN 0013-726X. - 50:4(2018 Apr 01), pp. S32-S32. (Intervento presentato al convegno European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) days tenutosi a Budapest nel 2018) [10.1055/s-0038-1637122].

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

L. Cristoferi;M. Rota
Penultimo
;
2018

Abstract

Aims: Comparing efficacy and safety of FCSEMS vs. USEMS in patients with GOOD Methods: A computerized medical search was performed by using MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, from 2000 to September 2017 aimed at identifying available randomized trials comparing C-SEMS versus U-SEMS in patients with GOOD. Primary outcomes were stent survival and patient survival, while secondary outcomes were clinical and technical success, adverse events, stent occlusion and migration Pooled estimates were computed using the random effects models. Results: Overall 7 RCTs were identified including 635 patients were included. Stent and patient survival did not statistically significantly differ between C-SEMS and U-SEMS groups (HR = 0.93, 95% CI, 0.66 – 1.31; HR = 0.87, 95% CI, 0.64 – 1.19, respectively). Clinical success and technical success were not statistical difference between two groups (OR 1.44 95% CI 0.68 – 3.05, OR 1.17 95% CI 0.39 – 3.52) U-SEMS was associated with lower risk of adverse events (OR 2.20 95% CI 1.37 – 3.54) but with higher risk of tumor ingrowth (OR 0.30 95% CI 0.18 – 0.49). C-SEMS was associated with higher risk of migration (OR 5.24 95% CI 2.26 – 2.12 Conclusions: C-SEMS did not show statistically significant differences in terms of stent and patient survival as compared to U-SEMS although U-SEMS was associated with higher risk of tumor ingrowth and C-SEMS with migration. Further studies using new C-SEMS with anti migration system are needed.
Settore MED/12 - Gastroenterologia
Settore MED/01 - Statistica Medica
1-apr-2018
European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE)
Article (author)
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
COVERED VERSUS UNCOVERED METAL STENTS FOR MALIGNANT GASTRIC OUTLET OBSTRUCTION.pdf

accesso riservato

Tipologia: Publisher's version/PDF
Dimensione 167.65 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
167.65 kB Adobe PDF   Visualizza/Apri   Richiedi una copia
Pubblicazioni consigliate

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/2434/571780
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus ND
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? ND
social impact