A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

EUS-guided Drainage of Pancreatic Fluid Collections Using Lumen Apposing Metal Stents With or Without Coaxial Plastic Stents: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. | LitMetric

Background And Aims: Co-axial plastic double pigtail stents (DPSs) are commonly placed through lumen apposing metal stents (LAMS) in patients with pancreatic fluid collections (PFCs) to decrease the risk of adverse events. In this meta-analysis, we have compared the outcomes of LAMS plus co-axial DPS versus LAMS alone in patients with PFCs.

Methods: We reviewed several databases to identify the studies that compared outcomes of LAMS with DPS to LAMS without DPS in the treatment of PFCs. Our outcomes of interest were overall adverse events, clinical success and individual adverse events such as stent (LAMS) migration, stent occlusion, bleeding, and infection. We calculated pooled risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the analysis of outcomes. We used a random effects model to analyze the data. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I 2 statistic.

Results: We included 10 studies with 685 patients. Rate of overall adverse events was significantly lower in the LAMS+DPS group compared with LAMS alone, RR (95% CI) 0.58 (0.40, 0.87). There was no significant difference in the rate of clinical success between groups, RR (95% CI) 1.03 (0.94, 1.13). We found no significant difference in rate of stent occlusion between groups. Rate of infection was significantly lower in LAMS+DPS group, RR (95% CI) 0.46 (0.24, 0.85). There was no significant difference in rate of bleeding and stent (LAMS) migration between groups.

Conclusions: Addition of co-axial DPS to LAMS decreases the risk of adverse events in patients with PFCs and should be considered in all patients with PFCs.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/MCG.0000000000002080DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

adverse events
20
difference rate
12
lams
9
pancreatic fluid
8
fluid collections
8
lumen apposing
8
apposing metal
8
metal stents
8
lams patients
8
risk adverse
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!