Endosonography-guided choledochoduodenostomy using a lumen apposing metal stent vs. ERCP: Individual patient data and aggregate meta-analyses.
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Chen Yen-I, Spadaccini Marco, Sahai Anand, Napoleon Bertrand, Donatelli Gianfranco, Anderloni Andrea, Kunda Rastislav, Hassan Cesare, Martel Myriam, Fabbri Carlo, Yassin Sharif, Chan Shannon Melissa, Arcidiacono Paolo Giorgio, Fugazza Alessandro, Lam Eric, Kongkam Pradermchai, Forbes Nauzer, Larghi Alberto, Mosko Jeffrey, Van der Merwe Schalk, Gan Seng Ian, Legros Romain, Jacques Jeremie, Chatterjee Avijit, Ratanachu-Ek Thawee, Miller Corey, Saxena Payal, Desilets Etienne, Sandha Gurpal, Moghaddam Yeganeh R, Barkun Alan, Repici Alessandro, Teoh Anthony Y B
Аннотация
PATIENTS AND METHODS: We undertook individual patient data (IPD) and aggregate meta-analyses following the PRISMA-IPD statement. A literature search was performed from January 2013 to November 2024 using OVID MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and ISI Web of Science. Additional searches were performed for abstracts and the gray literature. RCTs comparing EUS-CDSL with ERCP were included. The primary outcome was odds of 30-day procedure related adverse events (AEs). Secondary outcomes included procedure-related 14-day severe or fatal AEs, technical success, clinical success, stent dysfunction, and procedure time.
RESULTS: A total of 2679 citations were screened with three RCTs included (519 patients). The odds ratios (ORs) for 30-day AEs between EUS-CDSL and ERCP were similar (OR 0.72, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.44-1.16). There was also no significant difference in severe or fatal AEs (OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.22-1.83). The ORs for technical success were greater for EUS-CDSL (OR 4.22, 95% CI 2.35-7.61) with shorter procedure time (mean difference -10.50 minutes (95% CI -15.28 to -5.73). No significant differences were noted in clinical success or stent dysfunction.
CONCLUSIONS: Our IPD meta-analysis demonstrates safety of EUS-CDSL as a first-line alternative to ERCP in MDBO and dilated biliary tree. In addition, EUS-CDSL is associated with higher technical success and shorter procedure time.