Indication for 'Over the scope' (OTS)-clip vs. covered self-expanding metal stent (cSEMS) is unequal in upper gastrointestinal leakage: results from a retrospective head-to-head comparison.
Intestinal perforation or leakage increases morbidity and mortality of surgical and endoscopic interventions. We identified criteria for use of full-covered, extractable self-expanding metal stents (cSEMS) vs. 'Over the scope'-clips (OTSC) for leak closure.Patients who underwent endoscopic...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
2015-01-01
|
| Series: | PLoS ONE |
| Online Access: | http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC4309679?pdf=render |
| _version_ | 1818590428635594752 |
|---|---|
| author | Harald Farnik Marlene Driller Thomas Kratt Carsten Schmidt Martin Fähndrich Natalie Filmann Alfred Königsrainer Andreas Stallmach Michael Heike Wolf O Bechstein Stefan Zeuzem Jörg G Albert |
| author_facet | Harald Farnik Marlene Driller Thomas Kratt Carsten Schmidt Martin Fähndrich Natalie Filmann Alfred Königsrainer Andreas Stallmach Michael Heike Wolf O Bechstein Stefan Zeuzem Jörg G Albert |
| author_sort | Harald Farnik |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Intestinal perforation or leakage increases morbidity and mortality of surgical and endoscopic interventions. We identified criteria for use of full-covered, extractable self-expanding metal stents (cSEMS) vs. 'Over the scope'-clips (OTSC) for leak closure.Patients who underwent endoscopic treatment for postoperative leakage, endoscopic perforation, or spontaneous rupture of the upper gastrointestinal tract between 2006 and 2013 were identified at four tertiary endoscopic centers. Technical success, outcome (e.g. duration of hospitalization, in-hospital mortality), and complications were assessed and analyzed with respect to etiology, size and location of leakage.Of 106 patients (male: 75 (71%), female: 31 (29%); age (mean ± SD): 62.5 ± 1.3 years, 72 (69%) were treated by cSEMS and 34 (31%) by OTSC. For cSEMS vs. OTSC, mean treatment duration was 41.1 vs. 25 days, p<0.001, leakage size 10 (1-50) vs. 5 (1-30) mm (median (range)), and complications were observed in 68% vs. 8.8%, p<0.001, respectively. Clinical success for primary interventional treatment was observed in 29/72 (40%) vs. 24/34 (70%, p = 0.006), and clinical success at the end of follow-up was 46/72 (64%) vs. 29/34 (85%) for patients treated by cSEMS vs. OTSC; p = 0.04.OTSC is preferred in small-sized lesions and in perforation caused by endoscopic interventions, cSEMS in patients with concomitant local infection or abscess. cSEMS is associated with a higher frequency of complications. Therefore, OTSC might be preferred if technically feasible. Indication criteria for cSEMS vs. OTSC vary and might impede design of randomized studies. |
| first_indexed | 2024-12-16T09:56:23Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-bcd1173b93dd40109707771bfa0f3ec8 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 1932-6203 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-12-16T09:56:23Z |
| publishDate | 2015-01-01 |
| publisher | Public Library of Science (PLoS) |
| record_format | Article |
| series | PLoS ONE |
| spelling | doaj.art-bcd1173b93dd40109707771bfa0f3ec82022-12-21T22:35:55ZengPublic Library of Science (PLoS)PLoS ONE1932-62032015-01-01101e011748310.1371/journal.pone.0117483Indication for 'Over the scope' (OTS)-clip vs. covered self-expanding metal stent (cSEMS) is unequal in upper gastrointestinal leakage: results from a retrospective head-to-head comparison.Harald FarnikMarlene DrillerThomas KrattCarsten SchmidtMartin FähndrichNatalie FilmannAlfred KönigsrainerAndreas StallmachMichael HeikeWolf O BechsteinStefan ZeuzemJörg G AlbertIntestinal perforation or leakage increases morbidity and mortality of surgical and endoscopic interventions. We identified criteria for use of full-covered, extractable self-expanding metal stents (cSEMS) vs. 