Endoscopic Ultrasound–guided Gastroenterostomy vs Enteral Stenting for Malignant Gastric Outlet Obstruction: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

IF 1.2 Q4 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY
Matheus Vanzin Fernandes , Natália Junkes Milioli , Vanio Antunes , Tulio L. Correa , Otávio Cosendey Martins , Cynthia Florêncio de Mesquita , Marcello Maida , Stefano Baraldo
{"title":"Endoscopic Ultrasound–guided Gastroenterostomy vs Enteral Stenting for Malignant Gastric Outlet Obstruction: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis","authors":"Matheus Vanzin Fernandes ,&nbsp;Natália Junkes Milioli ,&nbsp;Vanio Antunes ,&nbsp;Tulio L. Correa ,&nbsp;Otávio Cosendey Martins ,&nbsp;Cynthia Florêncio de Mesquita ,&nbsp;Marcello Maida ,&nbsp;Stefano Baraldo","doi":"10.1016/j.tige.2025.250926","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>BACKGROUND AND AIMS</h3><div>Treatment options for malignant gastric outlet obstruction (GOO) usually rely on surgical gastroenterostomy or endoscopic stenting (ES). The former is more invasive and has a higher rate of adverse events, and the latter is limited by stent patency and has a higher reintervention rate. Endoscopic ultrasound–guided gastroenterostomy (EUS-GE) is a new option that can provide longer stent patency than ES without the invasiveness of surgery. This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of EUS-GE vs ES for the treatment of malignant GOO.</div></div><div><h3>METHODS</h3><div>We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis using the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases. We searched for randomized and nonrandomized matched-control studies comparing EUS-GE with ES in patients with malignant GOO and reporting at least 1 of the outcomes of interest. The primary outcomes assessed were clinical and technical success. The odds ratio was used for binary outcomes and the mean difference for continuous outcomes, with their respective 95% CIs. Heterogeneity was assessed using the Cochran <em>Q</em> test and <em>I</em><sup>2</sup> statistics. Trial sequential analysis was performed.</div></div><div><h3>RESULTS</h3><div>This study included 1 randomized controlled trial and 4 matched-control studies, totaling to 507 patients. There was a statistically significant difference between EUS-GE and ES in the clinical success (odds ratio, 2.81; 95% CI, 1.58-4.99; <em>P</em> &lt; 0.001; <em>I</em><sup>2</sup> = 0%). Trial sequential analysis crossed the required information size line for the clinical success outcome.</div></div><div><h3>CONCLUSION</h3><div>EUS-GE is a reasonable option in the treatment of malignant GOO, mainly in the context of tertiary-care advanced endoscopy centers, with higher clinical success rate. Standardization and wider dissemination of the EUS-GE technique are required to reduce technical challenges.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":36169,"journal":{"name":"Techniques and Innovations in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy","volume":"27 3","pages":"Article 250926"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Techniques and Innovations in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590030725000212","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Treatment options for malignant gastric outlet obstruction (GOO) usually rely on surgical gastroenterostomy or endoscopic stenting (ES). The former is more invasive and has a higher rate of adverse events, and the latter is limited by stent patency and has a higher reintervention rate. Endoscopic ultrasound–guided gastroenterostomy (EUS-GE) is a new option that can provide longer stent patency than ES without the invasiveness of surgery. This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of EUS-GE vs ES for the treatment of malignant GOO.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis using the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases. We searched for randomized and nonrandomized matched-control studies comparing EUS-GE with ES in patients with malignant GOO and reporting at least 1 of the outcomes of interest. The primary outcomes assessed were clinical and technical success. The odds ratio was used for binary outcomes and the mean difference for continuous outcomes, with their respective 95% CIs. Heterogeneity was assessed using the Cochran Q test and I2 statistics. Trial sequential analysis was performed.

RESULTS

This study included 1 randomized controlled trial and 4 matched-control studies, totaling to 507 patients. There was a statistically significant difference between EUS-GE and ES in the clinical success (odds ratio, 2.81; 95% CI, 1.58-4.99; P < 0.001; I2 = 0%). Trial sequential analysis crossed the required information size line for the clinical success outcome.

CONCLUSION

EUS-GE is a reasonable option in the treatment of malignant GOO, mainly in the context of tertiary-care advanced endoscopy centers, with higher clinical success rate. Standardization and wider dissemination of the EUS-GE technique are required to reduce technical challenges.
超声内镜引导下的胃肠造口术vs肠内支架治疗恶性胃出口梗阻:一项系统综述和荟萃分析
背景和目的恶性胃出口梗阻(GOO)的治疗选择通常依赖于手术胃肠造口术或内镜支架置入(ES)。前者侵入性更大,不良事件发生率更高;后者受支架通畅限制,再介入率更高。超声内镜引导下的胃肠造口术(EUS-GE)是一种新的选择,它可以提供比ES更长的支架通畅,而且没有手术的侵入性。本研究旨在比较EUS-GE与ES治疗恶性黏液的疗效和安全性。方法我们使用PubMed、Embase和Cochrane数据库进行系统回顾和荟萃分析。我们检索了随机和非随机配对对照研究,比较EUS-GE和ES在恶性粘稠性粘稠患者中的作用,并报告了至少1个感兴趣的结果。评估的主要结果是临床和技术上的成功。二元结局采用优势比,连续结局采用平均差异,ci分别为95%。采用Cochran Q检验和I2统计量评估异质性。进行试验序列分析。结果本研究纳入1项随机对照研究和4项配对对照研究,共计507例患者。EUS-GE与ES的临床成功率差异有统计学意义(优势比2.81;95% ci, 1.58-4.99;P & lt;0.001;I2 = 0%)。试验序列分析越过了临床成功结果所需的信息大小线。结论eus - ge是治疗恶性黏液性粘稠的一种合理选择,主要在三级医疗的高级内镜中心进行,临床成功率较高。为了减少技术挑战,需要标准化和更广泛地推广eu - ge技术。
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
CiteScore
2.10
自引率
50.00%
发文量
60
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信