Abstract
Acute variceal bleeding (AVB) continues to challenge physicians and healthcare systems. Despite significant advances in our multimodal approach to managing this problem, namely medical, endoscopic, and radiological techniques, the mortality rates for this patient cohort remain as high as 20% on the index admission. This mortality rate has remained unchanged over the past 25 years. A crucial tool in the management of AVB is the balloon tamponade technique. However, this is associated with numerous severe and potentially life-threatening adverse events. Due to the limitations of oesophageal balloon tamponade devices, there has been an increased interest in using self-expanding metal stents (SEMS) to manage refractory variceal bleeding. There is a base of experience in using SEMS derived from their use in managing malignant obstructions. This study aimed to synthesise all available evidence, for the first time, on using SEMS to manage refractory oesophageal AVB. This study was a systematic review of published papers, which is reported per the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. We identified 16 suitable studies for review. These comprised one randomised controlled trial comparing SEMS to balloon tamponade, one prospective cohort study, nine retrospective cohort studies, four case reports, and one case series. In total, 246 patients were included. An average survival rate of 49% was seen among the 11 studies that reported a six-week survival rate; this included a cohort of 225 patients. The SEMS were left in situ for an average of 7.5 days, with a maximum average of 18 days in one study. The average rate for controlling the acute bleeding episode in patients receiving a SEMS was 96%. The re-bleeding rate on the removal of SEMS was 5%, far superior to the widely reported 50% re-bleeding rate for the balloon tamponade technique. The adverse event profile for the SEMS appears superior to the balloon tamponade technique overall. The rate of stent-related adverse events in patients receiving a SEMS was 25%. The most common adverse events were technical issues related to stent functioning, namely stent migration. The most severe stent-related adverse event was compression of the left main bronchus in two cases, which required the removal of the stent. Our study has several limitations, which we have alluded to throughout the paper. The studies on this issue are of poor quality, with only one randomised controlled trial performed. As a result, we must interpret the results of our research with caution. Our study supports the use of SEMS in managing AVB as a promising area of research. We have highlighted that further well-designed randomised controlled trials are needed to assess the efficacy of this technique, ideally compared directly to the balloon tamponade technique. However, based on this systematic review, the current body of evidence would suggest that the SEMS is superior to the balloon tamponade technique in terms of adverse event profile, re-bleeding rate, and length of time the device can safely be left in situ. Current evidence suggests that SEMS are as effective at controlling acute bleeding episodes as the balloon tamponade technique.