UNASSIGNED: A systematic review was conducted to identify studies comparing LAMS and LAMS/DPPS for PFC drainage. Primary outcomes included the rate of clinical success, overall adverse events (AEs), bleeding, infection, occlusion, and stent migration. The pooled effect size was summarized using a random-effects model and compared between LAMS and LAMS/DPPS by calculating odds ratios (ORs).
UNASSIGNED: Nine studies involving 709 patients were identified (338 on LAMS and 371 on LAMS/DPPS). LAMS/DPPS was associated with a reduced risk of stent obstruction (OR, 0.59; p=0.004) and infection (OR, 0.55; p=0.001). No significant differences were observed in clinical success (OR, 0.96; p=0.440), overall AEs (OR, 0.57; p=0.060), bleeding (OR, 0.61; p=0.120), or stent migration (OR, 1.03; p=0.480).
UNASSIGNED: Coaxial DPPS for LAMS drainage of PFCs is associated with a reduced risk of stent occlusion and infection; however, no difference was observed in the overall AE rates or bleeding.
■进行了系统评价,以确定比较LAMS和LAMS/DPPS用于PFC排水的研究。主要结果包括临床成功率,总体不良事件(AE),出血,感染,遮挡,和支架迁移。使用随机效应模型总结合并效应大小,并通过计算比值比(OR)在LAMS和LAMS/DPPS之间进行比较。
■确定了9项研究,涉及709名患者(LAMS为338例,LAMS/DPPS为371例)。LAMS/DPPS与支架阻塞风险降低相关(OR,0.59;p=0.004)和感染(OR,0.55;p=0.001)。临床成功率无显著差异(OR,0.96;p=0.440),总体不良事件(或,0.57;p=0.060),出血(或,0.61;p=0.120),或支架迁移(或,1.03;p=0.480)。
■用于PFCsLAMS引流的同轴DPPS与降低支架闭塞和感染的风险相关;然而,总体AE发生率或出血无差异.