Cargando…

Safety and effectiveness of endoluminal vacuum-assisted closure for esophageal defects: Systematic review and meta-analysis

Background and study aims  Esophageal defects (leaks, fistulas, and perforations) are associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Endoluminal vacuum-assisted closure (EVAC) is a novel intervention that entails the use of sponges in the defect along with negative pressure to achieve granulat...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Aziz, Muhammad, Haghbin, Hossein, Sharma, Sachit, Weissman, Simcha, Saleem, Saad, Lee-Smith, Wade, Kobeissy, Abdallah, Nawras, Ali, Alastal, Yaseen
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Georg Thieme Verlag KG 2021
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8367451/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34466361
http://dx.doi.org/10.1055/a-1508-5947
_version_ 1783739062272655360
author Aziz, Muhammad
Haghbin, Hossein
Sharma, Sachit
Weissman, Simcha
Saleem, Saad
Lee-Smith, Wade
Kobeissy, Abdallah
Nawras, Ali
Alastal, Yaseen
author_facet Aziz, Muhammad
Haghbin, Hossein
Sharma, Sachit
Weissman, Simcha
Saleem, Saad
Lee-Smith, Wade
Kobeissy, Abdallah
Nawras, Ali
Alastal, Yaseen
author_sort Aziz, Muhammad
collection PubMed
description Background and study aims  Esophageal defects (leaks, fistulas, and perforations) are associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Endoluminal vacuum-assisted closure (EVAC) is a novel intervention that entails the use of sponges in the defect along with negative pressure to achieve granulation tissue formation and healing and has been gaining popularity. We performed a systematic review and pooled analysis of available literature to assess the safety and effectiveness of EVAC for esophageal defects. Patients and methods  We queried PubMed/Medline, Embase, Cochrane, and Web of Science through September 25, 2020 to include all pertinent articles highlighting the safety and effectiveness profile of EVAC for esophageal defects. Pooled rates, 95 % confidence intervals (CIs), and heterogeneity ( I (2) ) were assessed for each outcome. Results  A total of 18 studies with 423 patients were included (mean age 64.3 years and males 74.4 %). The technical success for EVAC was 97.1 % (CI: 95.4 %–98.7 %, I (2)  = 0 %). The clinical success was 89.4 % (CI: 85.6 %–93.1 %, I (2)  = 36.8 %). The overall all-cause mortality and adverse events (AEs) noted were 7.1 % (CI: 4.7 %–9.5 %, I (2)  = 0 %) and 13.6 % (CI: 8.0 %–19.1 %, I (2)  = 68.9 %), respectively. The pooled need for adjuvant therapy was 15.7 % (CI: 9.8 %–21.6 %, I (2)  = 71.1 %). Conclusions  This systematic review and meta-analysis showed high rates of technical success, clinical success, and low all-cause mortality and AEs using EVAC. Although the technique is a promising alternative, the lack of comparative studies poses a challenge in making definite conclusions regarding use of EVAC compared to other endoscopic modalities, such as clips and stents.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8367451
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Georg Thieme Verlag KG
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-83674512021-08-30 Safety and effectiveness of endoluminal vacuum-assisted closure for esophageal defects: Systematic review and meta-analysis Aziz, Muhammad Haghbin, Hossein Sharma, Sachit Weissman, Simcha Saleem, Saad Lee-Smith, Wade Kobeissy, Abdallah Nawras, Ali Alastal, Yaseen Endosc Int Open Background and study aims  Esophageal defects (leaks, fistulas, and perforations) are associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Endoluminal vacuum-assisted closure (EVAC) is a novel intervention that entails the use of sponges in the defect along with negative pressure to achieve granulation tissue formation and healing and has been gaining popularity. We performed a systematic review and pooled analysis of available literature to assess the safety and effectiveness of EVAC for esophageal defects. Patients and methods  We queried PubMed/Medline, Embase, Cochrane, and Web of Science through September 25, 2020 to include all pertinent articles highlighting the safety and effectiveness profile of EVAC for esophageal defects. Pooled rates, 95 % confidence intervals (CIs), and heterogeneity ( I (2) ) were assessed for each outcome. Results  A total of 18 studies with 423 patients were included (mean age 64.3 years and males 74.4 %). The technical success for EVAC was 97.1 % (CI: 95.4 %–98.7 %, I (2)  = 0 %). The clinical success was 89.4 % (CI: 85.6 %–93.1 %, I (2)  = 36.8 %). The overall all-cause mortality and adverse events (AEs) noted were 7.1 % (CI: 4.7 %–9.5 %, I (2)  = 0 %) and 13.6 % (CI: 8.0 %–19.1 %, I (2)  = 68.9 %), respectively. The pooled need for adjuvant therapy was 15.7 % (CI: 9.8 %–21.6 %, I (2)  = 71.1 %). Conclusions  This systematic review and meta-analysis showed high rates of technical success, clinical success, and low all-cause mortality and AEs using EVAC. Although the technique is a promising alternative, the lack of comparative studies poses a challenge in making definite conclusions regarding use of EVAC compared to other endoscopic modalities, such as clips and stents. Georg Thieme Verlag KG 2021-08-16 /pmc/articles/PMC8367451/ /pubmed/34466361 http://dx.doi.org/10.1055/a-1508-5947 Text en The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License, which permits unrestricted reproduction and distribution, for non-commercial purposes only; and use and reproduction, but not distribution, of adapted material for non-commercial purposes only, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Aziz, Muhammad
Haghbin, Hossein
Sharma, Sachit
Weissman, Simcha
Saleem, Saad
Lee-Smith, Wade
Kobeissy, Abdallah
Nawras, Ali
Alastal, Yaseen
Safety and effectiveness of endoluminal vacuum-assisted closure for esophageal defects: Systematic review and meta-analysis
title Safety and effectiveness of endoluminal vacuum-assisted closure for esophageal defects: Systematic review and meta-analysis
title_full Safety and effectiveness of endoluminal vacuum-assisted closure for esophageal defects: Systematic review and meta-analysis
title_fullStr Safety and effectiveness of endoluminal vacuum-assisted closure for esophageal defects: Systematic review and meta-analysis
title_full_unstemmed Safety and effectiveness of endoluminal vacuum-assisted closure for esophageal defects: Systematic review and meta-analysis
title_short Safety and effectiveness of endoluminal vacuum-assisted closure for esophageal defects: Systematic review and meta-analysis
title_sort safety and effectiveness of endoluminal vacuum-assisted closure for esophageal defects: systematic review and meta-analysis
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8367451/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34466361
http://dx.doi.org/10.1055/a-1508-5947
work_keys_str_mv AT azizmuhammad safetyandeffectivenessofendoluminalvacuumassistedclosureforesophagealdefectssystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT haghbinhossein safetyandeffectivenessofendoluminalvacuumassistedclosureforesophagealdefectssystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT sharmasachit safetyandeffectivenessofendoluminalvacuumassistedclosureforesophagealdefectssystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT weissmansimcha safetyandeffectivenessofendoluminalvacuumassistedclosureforesophagealdefectssystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT saleemsaad safetyandeffectivenessofendoluminalvacuumassistedclosureforesophagealdefectssystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT leesmithwade safetyandeffectivenessofendoluminalvacuumassistedclosureforesophagealdefectssystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT kobeissyabdallah safetyandeffectivenessofendoluminalvacuumassistedclosureforesophagealdefectssystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT nawrasali safetyandeffectivenessofendoluminalvacuumassistedclosureforesophagealdefectssystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT alastalyaseen safetyandeffectivenessofendoluminalvacuumassistedclosureforesophagealdefectssystematicreviewandmetaanalysis