Stent type used does not impact complication rate or placement time but can decrease treatment cost for benign and malignant esophageal lesions

Table 1 Currently available stents in the United States

Stent	Manufacturer	Material	Diameter body/flare (mm)	Length (cm)	Covering
Alimaxx-E	Alveolus	Nitinol	18/22	7/10/12	FC with antimigration struts
Esophageal Z-stent	Cook	Stainless steel	18/25	8/10/12/14	PC
Evolution	Cook	Nitinol	20/25	8/10/12.5/15	PC
Flamingo Wallstent	Boston Scientific	Stainless steel	20/30	12/14	PC
Gianturco-Z	Cook	Stainless steel	18/25	8/10/12/14	FC
Niti-S	Taewong Medical	Nitinol	16/20	8/10/12/14	FC
			18/23
			20/25
Niti-S; double layered	Taewong Medical	Nitinol	18/26	9/12/15	FC with additional uncovered outer nitinol wires
Niti-S; single layered	Taewong Medical	Nitinol	18/26	9/12/15	FC
Polyflex	Boston Scientific	Polyester	16/20	9/12/15	FC
			18/23
			21/28
SX-ELLA	Ella-CS	Nitinol	20/25	8.5/11/13.5/15	FC with antimigration ring
Ultraflex	Boston Scientific	Nitinol	18/23	10/12/15	PC
			23/28
Wallflex	Boston Scientific	Nitinol	18/23	10/12/15	PC/FC
			23/28

Adapted with permission from Curr Gastroenterol Rep 2013; 15: 319. PC: Partially covered; FC: Fully covered.

Table 2 Overall demographics in patients having self-expanding esophageal metal stents/self-expanding esophageal plastic stents placed for malignant or benign esophageal conditions from January 2005 to April 2012

	Overall (n = 43)	nHw (n = 25)	AA (n = 15)	Other (n = 3)
Mean age (yr)	60.2	57.7	60.4	801
% male	85.1	80	80	100

¹Compared to nHw (P < 0.01) and AA (P < 0.03). nHw: Non-Hispanic White; AA: African American.

Table 3 Patient characteristics based on stent type placed

	SEMS (n = 30)	SEPS (n = 13)	P value
Mean age (yr ± SD)	59.6 ± 14.87	61.7 ± 9.95	0.645
% male	83.3%	76.9%	0.681
Race/ethnicity, n (%)	AA: 9 (30%)	AA: 6 (46%)	0.704
	nHw: 18 (60%)	nHw: 7 (54%)
	Other: 3 (10%)	Other: 0
Malignant esophageal lesion, n (%)	25 (83.3%)	10 (76.9%)	0.681
Esophageal lesion location, n (%)	Upper third: 0	Upper third: 1 (7.7%)	0.15
	Middle third: 9 (30%)	Middle third: 6 (46.2%)
	Lower third: 21 (70%)	Lower third: 6 (46.2%)
Comorbid diseases, n (%)	HTN: 16 (53.3%)	HTN: 6 (46.2%)	0.747
	CAD: 7 (23.3%)	CAD: 2 (15.4%)	0.699
	COPD: 5 (16.7%)	COPD: 1 (7.7%)	0.649
	DM: 11 (36.7%)	DM: 3 (23.1%)	0.491

SEMS: Self-expanding esophageal metal stents; SEPS: Self-expanding esophageal plastic stents; nHw: Non-Hispanic White; AA: African American; HTN: Hypertension; CAD: Coronary artery disease; COPD: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; DM: Diabetes mellitus.

Table 4 Placement and outcome comparisons between self-expanding esophageal metal stents and self-expanding esophageal plastic stents

	SEMS (n = 30)	SEPS (n = 13)	P value
Initial placement procedure time (min, mean ± SD)	33.17 ± 16.88	35.85 ± 27.39	0.696
Dilation required prior to stent placement	0	23%	0.023
Complications, n (%)	7 (23%)	3 (23%)	1
Time to first complication (n)	< 30 d: 6	< 30 d: 2	1
	> 30 d: 1	> 30 d: 1
In-hospital mortality (%)	7%	8%	1
Re-intervention required (%)	20%	23%	1
30 d survival after procedure (%)	95%	80%	0.251
Length of stay (d, mean ± SD)	11.47 ± 12.78	12.15 ± 16.21	0.883

SEMS: Self-expanding esophageal metal stents; SEPS: Self-expanding esophageal plastic stents.