EUS- versus ERCP-guided biliary drainage for malignant biliary obstruction: evidence from randomized controlled studies

Ke Chen, Zheling Chen, W. Jin, Qicong Zhu, Chao Lu, Yuanyu Wang, Yu-cheng Zhou, Y. Mou
{"title":"EUS- versus ERCP-guided biliary drainage for malignant biliary obstruction: evidence from randomized controlled studies","authors":"Ke Chen, Zheling Chen, W. Jin, Qicong Zhu, Chao Lu, Yuanyu Wang, Yu-cheng Zhou, Y. Mou","doi":"10.21037/apc.2019.08.01","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography-guided biliary drainage (ERCP-BD) is the first-line technique for the management of malignant biliary obstruction. Previous evidence demonstrated that endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) is technically safe and feasible, and EUS-BD has been used as the alternative palliative treatment when ERCP fails. We aimed to compare the therapeutic efficacies and procedure-associated complications of EUS-BD and ERCP as the first treatment option. \n Methods: Studies comparing efficacies and complications of EUS-BD and ERCP-BD for the management of malignant biliary obstruction published before January 25, 2019 were searched. The patient characteristics, variables regarding to the therapeutic efficacies and procedure-associated complications of EUS-BD were compared to that of ERCP-BD by meta-analyses. \n Results: After screening 821 studies, three randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing the therapeutic efficacies and complications of EUS-BD and ERCP-BD for the palliative treatment of malignant obstructive jaundice were included. No significant difference was found between EUS-BD and ERCP-BD regarding to the technical success rate, clinical success rate, procedure time, and stent patency at 3 months and 6 months. The incidence of overall adverse events was also similar between the two groups. EUS-BD showed higher frequency of stent patency at 12 months. In addition, EUS-BD showed significant decreased incidence of procedure-associated pancreatitis [odds ratio (OR) =0.08, 95% confidence intervals (CI): 0.01 to 0.62, P=0.02) and reintervention rate (OR =0.25, 95% CI: 0.12 to 0.54, P=0.0004). \n Conclusions: Compared to ERCP-BD, EUS-BD showed equivalent therapeutic efficacy with decreased incidence of pancreatitis and reintervention rate. EUS-BD, like ERCP-BD, could be the first-line technique for the management of malignant biliary obstruction.","PeriodicalId":8372,"journal":{"name":"Annals of Pancreatic Cancer","volume":"78 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-09-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of Pancreatic Cancer","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21037/apc.2019.08.01","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography-guided biliary drainage (ERCP-BD) is the first-line technique for the management of malignant biliary obstruction. Previous evidence demonstrated that endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) is technically safe and feasible, and EUS-BD has been used as the alternative palliative treatment when ERCP fails. We aimed to compare the therapeutic efficacies and procedure-associated complications of EUS-BD and ERCP as the first treatment option. Methods: Studies comparing efficacies and complications of EUS-BD and ERCP-BD for the management of malignant biliary obstruction published before January 25, 2019 were searched. The patient characteristics, variables regarding to the therapeutic efficacies and procedure-associated complications of EUS-BD were compared to that of ERCP-BD by meta-analyses. Results: After screening 821 studies, three randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing the therapeutic efficacies and complications of EUS-BD and ERCP-BD for the palliative treatment of malignant obstructive jaundice were included. No significant difference was found between EUS-BD and ERCP-BD regarding to the technical success rate, clinical success rate, procedure time, and stent patency at 3 months and 6 months. The incidence of overall adverse events was also similar between the two groups. EUS-BD showed higher frequency of stent patency at 12 months. In addition, EUS-BD showed significant decreased incidence of procedure-associated pancreatitis [odds ratio (OR) =0.08, 95% confidence intervals (CI): 0.01 to 0.62, P=0.02) and reintervention rate (OR =0.25, 95% CI: 0.12 to 0.54, P=0.0004). Conclusions: Compared to ERCP-BD, EUS-BD showed equivalent therapeutic efficacy with decreased incidence of pancreatitis and reintervention rate. EUS-BD, like ERCP-BD, could be the first-line technique for the management of malignant biliary obstruction.
EUS与ercp引导下胆道引流治疗恶性胆道梗阻:来自随机对照研究的证据
背景:内镜逆行胆管造影引导下的胆道引流术(ERCP-BD)是治疗恶性胆道梗阻的一线技术。既往证据表明内镜超声引导胆道引流术(EUS-BD)在技术上是安全可行的,EUS-BD已被作为ERCP失败时的备选姑息治疗方法。我们的目的是比较EUS-BD和ERCP作为第一治疗选择的治疗效果和手术相关并发症。方法:检索2019年1月25日前发表的EUS-BD与ERCP-BD治疗恶性胆道梗阻的疗效及并发症比较研究。通过荟萃分析比较EUS-BD与ERCP-BD的患者特征、治疗效果变量和手术相关并发症。结果:筛选821项研究后,纳入3项比较EUS-BD与ERCP-BD姑息治疗恶性梗阻性黄疸疗效及并发症的随机临床试验(rct)。EUS-BD与ERCP-BD在3个月和6个月的技术成功率、临床成功率、手术时间和支架通畅方面均无显著差异。两组的总体不良事件发生率也相似。EUS-BD在12个月时显示支架通畅的频率更高。此外,EUS-BD还能显著降低手术相关性胰腺炎的发生率[优势比(OR) =0.08, 95%可信区间(CI): 0.01 ~ 0.62, P=0.02]和再干预率(OR =0.25, 95% CI: 0.12 ~ 0.54, P=0.0004)。结论:与ERCP-BD相比,EUS-BD的治疗效果相当,胰腺炎发生率和再干预率均有所降低。EUS-BD与ERCP-BD一样,可作为治疗恶性胆道梗阻的一线技术。
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
0.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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