Background In our institutions, there are two types of stents used: the Boston Scientific Wallflex (Marlborough, Massachusetts) and Merit Medical Endotek (South Jordan, Utah). So we performed this retrospective study to compare complication rates in various esophageal disorders to improve our quality of care. Methods Charts were reviewed to capture gender, indications of stent placement, stent length/diameter, age of the patient at the time of stent placement, length of hospital stay, physicians performing a procedure, and complications within 90 days of stent placement. Results A total of 67 patients (71.6% male) underwent stent placement (WallFlex 49.3% and Merit 50.8%) for malignant (68.7%) mainly esophageal obstruction by primary esophageal cancer (89.1%) and benign causes (31.3%) mainly esophageal leak (66.7%). Merit and WallFlex used in malignant conditions were 82.4% and 54.6%, respectively, and in benign conditions, they were 17.7% and 45.5%, respectively. The mean age at which endoscopy was performed was 64. Complications post Merit and WallFlex placement were 79.4% and 60.6%, respectively. Complications with malignant and benign conditions were 73.9% and 61.9%, respectively. Complications with 19, 18, and 23 mm diameters were 75.0%, 66.7%, and 69.4%, respectively. Complications with 120, 150, 100, 15, 12, 10 mm stent lengths were 84.6%, 58.3%, 58.8%, 80.0%, 75.0%, and 33.3%, respectively. Conclusion Our study showed that the Merit stent was mainly used, and the major indication of stent placement was a malignant condition. Major complications were seen when the reason for stent placement was a malignant condition, the diameter was 19 mm, the length was 120 mm, and the use of the Merit stent.
Published In/Presented At
Essrani, R., Shah, H., Shah, S., & Macfarlan, J. (2020). Complications Related to Esophageal Stent (Boston Scientific Wallflex vs. Merit Medical Endotek) Use in Benign and Malignant Conditions. Cureus, 12(3), e7380. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.7380
Department of Medicine