Background: Lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMSs) are widely used for endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided drainage of pancreatic fluid collections (PFCs). Safety is a major concern and the timing of LAMS removal is debated owing to the risk of adverse events (AEs). Previous studies showed early stent removal was associated with a reduced risk of AEs, but data are still conflicting. The aim of this systematic review with meta-analysis was to identify the optimal timing for LAMS removal. Methods: Major databases were systematically searched until May 2024. The outcome assessed was the cumulative incidence of AEs related to the early (within 3-4 weeks) versus late (after 3-4 weeks) removal of the LAMS. A random-effects (DerSimonian-Laird) model was used to pool the results. Results: Eight studies (1820 patients; mean age 54-61.6 years; 63 % men) were included in the analysis. PFCs included walled-off necrosis (WON; 58.2 %) and pseudocysts (41.8 %). Pooled LAMS-related AEs rate were similar in the late versus early removal groups (risk ratio [RR] 1.03, 95 %CI 0.47-2.28; P = 0.94). Sensitivity analysis, including only studies applying a 4-week cut-off, confirmed a comparable AEs rate (RR 0.80, 95 %CI 0.38-1.65; P = 0.59). The mean (SD) follow-up of the studies was 208 (88) days. Conclusions: The results of this meta-analysis showed no difference in the incidence of AEs between early and late removal of LAMSs in the presence of moderate heterogeneity across studies. Removal within 4 weeks is not warranted, and it may instead be planned on a clinical case-by-case basis according on the patient's condition.
Optimal timing for lumen-apposing metal stent removal following endoscopic ultrasound-guided drainage of pancreatic fluid collections: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Maida, Marcello;
2025-01-01
Abstract
Background: Lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMSs) are widely used for endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided drainage of pancreatic fluid collections (PFCs). Safety is a major concern and the timing of LAMS removal is debated owing to the risk of adverse events (AEs). Previous studies showed early stent removal was associated with a reduced risk of AEs, but data are still conflicting. The aim of this systematic review with meta-analysis was to identify the optimal timing for LAMS removal. Methods: Major databases were systematically searched until May 2024. The outcome assessed was the cumulative incidence of AEs related to the early (within 3-4 weeks) versus late (after 3-4 weeks) removal of the LAMS. A random-effects (DerSimonian-Laird) model was used to pool the results. Results: Eight studies (1820 patients; mean age 54-61.6 years; 63 % men) were included in the analysis. PFCs included walled-off necrosis (WON; 58.2 %) and pseudocysts (41.8 %). Pooled LAMS-related AEs rate were similar in the late versus early removal groups (risk ratio [RR] 1.03, 95 %CI 0.47-2.28; P = 0.94). Sensitivity analysis, including only studies applying a 4-week cut-off, confirmed a comparable AEs rate (RR 0.80, 95 %CI 0.38-1.65; P = 0.59). The mean (SD) follow-up of the studies was 208 (88) days. Conclusions: The results of this meta-analysis showed no difference in the incidence of AEs between early and late removal of LAMSs in the presence of moderate heterogeneity across studies. Removal within 4 weeks is not warranted, and it may instead be planned on a clinical case-by-case basis according on the patient's condition.I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
