Safety of different electrocautery modes for endoscopic sphincterotomy: a Bayesian network meta-analysis.

IF 3 Q2 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY
Therapeutic Advances in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Pub Date : 2021-12-22 eCollection Date: 2021-01-01 DOI:10.1177/26317745211062983
Abdellah Hedjoudje, Chérifa Cheurfa, Jad Farha, Bénédicte Jaïs, Alain Aubert, Diane Lorenzo, Frédérique Maire, Dilhana Badurdeen, Vivek Kumbhari, Frédéric Prat
{"title":"Safety of different electrocautery modes for endoscopic sphincterotomy: a Bayesian network meta-analysis.","authors":"Abdellah Hedjoudje,&nbsp;Chérifa Cheurfa,&nbsp;Jad Farha,&nbsp;Bénédicte Jaïs,&nbsp;Alain Aubert,&nbsp;Diane Lorenzo,&nbsp;Frédérique Maire,&nbsp;Dilhana Badurdeen,&nbsp;Vivek Kumbhari,&nbsp;Frédéric Prat","doi":"10.1177/26317745211062983","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and aims: </strong>Post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography acute pancreatitis (PAP) and post-sphincterotomy hemorrhage are known adverse events of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. Various electrosurgical currents can be used for endoscopic sphincterotomy. The extent to which this influences adverse events remains unclear. We assessed the comparative safety of different electrosurgical currents, through a Bayesian network meta-analysis of published studies merging direct and indirect comparison of trials.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We performed a Bayesian random-effects network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials that compared the safety of different electrocautery modes for endoscopic sphincterotomy.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Nine studies comparing four electrocautery modes (blended cut, pure cut, endocut, and pure cut followed by blended cut) with a combined enrollment of 1615 patients were included. The pooled results of the network meta-analysis did not show a significant difference in preventing post-sphincterotomy pancreatitis when comparing electrocautery modes. However, pure cut was associated with a statistically significant increased risk of bleeding compared with endocut [relative risk = 4.30; 95% confidence interval (1.53-12.87)]. On the other hand, the pooled results of the network meta-analysis showed no significant difference in prevention of bleeding when comparing blended cut <i>versus</i> endocut, pure cut followed by blended cut <i>versus</i> endocut, pure cut followed by blended cut <i>versus</i> blended cut, pure cut <i>versus</i> blended cut, and pure cut <i>versus</i> pure cut followed by blended cut. The results of rank probability found that endocut was most likely to be ranked the best.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>No electrocautery mode was superior to another with regard to preventing PAP. Endocut was superior with respect to preventing bleeding. Therefore, we suggest performing endoscopic sphincterotomy with endocut.</p>","PeriodicalId":40947,"journal":{"name":"Therapeutic Advances in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy","volume":"14 ","pages":"26317745211062983"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/d8/d3/10.1177_26317745211062983.PMC8725216.pdf","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Therapeutic Advances in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/26317745211062983","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Background and aims: Post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography acute pancreatitis (PAP) and post-sphincterotomy hemorrhage are known adverse events of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. Various electrosurgical currents can be used for endoscopic sphincterotomy. The extent to which this influences adverse events remains unclear. We assessed the comparative safety of different electrosurgical currents, through a Bayesian network meta-analysis of published studies merging direct and indirect comparison of trials.

Methods: We performed a Bayesian random-effects network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials that compared the safety of different electrocautery modes for endoscopic sphincterotomy.

Results: Nine studies comparing four electrocautery modes (blended cut, pure cut, endocut, and pure cut followed by blended cut) with a combined enrollment of 1615 patients were included. The pooled results of the network meta-analysis did not show a significant difference in preventing post-sphincterotomy pancreatitis when comparing electrocautery modes. However, pure cut was associated with a statistically significant increased risk of bleeding compared with endocut [relative risk = 4.30; 95% confidence interval (1.53-12.87)]. On the other hand, the pooled results of the network meta-analysis showed no significant difference in prevention of bleeding when comparing blended cut versus endocut, pure cut followed by blended cut versus endocut, pure cut followed by blended cut versus blended cut, pure cut versus blended cut, and pure cut versus pure cut followed by blended cut. The results of rank probability found that endocut was most likely to be ranked the best.

Conclusion: No electrocautery mode was superior to another with regard to preventing PAP. Endocut was superior with respect to preventing bleeding. Therefore, we suggest performing endoscopic sphincterotomy with endocut.

内镜下括约肌切开术中不同电切方式的安全性:贝叶斯网络荟萃分析。
背景和目的:内镜逆行胆管造影后急性胰腺炎(PAP)和括约肌切开术后出血是已知的内镜逆行胆管造影后的不良事件。各种电手术电流可用于内窥镜括约肌切开术。这在多大程度上影响不良事件仍不清楚。我们评估了不同电手术电流的相对安全性,通过贝叶斯网络对已发表的研究进行meta分析,合并了直接和间接的试验比较。方法:我们对随机对照试验进行了贝叶斯随机效应网络meta分析,比较了内镜下括约肌切开术中不同电切方式的安全性。结果:共纳入9项研究,比较了4种电切方式(混合切、纯切、内切和纯切后混合切),共纳入1615例患者。网络荟萃分析的汇总结果显示,比较电灼方式在预防括约肌切开术后胰腺炎方面没有显著差异。然而,与内切相比,单纯切开与出血风险增加有统计学意义[相对风险= 4.30;95%置信区间(1.53-12.87)]。另一方面,网络荟萃分析的汇总结果显示,混合切与内切、纯切后混合切与内切、纯切后混合切与混合切、纯切与混合切、纯切与纯切后混合切、纯切与纯切后混合切在预防出血方面没有显著差异。排名概率的结果发现,endocut最有可能被评为最佳。结论:在预防PAP方面,没有一种电灼方式优于其他方式。Endocut在预防出血方面具有优势。因此,我们建议采用内镜下括约肌切开术。
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
4.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
8
审稿时长
13 weeks
×
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