ArticleDigestive diseases and sciences2022
Effectiveness and Safety of Lumen-Apposing Metal Stents in Endoscopic Interventions for Off-Label Indications.
Article in Digestive diseases and sciences, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Adverse events with endoscopic ultrasound-guided gastroenterostomy for gastric outlet obstruction-A systematic review and meta-analysis.United European gastroenterology journal · 2024Pooled it
- Endoscopic ultrasound-guided gastroenterostomy, with focus on technique and practical tips.Clinical endoscopy · 2025Review
- Analysis of Adverse Events of Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Lumen-Apposing Metal Stent Placement: Insights Across Various Indications and Techniques.Gastroenterology research · 2025Article
- Comprehensive analysis of adverse events associated with transmural use of LAMS in patients with liver cirrhosis: International multicenter study.Endoscopy international open · 2024Article
- Multicenter study of the efficacy and safety of electrocautery-enhanced lumen-apposing metal stents for the internal drainage of pancreatic fluid collections.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- A Successful 12-Month Trial of a Lumen-Apposing Self-Expandable Metallic Stent on a Benign Recalcitrant After Surgical Stricture.ACG case reports journal · 2024Article
- Article
- Reduction of Lams-Related Adverse Events with Accumulating Experience in a Large-Volume Tertiary Referral Center.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- A Wolf in LAMS Clothing: The Expansion of Off-Label Indications for Lumen-Apposing Metal Stents.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2022Article
- Efficacy of lumen-apposing metal stents for the management of benign gastrointestinal stricture: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Annals of gastroenterologyArticle
- Endoscopic ultrasonography-guided gastroenterostomy for malignant and benign gastric outlet obstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Annals of gastroenterologyArticle
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAlthough released only for drainage of pseudocyst and walled-off necrosis (WON) with ≤ 30% solid debris, the utilization of lumen-apposing metal stent (LAMS) in "real-world" practice has deviated from approved indications. We evaluated the contemporary use of LAMS and associated clinical, procedural outcomes in the setting of a tertiary referral center in the USA.
methodsData from 303 consecutive patients who underwent LAMS placement were analyzed. Outcomes included technical and clinical success rates and adverse events.
resultsOf 303 patients, 190 (62.7%) received LAMS for off-label indications. The latter included gallbladder drainage (n = 56, 18.5%), gastroenterostomy (n = 52, 17.2%), treatment of gastrointestinal strictures (n = 37, 12.2%), biliary drainage (n = 20, 6.6%), temporary gastric access for endoscopy (n = 13, 4.3%), symptomatic WON with > 30% solid debris (n = 8, 2.6%), and miscellaneous (n = 4, 1.3%). Technical success rates in the on- and off-label arm were 98.2% and 95.8%, respectively (P = .331; 95% CI 0.08 to 1.96). Clinical success rates in the on- and off-label arm were 89.4% and 83.2%, respectively (P = .137; 95% CI 0.28 to 1.19). The rate of adverse events was 20.5% (n = 39) in the off-label arm and 16.8% (n = 19) in the on-label arm (P = .242; 95% CI 0.69 to 2.34).
conclusionOff-label use of LAMS out-numbered on-label use in our practice. The safety profile between the groups was similar and with the exception of refractory stricture treatment, efficacy was comparable.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.