Fully vs. partially covered selfexpandable metal stent for palliation of malignant esophageal strictures: a randomized trial (the COPAC study)

Abstract

Esophageal FC-SEMSs did not reveal a lower recurrent obstruction rate compared with PC-SEMSs in the palliative management of malignant dysphagia.

Comparison of fully-covered vs partially covered self-expanding metallic stents for palliative treatment of inoperable esophageal malignancy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

“…Detailed reasons for exclusion are presented in Table 2. Five articles [26][27][28][29][30] met the inclusion criteria and were analyzed in this systematic review and meta-analysis.…”

“…The mean age of patients in the included studies varied from 63.6 to 72.2 years. Three studies were RCTs [27][28][29], one was a retrospective review [30] while one was a prospective study [26]. A total of 229 patients received FCSEMS while 313 patients received PCSEMS across the five studies.…”

“…The types of FCSEMS varied across trials. Two studies [28,29] used the Wall-Flex fully-covered stent (Boston Scientific, Natick, Massachusetts, USA), while SX-ELLA® (ELLA-CS, Hradec Králové, Czech Republic), Niti-S stent (Taewoong Medical, Seoul, Korea) and Z-stent (Wilson-Cook Europe, Bjaeverskov, Denmark) were used in one study each. The use of Ultraflex® NG, (Boston Scientific, Natick, Massachusetts, USA) as PCSEMS was common with four studies [26][27][28]30] reporting its use.…”

“…Outcomes of included studies are presented in Table 4. Data on stent migration was reported by all five studies [26][27][28][29][30]. Meta-analysis indicated no statistically significant difference in the rates of stent migration between FCSEMS and PCSEMS (OR 0.63, 95%CI 0.37-1.08, P = 0.09; I 2 = 0%) ( Fig.…”

“…Four studies [27][28][29][30] reported data on technical success. Pooled data of 159 patients in the FCSEMS group and 167 patients in the PCSEMS group indicated no significant difference between the two groups (OR 1.22, 95%CI 0.30-5.03, P = 0.78; I 2 = 12%) ( Fig.…”