Clinical Endoscopy (Sep 2024)

Coaxial plastic stent placement within lumen-apposing metal stents for the management of pancreatic fluid collections: a systemic review and meta-analysis

  • Jad AbiMansour,
  • Veeravich Jaruvongvanich,
  • Saran Velaga,
  • Ryan Law,
  • Andrew C. Storm,
  • Mark Topazian,
  • Michael J. Levy,
  • Ryan Alexander,
  • Eric J. Vargas,
  • Aliana Bofill-Garica,
  • John A. Martin,
  • Bret T. Petersen,
  • Barham K. Abu Dayyeh,
  • Vinay Chandrasekhara

DOI
https://doi.org/10.5946/ce.2023.297
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 57, no. 5
pp. 595 – 603

Abstract

Read online

Background/Aims: Coaxial placement of double pigtail plastic stents (DPPS) through lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMSs) is commonly performed to reduce the risk of LAMS obstruction, bleeding, and stent migration when used for the drainage of pancreatic fluid collections (PFCs). A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed to compare the outcomes of LAMS alone and LAMS with coaxial DPPS placement in the management of PFCs. Methods: A systematic review was conducted to identify studies comparing LAMS and LAMS/DPPS for PFC drainage. Primary outcomes included the rate of clinical success, overall adverse events (AEs), bleeding, infection, occlusion, and stent migration. The pooled effect size was summarized using a random-effects model and compared between LAMS and LAMS/DPPS by calculating odds ratios (ORs). Results: Nine studies involving 709 patients were identified (338 on LAMS and 371 on LAMS/DPPS). LAMS/DPPS was associated with a reduced risk of stent obstruction (OR, 0.59; p=0.004) and infection (OR, 0.55; p=0.001). No significant differences were observed in clinical success (OR, 0.96; p=0.440), overall AEs (OR, 0.57; p=0.060), bleeding (OR, 0.61; p=0.120), or stent migration (OR, 1.03; p=0.480). Conclusions: Coaxial DPPS for LAMS drainage of PFCs is associated with a reduced risk of stent occlusion and infection; however, no difference was observed in the overall AE rates or bleeding.

Keywords