Comparative efficacy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage versus endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography as first-line palliation in malignant distal biliary obstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

IF 2.1 Q3 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY
Annals of Gastroenterology Pub Date : 2024-09-01 Epub Date: 2024-08-19 DOI:10.20524/aog.2024.0912
Shravya Reddy Ginnaram, Sudeep Nugooru, Dawood Tahir, Kara Devine, Ali Raza Shaikh, Pradeep Yarra, James Walter
{"title":"Comparative efficacy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage versus endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography as first-line palliation in malignant distal biliary obstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"Shravya Reddy Ginnaram, Sudeep Nugooru, Dawood Tahir, Kara Devine, Ali Raza Shaikh, Pradeep Yarra, James Walter","doi":"10.20524/aog.2024.0912","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Malignant distal biliary obstruction (MDBO) is a challenging clinical condition commonly managed with endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). However, endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) has emerged as an alternative, especially in complex cases where ERCP fails or is deemed risky. This study aimed to compare the efficacy, safety and cost-effectiveness of EUS-BD vs. ERCP in the palliation of MDBO.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis, following PRISMA guidelines. Three databases were searched up to December 2023, including MEDLINE/PubMed, OVID and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, for studies comparing EUS-BD with ERCP. Primary outcomes were technical and clinical success rates, while secondary outcomes included procedural times, hospital stay duration, 30-day mortality, reintervention rates, and adverse events such as pancreatitis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Seven studies involving 1245 patients met the inclusion criteria. The meta-analysis revealed that EUS-BD had a technical success rate of 92%, compared to 85% for ERCP. Clinical success rates were similar for both EUS-BD and ERCP, at approximately 89%. EUS-BD was associated with a significantly lower incidence of pancreatitis (2% vs. 10% for ERCP).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>EUS-BD offers a viable and potentially superior alternative to ERCP for the primary palliation of MDBO, particularly in terms of technical success and a lower risk of pancreatitis. These findings support the adoption of EUS-BD in clinical settings equipped to perform this technique, though future research should focus on long-term outcomes and further economic analysis to solidify these recommendations.</p>","PeriodicalId":7978,"journal":{"name":"Annals of Gastroenterology","volume":"37 5","pages":"602-609"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11372544/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of Gastroenterology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.20524/aog.2024.0912","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/8/19 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Malignant distal biliary obstruction (MDBO) is a challenging clinical condition commonly managed with endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). However, endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) has emerged as an alternative, especially in complex cases where ERCP fails or is deemed risky. This study aimed to compare the efficacy, safety and cost-effectiveness of EUS-BD vs. ERCP in the palliation of MDBO.

Methods: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis, following PRISMA guidelines. Three databases were searched up to December 2023, including MEDLINE/PubMed, OVID and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, for studies comparing EUS-BD with ERCP. Primary outcomes were technical and clinical success rates, while secondary outcomes included procedural times, hospital stay duration, 30-day mortality, reintervention rates, and adverse events such as pancreatitis.

Results: Seven studies involving 1245 patients met the inclusion criteria. The meta-analysis revealed that EUS-BD had a technical success rate of 92%, compared to 85% for ERCP. Clinical success rates were similar for both EUS-BD and ERCP, at approximately 89%. EUS-BD was associated with a significantly lower incidence of pancreatitis (2% vs. 10% for ERCP).

Conclusions: EUS-BD offers a viable and potentially superior alternative to ERCP for the primary palliation of MDBO, particularly in terms of technical success and a lower risk of pancreatitis. These findings support the adoption of EUS-BD in clinical settings equipped to perform this technique, though future research should focus on long-term outcomes and further economic analysis to solidify these recommendations.

内镜超声引导胆道引流术与内镜逆行胰胆管造影术作为恶性远端胆道梗阻一线姑息治疗的疗效比较:系统综述和荟萃分析。
背景:恶性远端胆道梗阻(MDBO)是一种具有挑战性的临床病症,通常采用内镜逆行胰胆管造影术(ERCP)进行治疗。然而,内镜超声引导胆道引流术(EUS-BD)已成为一种替代方法,尤其是在ERCP失败或被认为有风险的复杂病例中。本研究旨在比较 EUS-BD 与 ERCP 对缓解 MDBO 的疗效、安全性和成本效益:我们按照 PRISMA 指南进行了系统回顾和荟萃分析。我们检索了截至 2023 年 12 月的三个数据库,包括 MEDLINE/PubMed、OVID 和 Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials,以查找 EUS-BD 与 ERCP 的比较研究。主要结果是技术和临床成功率,次要结果包括手术时间、住院时间、30 天死亡率、再介入率以及胰腺炎等不良事件:共有 7 项研究符合纳入标准,涉及 1245 名患者。荟萃分析显示,EUS-BD 的技术成功率为 92%,而 ERCP 为 85%。EUS-BD 和 ERCP 的临床成功率相似,均约为 89%。EUS-BD 的胰腺炎发病率明显较低(2% 对 ERCP 的 10%):EUS-BD为MDBO的初级姑息治疗提供了一种可行且可能优于ERCP的替代方法,尤其是在技术成功率和胰腺炎风险方面。这些研究结果支持在有条件实施 EUS-BD 的临床环境中采用这种技术,但未来的研究应侧重于长期疗效和进一步的经济分析,以巩固这些建议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Annals of Gastroenterology
Annals of Gastroenterology GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY-
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
58
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信