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: Predictors of outcomes in patients undergoing covered and uncovered self-expandable metal stent placement for malignant gastric outlet obstruction: a multicenter study.
    Author: Hori Y, Naitoh I, Hayashi K, Ban T, Natsume M, Okumura F, Nakazawa T, Takada H, Hirano A, Jinno N, Togawa S, Ando T, Kataoka H, Joh T.
    Journal: Gastrointest Endosc; 2017 Feb; 85(2):340-348.e1. PubMed ID: 27475489.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Uncovered self-expandable metal stents (U-SEMSs) and covered self-expandable metal stents (C-SEMSs) are available for palliative therapy for malignant gastric outlet obstruction (GOO). However, clinical differences and indications between the 2 types of SEMSs have not been elucidated. METHODS: We retrospectively compared 126 patients with U-SEMS and 126 patients with C-SEMSs with regard to clinical outcome and factors predictive of clinical improvement after SEMSs placement. RESULTS: No significant difference was observed between the U-SEMS and C-SEMS groups with respect to technical success, clinical success, GOO score, or time to stent dysfunction. Stent migration was significantly more frequent in patients with C-SEMSs (U-SEMSs, .79%; C-SEMSs, 8.73%; P = .005). Karnofsky performance status, chemotherapy, peritoneal dissemination, and stent expansion ≤ 30% were associated significantly with poor GOO score improvement in multivariable analyses, but stent type was not (P = .213). In subgroup analyses, insufficient (≤30%) stent expansion was an independent factor in patients with U-SEMSs (P = .041) but not C-SEMSs. In the insufficient stent expansion subgroup, C-SEMSs was associated significantly with superior clinical improvement compared with U-SEMSs (P = .01). Insufficient stent expansion was observed more frequently in patients with GI obstruction because of anastomotic sites or metastatic cancer (44.8% [13/29], P = .001). CONCLUSIONS: No clinical difference, apart from stent migration, was observed between patients with U-SEMSs and C-SEMSs. GI obstruction because of an anastomotic site or metastatic cancer may be an indication for C-SEMS use to improve oral intake after SEMSs placement.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]