'Over the scope'-clips (OTSC) for leak closure.Patients who underwent endoscopic treatment for postoperative leakage, endoscopic perforation, or spontaneous rupture of the upper gastrointestinal tract between 2006 and 2013 were identified at four tertiary endoscopic centers. Technical success, outcome (e.g. duration of hospitalization, in-hospital mortality), and complications were assessed and analyzed with respect to etiology, size and location of leakage.Of 106 patients (male: 75 (71%), female: 31 (29%); age (mean ± SD): 62.5 ± 1.3 years, 72 (69%) were treated by cSEMS and 34 (31%) by OTSC. For cSEMS vs. OTSC, mean treatment duration was 41.1 vs. 25 days, p<0.001, leakage size 10 (1-50) vs. 5 (1-30) mm (median (range)), and complications were observed in 68% vs. 8.8%, p<0.001, respectively. Clinical success for primary interventional treatment was observed in 29/72 (40%) vs. 24/34 (70%, p = 0.006), and clinical success at the end of follow-up was 46/72 (64%) vs. 29/34 (85%) for patients treated by cSEMS vs. OTSC; p = 0.04.OTSC is preferred in small-sized lesions and in perforation caused by endoscopic interventions, cSEMS in patients with concomitant local infection or abscess. cSEMS is associated with a higher frequency of complications. Therefore, OTSC might be preferred if technically feasible. Indication criteria for cSEMS vs. OTSC vary and might impede design of randomized studies.http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC4309679?pdf=render |
| spellingShingle | Harald Farnik Marlene Driller Thomas Kratt Carsten Schmidt Martin Fähndrich Natalie Filmann Alfred Königsrainer Andreas Stallmach Michael Heike Wolf O Bechstein Stefan Zeuzem Jörg G Albert Indication for 'Over the scope' (OTS)-clip vs. covered self-expanding metal stent (cSEMS) is unequal in upper gastrointestinal leakage: results from a retrospective head-to-head comparison. PLoS ONE |
| title | Indication for 'Over the scope' (OTS)-clip vs. covered self-expanding metal stent (cSEMS) is unequal in upper gastrointestinal leakage: results from a retrospective head-to-head comparison. |
| title_full | Indication for 'Over the scope' (OTS)-clip vs. covered self-expanding metal stent (cSEMS) is unequal in upper gastrointestinal leakage: results from a retrospective head-to-head comparison. |
| title_fullStr | Indication for 'Over the scope' (OTS)-clip vs. covered self-expanding metal stent (cSEMS) is unequal in upper gastrointestinal leakage: results from a retrospective head-to-head comparison. |
| title_full_unstemmed | Indication for 'Over the scope' (OTS)-clip vs. covered self-expanding metal stent (cSEMS) is unequal in upper gastrointestinal leakage: results from a retrospective head-to-head comparison. |
| title_short | Indication for 'Over the scope' (OTS)-clip vs. covered self-expanding metal stent (cSEMS) is unequal in upper gastrointestinal leakage: results from a retrospective head-to-head comparison. |
| title_sort | indication for over the scope ots clip vs covered self expanding metal stent csems is unequal in upper gastrointestinal leakage results from a retrospective head to head comparison |
| url | http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC4309679?pdf=render |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT haraldfarnik indicationforoverthescopeotsclipvscoveredselfexpandingmetalstentcsemsisunequalinuppergastrointestinalleakageresultsfromaretrospectiveheadtoheadcomparison AT marlenedriller indicationforoverthescopeotsclipvscoveredselfexpandingmetalstentcsemsisunequalinuppergastrointestinalleakageresultsfromaretrospectiveheadtoheadcomparison AT thomaskratt indicationforoverthescopeotsclipvscoveredselfexpandingmetalstentcsemsisunequalinuppergastrointestinalleakageresultsfromaretrospectiveheadtoheadcomparison AT carstenschmidt indicationforoverthescopeotsclipvscoveredselfexpandingmetalstentcsemsisunequalinuppergastrointestinalleakageresultsfromaretrospectiveheadtoheadcomparison AT martinfahndrich indicationforoverthescopeotsclipvscoveredselfexpandingmetalstentcsemsisunequalinuppergastrointestinalleakageresultsfromaretrospectiveheadtoheadcomparison AT nataliefilmann indicationforoverthescopeotsclipvscoveredselfexpandingmetalstentcsemsisunequalinuppergastrointestinalleakageresultsfromaretrospectiveheadtoheadcomparison AT alfredkonigsrainer indicationforoverthescopeotsclipvscoveredselfexpandingmetalstentcsemsisunequalinuppergastrointestinalleakageresultsfromaretrospectiveheadtoheadcomparison AT andreasstallmach indicationforoverthescopeotsclipvscoveredselfexpandingmetalstentcsemsisunequalinuppergastrointestinalleakageresultsfromaretrospectiveheadtoheadcomparison AT michaelheike indicationforoverthescopeotsclipvscoveredselfexpandingmetalstentcsemsisunequalinuppergastrointestinalleakageresultsfromaretrospectiveheadtoheadcomparison AT wolfobechstein indicationforoverthescopeotsclipvscoveredselfexpandingmetalstentcsemsisunequalinuppergastrointestinalleakageresultsfromaretrospectiveheadtoheadcomparison AT stefanzeuzem indicationforoverthescopeotsclipvscoveredselfexpandingmetalstentcsemsisunequalinuppergastrointestinalleakageresultsfromaretrospectiveheadtoheadcomparison AT jorggalbert indicationforoverthescopeotsclipvscoveredselfexpandingmetalstentcsemsisunequalinuppergastrointestinalleakageresultsfromaretrospectiveheadtoheadcomparison |