RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: Esophageal Stents are used to maintain esophageal lumen patency in esophageal strictures caused by intrinsic and/or extrinsic malignancies and the occlusion of concomitant esophageal fistulas. While data on the efficacy and safety of esophageal stents exist, comprehensive evaluation of adverse events is limited. The aim of this study is to investigate the reported adverse events and device failures associated with esophageal self-expandable metal stents (SEMS) using the FDA's Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience (MAUDE) database. METHODS: Post-marketing surveillance data for the esophageal SEMSs were analyzed using the FDA's MAUDE database from January 2014 to December 10, 2023. The outcomes of interest were patient-related adverse events and device failures. Statistical analysis was performed using Microsoft Excel 2010 and SPSS. Pooled numbers and percentages were calculated for each adverse event. Continuous variables underwent analysis using a two-tailed student t test, and significance was set to p ≤ 0.05. RESULTS: During the study period, 548 MAUDE reports revealed 873 device failures and 186 patient-related adverse events. The most common device issues were stent activation, positioning, or separation problems (4 n = 403; 46.2%), followed by device detachment or migration (n = 109, 12.5%), and material problems (n = 93, 10.7%). Patient complications included dysphagia/odynophagia (10%), perforation, pain, and bleeding (each 7.6%). The most common device failures in over-the-wire (OTW) stents and through-the-scope (TTS) stents were activation, positioning, or separation problems (TTS: n = 183, 52.6% vs OTW: n = 220, 41.9%). Compared to OTW stents, TTS stents had higher migration and breakage (13.5% vs. 11.8%, p = 0.24), and (9.2% vs. 6.7%, p = 0.08) respectively, while OTW stents had more challenges with stent advancement or removal (5.1% vs. 0.3%, p < 0.001 and 4.6% vs 3.4%, p = 0.19, respectively) and material problems (14.7% vs. 4.6%, p < 0.001). Activation, positioning, and separation problems were the most frequent device failures in fully covered (FC) and partially covered (PC) stents (FC: n = 62, 32.8%, PC: n = 168, 43.5%). FC stents had higher migration rates (20.6% vs 9.8%, p < 0.001), while PC stents exhibited more material problems (17.4% vs. 5.8%, p < 0.001) and difficulties with advancing the stents (6.7% vs. 0%, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Our examination showed a prevalence of reported device complications associated with stent activation, positioning, and separation problems. Dysphagia or odynophagia emerged as the most frequently reported patient complication. Furthermore, our analysis, provides insights into TTS vs. OTW and FC vs. PC esophageal SEMSs, enabling endoscopists and manufacturers to better understand adverse events and potentially optimize device design for future iterations.
RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: Pancreatic duct stents (PDS) are widely used for the prevention of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis. However, there is a paucity of data regarding the adverse events associated with PDS placement. This study aims to investigate the reported adverse events and device failures related to PDS, utilizing the Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience (MAUDE) database maintained by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). METHODS: Post-marketing surveillance data from January 2013 to December 8, 2023, were extracted from the FDA's MAUDE database to analyze the reports pertaining to the use of commonly used PDS. The primary outcomes of interest were device issues and patient-related adverse events. Statistical analysis was performed using Microsoft Excel 2010, with the calculation of pooled numbers and percentages for each device and patient adverse event. RESULTS: A total of 579 device issues and 194 patient-related adverse events were identified. Device issues were primarily attributed to stent deformation (n = 72; 12.4%), followed by migration of the device into the pancreatic duct or expulsion out of the duct (n = 60; 10.4%), and stent fracture/breakage (n = 55; 9.4%). Among the patient-reported adverse events, inflammation was the most common (n = 26; 13.4%), followed by reports of stents becoming embedded in tissue (n = 21; 10.8%) and stent occlusion/obstruction (n = 16; 8.2%). The most prevalent device failures associated with Advanix stents were material deformation, with perforation (n = 3, 30%) being the most frequently reported adverse event. Concerning Geenen stents, migration or expulsion of the device (n = 34, 16.9%) constituted the most common device-related adverse events, while inflammation (n = 20, 16.7%) was the most frequently reported patient-related issue. For Zimmon stents, migration or expulsion of the device (n = 22, 8.8%) were the most frequently reported device-related problems, whereas perforation (n = 7, 10.9%) and bleeding (n = 7, 10.9%) were the most frequent patient-related adverse events. CONCLUSION: Our findings highlight important device and patient adverse events that endoscopists and referring providers should be aware of before considering pancreatic stent placement.
