These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: A retrospective study assessing fully covered metal stents as first-line management for malignant biliary strictures.
    Author: Sampaziotis F, Elias J, Gelson WT, Gimson AE, Griffiths WJ, Woodward J, Shariff M, Macfarlane B, King A, Corbett G, Leahy A.
    Journal: Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol; 2015 Nov; 27(11):1347-53. PubMed ID: 26275083.
    Abstract:
    OBJECTIVES: Fully covered self-expanding metal stents (FCSEMS) constitute the first type of metal stent that can easily be removed endoscopically and/or intraoperatively, which may be advantageous in the management of distal malignant biliary strictures (DMBS). To assess the efficacy of FCSEMS as first-line treatment for DMBS, we compared patency, survival and complication rates between FCSEMS, uncovered self-expanding metal stents (USEMS) and plastic stents (PS). METHODS: This was a multicentre retrospective study of 315 consecutive patients with DMBS, who underwent endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography and stenting (FCSEMS, USEMS or PS) at two hospitals between 1 January 2007 and 31 December 2013. Stent patency and patient survival were compared using the Kaplan-Meier method; complication rates were compared using Fisher's exact test; and Cox regression analysis was used to screen for confounding factors. RESULTS: FCSEMS were associated with prolonged stent patency (median=145 days) compared with USEMS (median=110 days, P<0.003) and PS (median=34 days, P<0.001). Biliary sepsis rates were lower for FCSEMS compared with PS (4.7 vs. 17.8%, P=0.02), whereas pancreatitis rates were higher for FCSEMS compared with USEMS (7.8 vs. 1.0%, P=0.04), but not PS (2.6%, P=NS). CONCLUSION: The use of FCSEMS as first-line management for DMBS is associated with longer patency and reduced complication rates compared with the use of PS. However, the higher rate of pancreatitis compared with USEMS requires further evaluation in a large randomized controlled trial.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]