Endoscopic stenting for inoperable malignant biliary obstruction: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Carregando...
Imagem de Miniatura
Citações na Scopus
72
Tipo de produção
article
Data de publicação
2015
Título da Revista
ISSN da Revista
Título do Volume
Editora
BAISHIDENG PUBLISHING GROUP INC
Citação
WORLD JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY, v.21, n.47, p.13374-13385, 2015
Projetos de Pesquisa
Unidades Organizacionais
Fascículo
Resumo
AIM: To analyze through meta-analyses the benefits of two types of stents in the inoperable malignant biliary obstruction. METHODS: A systematic review of randomized clinical trials (RCT) was conducted, with the last update on March 2015, using EMBASE, CINAHL (EBSCO), MEDLINE, LILACS/CENTRAL (BVS), SCOPUS, CAPES (Brazil), and gray literature. Information of the selected studies was extracted in sight of six outcomes: primarily regarding dysfunction, complication and reintervention rates; and secondarily costs, survival, and patency time. The data about characteristics of trial participants, inclusion and exclusion criteria and types of stents were also extracted. The bias was mainly assessed through the JADAD scale. This meta-analysis was registered in the PROSPERO database by the number CRD42014015078. The analysis of the absolute risk of the outcomes was performed using the software RevMan, by computing risk differences (RD) of dichotomous variables and mean differences (MD) of continuous variables. Data on RD and MD for each primary outcome were calculated using the Mantel-Haenszel test and inconsistency was qualified and reported in chi(2) and the Higgins method (I-2). Sensitivity analysis was performed when heterogeneity was higher than 50%, a subsequent assay was done and other findings were compiled. Student's t-test was used for the comparison of weighted arithmetic means regarding secondary outcomes. RESULTS: Initial searching identified 3660 studies; 3539 were excluded through title, repetition, and/or abstract, while 121 studies were fully assessed and were excluded mainly because they did not compare self-expanding metal stents (SEMS) and plastic stents (PS), leading to thirteen RCT selected, with 13 articles and 1133 subjects meta-analyzed. The mean age was 69.5 years old, that were affected mostly by bile duct (proximal) and pancreatic tumors (distal). The preferred SEMS diameter used was the 10 mm (30 Fr) and the preferred PS diameter used was 10 Fr. In the meta-analysis, SEMS had lower overall stent dysfunction compared to PS (21.6% vs 46.8%, P < 0.00001) and fewer re-interventions (21.6% vs 56.6%, P < 0.00001), with no difference in complications (13.7% vs 15.9%, P = 0.16). In the secondary analysis, the mean survival rate was higher in the SEMS group (182 d vs 150 d, P < 0.0001), with a higher patency period (250 d vs 124 d, P < 0.0001) and a lower cost per patient (4193.98 vs 4728.65 Euros, P < 0.0985). CONCLUSION: SEMS are associated with lower stent dysfunction, lower re-intervention rates, better survival, and higher patency time. Complications and costs showed no difference.
Palavras-chave
Biliary tract neoplasms, Malignant biliary obstruction, Jaundice, Palliative care, Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, Stent, Systematic review, Meta-analysis
Referências
  1. Albores-Saavedra J, 2009, J SURG ONCOL, V100, P598, DOI 10.1002/jso.21374
  2. Mukai T, 2013, J HEPATO-BIL-PAN SCI, V20, P214, DOI 10.1007/s00534-012-0508-8
  3. Kaassis M, 2003, GASTROINTEST ENDOSC, V57, P178, DOI 10.1067/mge.2003.66
  4. Prat F, 1998, GASTROINTEST ENDOSC, V47, P1, DOI 10.1016/S0016-5107(98)70291-3
  5. Moses PL, 2013, WORLD J GASTROENTERO, V19, P8638, DOI 10.3748/wjg.v19.i46.8638
  6. Isayama H, 2011, DIGEST ENDOSC, V23, P310, DOI 10.1111/j.1443-1661.2011.01124.x
  7. Soderlund C, 2006, GASTROINTEST ENDOSC, V63, P986, DOI 10.1016/j.gie.2005.11.052
  8. CARRIAGA MT, 1995, CANCER, V75, P171, DOI 10.1002/1097-0142(19950101)75:1+<171::AID-CNCR2820751306>3.0.CO;2-2
  9. Jadad AR, 1996, CONTROL CLIN TRIALS, V17, P1, DOI 10.1016/0197-2456(95)00134-4
  10. KAYAHARA M, 1993, CANCER, V72, P2118, DOI 10.1002/1097-0142(19931001)72:7<2118::AID-CNCR2820720710>3.0.CO;2-4
  11. Kawarabayashi N, 2010, SHOCK, V33, P500, DOI 10.1097/SHK.0b013e3181c4e44a
  12. Katsinelos P, 2006, SURG ENDOSC, V20, P1587, DOI 10.1007/s00464-005-0778-1
  13. DAVIDS PHP, 1992, LANCET, V340, P1488, DOI 10.1016/0140-6736(92)92752-2
  14. Ryan DP, 2014, NEW ENGL J MED, V371, P1039, DOI 10.1056/NEJMra1404198
  15. Katz SC, 2011, J IMMUNOL, V187, P1150, DOI 10.4049/jimmunol.1004077
  16. Hong WD, 2013, CLIN RES HEPATOL GAS, V37, P496, DOI 10.1016/j.clinre.2012.12.002
  17. ROUGHNEEN PT, 1987, TRANSPLANTATION, V43, P437, DOI 10.1097/00007890-198703000-00023
  18. Scott EN, 2009, HPB, V11, P118, DOI 10.1111/j.1477-2574.2008.00015.x
  19. Burke EC, 1998, ANN SURG, V228, P385, DOI 10.1097/00000658-199809000-00011
  20. AMIKURA K, 1995, INT J PANCREATOL, V17, P139
  21. KNYRIM K, 1993, ENDOSCOPY, V25, P207, DOI 10.1055/s-2007-1010294
  22. Mavros MN, 2014, JAMA SURG, V149, P565, DOI 10.1001/jamasurg.2013.5137
  23. WAGNER HJ, 1993, ENDOSCOPY, V25, P213, DOI 10.1055/s-2007-1010295
  24. Glazer ES, 2014, J PAIN SYMPTOM MANAG, V47, P307, DOI 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2013.03.013
  25. Reisman Y, 1996, HEPATO-GASTROENTEROL, V43, P1190
  26. Sangchan A, 2012, GASTROINTEST ENDOSC, V76, P93, DOI 10.1016/j.gie.2012.02.048
  27. Evans DB, 2009, ANN SURG ONCOL, V16, P1736, DOI 10.1245/s10434-009-0416-6
  28. Bernon M, 2011, HPB, V13, P139, DOI [10.1111/j.1477-2574.2011.00308.x, DOI 10.1111/J.1477-2574.2011.00308.X]
  29. Kim HS, 2015, CANCER CHEMOTH PHARM, V75, P711, DOI 10.1007/s00280-015-2687-x
  30. Siegel R, 2014, CA-CANCER J CLIN, V64, P9, DOI 10.3322/caac.21208
  31. Lago MTD, 2006, PANCREATOLOGY, V6, P273, DOI 10.1159/000092688
  32. Walter D, 2014, GASTROINTEST ENDO S1, V79, P5, DOI [10.1016/j.gie.2014.02.144, DOI 10.1016/J.GIE.2014.02.144]