Meta-analysis compares bi-flanged metal stents and lumen-apposing metal stents for drainage of pancreatic fluid collections, showing similar efficacy and safety.
Introduction Pancreatic fluid collections (PFCs), particularly walled-off necrosis, are common complications of acute pancreatitis that often require endoscopic drainage. Bi-flanged metal stents (BFMS; NAGI; Taewoong Medical, Gyenoggi-do, Korea) and electrocautery-enhanced lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMS; AXIOS, Boston Scientific Corporation, Marlborough, Massachusetts, USA) are frequently used, but comparative data remain limited. This study aims to compare the efficacy and safety of BFMS and LAMS in the endoscopic drainage of PFCs. Methods This meta-analysis followed the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Comprehensive database searches were conducted through November 2024 to identify studies comparing BFMS and LAMS for endoscopic ultrasound-guided drainage of PFCs. Outcomes were pooled using a random-effects model with RevMan Web, and statistical significance was defined as a P value less than 0.05. Results Three studies ( n = 627; 329 BFMS and 298 LAMS) met inclusion criteria. No significant differences were observed between BFMS and LAMS for technical success [odds ratio (OR): 1.16; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.55–2.43] or clinical success (OR: 0.97; 95% CI: 0.51–1.87). Similarly, there were no differences in walled-off necrosis recurrence (OR: 2.01; 95% CI: 0.17–24.02), number of direct endoscopic necrosectomy sessions (OR: 0.52; 95% CI: 0.05–5.12), or mean number of endoscopic procedures (mean difference: 0.18, 95% CI: 2.08–2.45). Adverse events were also comparable between groups, including bleeding (OR: 0.64), infection (OR: 1.18), stent migration (OR: 1.83), and stent occlusion/dysfunction (OR: 1.71). Conclusion BFMS and LAMS provide equivalent efficacy and safety in the endoscopic ultrasound-guided drainage of PFCs. Either stent type represents a viable therapeutic option. Further large-scale prospective studies are warranted to refine stent selection strategies.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Shahzil et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: