Surgical endoscopy · 2020
EUS-guided versus endoscopic transpapillary gallbladder drainage in high-risk surgical patients with acute cholecystitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
СтатьяМетаанализПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАСистематический обзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
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.
Krishnamoorthi Rajesh, Jayaraj Mahendran, Thoguluva Chandrasekar Viveksandeep, Singh Dhruv, Law Joanna, Larsen Michael, Ross Andrew, Kozarek Richard, Irani Shayan
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: In patients with acute cholecystitis who are deemed high risk for cholecystectomy, percutaneous cholecystostomy (PC) was historically performed for gallbladder drainage (GBD). There are several limitations associated with PC. Endoscopic GBD [Endoscopic transpapillary GBD (ET-GBD) and EUS-guided GBD (EUS-GBD)] is an alternative to PC. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the effectiveness and safety of EUS-GBD versus ET-GBD.
METHODS: We performed a systematic search of multiple databases through May 2019 to identify studies that compared outcomes of EUS-GBD versus ET-GBD in the management of acute cholecystitis in high-risk surgical patients. Pooled odds ratios (OR) of technical success, clinical success and adverse events between EUS-GBD and ET-GBD groups were calculated.
RESULTS: Five studies with a total of 857 patients (EUS-GBD vs ET-GBD: 259 vs 598 patients) were included in the analysis. EUS-GBD was associated with higher technical [pooled OR 5.22 (95% CI 2.03-13.44; p = 0.0006; I2 = 20%)] and clinical success [pooled OR 4.16 (95% CI 2.00-8.66; p = 0.0001; I2 = 19%)] compared to ET-GBD. There was no statistically significant difference in the rate of overall adverse events [pooled OR 1.30 (95% CI 0.77-2.22; p = 0.33, I2 = 0%)]. EUS-GBD was associated with lower rate of recurrent cholecystitis [pooled OR 0.33 (95% CI 0.14-0.79; p = 0.01; I2 = 0%)]. There was low heterogeneity in the analyses.
CONCLUSION: EUS-GBD has higher rate of technical and clinical success compared to ET-GBD. While the rates of overall adverse events are statistically similar, EUS-GBD has lower rate of recurrent cholecystitis. Hence, EUS-GBD is preferable to ET-GBD for endoscopic management of acute cholecystitis in select high-risk surgical patients.
METHODS: We performed a systematic search of multiple databases through May 2019 to identify studies that compared outcomes of EUS-GBD versus ET-GBD in the management of acute cholecystitis in high-risk surgical patients. Pooled odds ratios (OR) of technical success, clinical success and adverse events between EUS-GBD and ET-GBD groups were calculated.
RESULTS: Five studies with a total of 857 patients (EUS-GBD vs ET-GBD: 259 vs 598 patients) were included in the analysis. EUS-GBD was associated with higher technical [pooled OR 5.22 (95% CI 2.03-13.44; p = 0.0006; I2 = 20%)] and clinical success [pooled OR 4.16 (95% CI 2.00-8.66; p = 0.0001; I2 = 19%)] compared to ET-GBD. There was no statistically significant difference in the rate of overall adverse events [pooled OR 1.30 (95% CI 0.77-2.22; p = 0.33, I2 = 0%)]. EUS-GBD was associated with lower rate of recurrent cholecystitis [pooled OR 0.33 (95% CI 0.14-0.79; p = 0.01; I2 = 0%)]. There was low heterogeneity in the analyses.
CONCLUSION: EUS-GBD has higher rate of technical and clinical success compared to ET-GBD. While the rates of overall adverse events are statistically similar, EUS-GBD has lower rate of recurrent cholecystitis. Hence, EUS-GBD is preferable to ET-GBD for endoscopic management of acute cholecystitis in select high-risk surgical patients.