IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0331909.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The influence of somatostatin analogues on the incidence of pancreatic fistulas and postoperative morbidity in patients undergoing pancreatic resection: A Bayesian network meta-analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Zonghao Hou
  • Shengxiang Hou
  • Zhixin Wang
  • Haijiu Wang
  • Manjun Deng
  • Haining Fan

Abstract

Background: Pancreatic resection is a critical treatment for pancreatic cancer and other pancreatic diseases. Somatostatin analogs are commonly used to prevent complications following pancreatic resection, but their efficacy and safety remain debated. Methods: Following PRISMA guidelines, a systematic search was conducted across multiple databases, including PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, Cochrane Library, Ovid, ClinicalTrials.gov, Web of Science, CNKI, and WanFang Data. The search focused on studies comparing the use of somatostatin analogs after pancreatic surgery. Key outcomes included postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF), clinically relevant POPF (CR-POPF), mortality, and morbidity. Statistical analysis was performed using a consistency model, calculating relative risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI), and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) tool was used to assess the quality of evidence. Results: In the absence of stratification based on the surgical procedure, For POPF prevention, pasireotide showed a relative risk (RR) of 0.46 (95% CI: 0.23, 0.87, Low) compared to placebo, and octreotide had an RR of 0.76 (95% CI: 0.66, 0.88, Moderate). Somatostatin and vapreotide showed no significant differences. In preventing CR-POPF, pasireotide had an RR of 0.46 (95% CI: 0.23, 0.86, Low), somatostatin had an RR of 0.60 (95% CI: 0.36, 0.99, Moderate), and octreotide had an RR of 0.61 (95% CI: 0.39, 0.94, Moderate). Regarding postoperative mortality, vapreotide showed an RR of 0 (95% CI: 0.00, 0.29, Low), while octreotide, somatostatin and pasireotide did not demonstrate significant effects. For reducing morbidity, octreotide had an RR of 0.74 (95% CI: 0.66, 0.82, Moderate), somatostatin had an RR of 0.76 (95% CI: 0.66, 0.87, Moderate), vapreotide and pasireotide showed no significant effect.In Pancreaticoduodenectomy subgroup, somatostatin showed an RR of 0.22(95% CI: 0.03, 0.84, Moderate) for preventing CR-POPF.For all the other outcomes, neither somatostatin nor octreotide proved effective. Conclusion: While robust evidence confirms the efficacy of octreotide in preventing POPF, a critical concern regarding its inconsistent efficacy within the PD subgroup persists. This variability indicates that the overall clinical benefit of octreotide may be predominantly attributable to its utility in non-PD pancreatic resections.

Suggested Citation

  • Zonghao Hou & Shengxiang Hou & Zhixin Wang & Haijiu Wang & Manjun Deng & Haining Fan, 2025. "The influence of somatostatin analogues on the incidence of pancreatic fistulas and postoperative morbidity in patients undergoing pancreatic resection: A Bayesian network meta-analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 20(9), pages 1-17, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0331909
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0331909
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0331909
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0331909&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0331909?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0331909. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.