Evaluating the use of EUS-guided hepaticogastrostomy combined with antegrade stenting for malignant biliary obstruction and comparing to EUS-guided hepaticogastrostomy alone for patients who failed ERCP: a pairwise and single-arm meta-analysis.
Otavio Cosendey Martins, Vanio Antunes, Marcelo Cristalli Pacheco da Costa, Cynthia Florêncio de Mesquita, Tulio L Correa, Matheus Vanzin Fernandes, Natália Junkes Milioli, Stefano Baraldo
{"title":"Evaluating the use of EUS-guided hepaticogastrostomy combined with antegrade stenting for malignant biliary obstruction and comparing to EUS-guided hepaticogastrostomy alone for patients who failed ERCP: a pairwise and single-arm meta-analysis.","authors":"Otavio Cosendey Martins, Vanio Antunes, Marcelo Cristalli Pacheco da Costa, Cynthia Florêncio de Mesquita, Tulio L Correa, Matheus Vanzin Fernandes, Natália Junkes Milioli, Stefano Baraldo","doi":"10.1007/s00464-025-11760-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and aims: </strong>When ERCP is not feasible in the management of malignant biliary obstruction (MBO), endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage has been proven to be a valuable alternative. EUS-guided hepaticogastrostomy (EUS-HGS) carries a relatively high risk of complications. To mitigate these risks, EUS-guided antegrade stenting combined with EUS-HGS (EUS-HGAS) has been explored. We aimed to conduct a pairwise and a single-arm meta-analysis comparing both techniques and analyzing the efficacy and safety of HGAS for MBO, respectively.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library. We included randomized controlled trials or observational studies enrolling patients who underwent EUS-HGAS placement with or without a control group of EUS-HGS without antegrade stenting. We used R statistical software, version 4.4.1.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Eight studies were included in the pairwise meta-analysis, and 11 studies were included in the single-arm meta-analysis. Analysis of the need for reintervention showed a significant difference between HGAS and HGS groups, favoring HGAS (p = 0.005), but this group also had a significantly higher rate of pancreatitis (p = 0.027). For HGAS, the pooled analyses demonstrated high technical and clinical success rates (94.06% and 98.05%, respectively); a need for reintervention rate of 8.03%, an overall adverse events rate of 11.67%, mean survival time of 118.53 days, and mean time to stent dysfunction or patient death of 134.61 days.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The performance of HGAS in patients who failed ECRP for MBO showed lower need for reintervention rates but higher pancreatitis rates compared to HGS alone. Performing HGAS is associated with high technical and clinical success rates and a low overall adverse event occurrence.</p>","PeriodicalId":22174,"journal":{"name":"Surgical Endoscopy And Other Interventional Techniques","volume":" ","pages":"3786-3796"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Surgical Endoscopy And Other Interventional Techniques","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-025-11760-y","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/5/5 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background and aims: When ERCP is not feasible in the management of malignant biliary obstruction (MBO), endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage has been proven to be a valuable alternative. EUS-guided hepaticogastrostomy (EUS-HGS) carries a relatively high risk of complications. To mitigate these risks, EUS-guided antegrade stenting combined with EUS-HGS (EUS-HGAS) has been explored. We aimed to conduct a pairwise and a single-arm meta-analysis comparing both techniques and analyzing the efficacy and safety of HGAS for MBO, respectively.
Methods: We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library. We included randomized controlled trials or observational studies enrolling patients who underwent EUS-HGAS placement with or without a control group of EUS-HGS without antegrade stenting. We used R statistical software, version 4.4.1.
Results: Eight studies were included in the pairwise meta-analysis, and 11 studies were included in the single-arm meta-analysis. Analysis of the need for reintervention showed a significant difference between HGAS and HGS groups, favoring HGAS (p = 0.005), but this group also had a significantly higher rate of pancreatitis (p = 0.027). For HGAS, the pooled analyses demonstrated high technical and clinical success rates (94.06% and 98.05%, respectively); a need for reintervention rate of 8.03%, an overall adverse events rate of 11.67%, mean survival time of 118.53 days, and mean time to stent dysfunction or patient death of 134.61 days.
Conclusion: The performance of HGAS in patients who failed ECRP for MBO showed lower need for reintervention rates but higher pancreatitis rates compared to HGS alone. Performing HGAS is associated with high technical and clinical success rates and a low overall adverse event occurrence.
期刊介绍：
Uniquely positioned at the interface between various medical and surgical disciplines, Surgical Endoscopy serves as a focal point for the international surgical community to exchange information on practice, theory, and research.
Topics covered in the journal include:
-Surgical aspects of:
Interventional endoscopy,
Ultrasound,
Other techniques in the fields of gastroenterology, obstetrics, gynecology, and urology,
-Gastroenterologic surgery
-Thoracic surgery
-Traumatic surgery
-Orthopedic surgery
-Pediatric surgery
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
