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: Endoscopic placement of covered versus uncovered self-expandable metal stents for palliation of malignant gastric outlet obstruction.
    Author: Yamao K, Kitano M, Chiba Y, Ogura T, Eguchi T, Moriyama I, Yamashita Y, Kato H, Kayahara T, Hoki N, Okabe Y, Shiomi H, Nakai Y, Kushiyama Y, Fujimoto Y, Hayashi S, Bamba S, Kudo Y, Azemoto N, Ueki T, Uza N, Asada M, Matsumoto K, Nebiki H, Takihara H, Noguchi C, Kamada H, Nakase K, Goto D, Sanuki T, Koga T, Hashimoto S, Nishikiori H, Serikawa M, Hanada K, Hirao K, Ohana M, Kazuyuki I, Kato T, Yoshida M, Kawamoto H.
    Journal: Gut; 2021 Jul; 70(7):1244-1252. PubMed ID: 33223499.
    Abstract:
    OBJECTIVE: Stenting is an established endoscopic therapy for malignant gastric outlet obstruction (mGOO). The choice of stent (covered vs uncovered) has been examined in prior randomised studies without clear results. DESIGN: In a multicentre randomised prospective study, we compared covered (CSEMS) with uncovered self-expandable metal stents (UCSEMS) in patients with mGOO; main outcomes were stent dysfunction and patient survival, with subgroup analyses of patients with extrinsic and intrinsic tumours. RESULTS: Overall survival was poor with no difference between groups (probability at 3 months 49.7% for covered vs 48.4% for uncovered stents; log-rank for overall survival p=0.26). Within that setting of short survival, the proportion of stent dysfunction was significantly higher for uncovered stents (35.2% vs 23.4%, p=0.01) with significantly shorter time to stent dysfunction. This was mainly relevant for patients with extrinsic tumours (stent dysfunction rates for uncovered stents 35.6% vs 17.5%, p<0.01). Subgrouping was also relevant with respect to tumour ingrowth (lower with covered stents for intrinsic tumours; 1.6% vs 27.7%, p<0.01) and stent migration (higher with covered stents for extrinsic tumours: 15.3% vs 2.5%, p<0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Due to poor patient survival, minor differences between covered and uncovered stents may be less relevant even if statistically significant; however, subgroup analysis would suggest to use covered stents for intrinsic and uncovered stents for extrinsic malignancies.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]