ArticleiGIE : innovation, investigation and insights2023
Device failures and patient-related adverse events associated with endoscopic variceal ligation devices: a MAUDE database analysis.
Article in iGIE : innovation, investigation and insights, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Aims: Endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL) is indicated in the treatment of esophageal variceal hemorrhage. Despite the widespread use of EVL, there is a shortage of studies comparing the 2 most widely used banding devices available in the United States. We aimed to investigate outcomes associated with these devices following U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval. Methods: We analyzed postmarketing surveillance data for the Boston Scientific Speedband Superview Super 7 and the Cook Endoscopy 6 Shooter banding devices from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience (MAUDE) database from January 2011 to September 2021. Results: During the study period, 3531 reports describing 4720 device failures and 258 patient-related adverse events were identified. Of the 2782 reports in the Boston Scientific device group, the most common device failures reported were failure to fire (n = 1878 [49.1%]) and premature activation (n = 486 [12.7%]); the most common patient-related adverse event was bleeding/hemorrhage (n = 62 [63.3%]). Of the 749 reports in the Cook Endoscopy device group, the most common device failures reported were premature activation (n = 218 [24.4%]) and failure to fire (n = 181 [20.2%]); the most common patient-related adverse event was presence of a foreign body (n = 111 [69.4%]). Conclusions: Both commercially available EVL devices had significant reports of failure to fire and premature activation. Inadvertent bleeding/hemorrhage may be an underrecognized adverse event of EVL. These findings can inform operators of these devices about potential failures and their relative risk of resultant patient injury.
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.