Medicine · 2024
Endoscopic ultrasound-guided gastroenterostomy versus duodenal stenting for gastric outlet obstruction: A systematic review, meta-analysis, and meta-regression.
СтатьяСистематический обзорМетаанализСравнительное исследованиеНазвание 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.
Jain Hritvik, Dey Debankur, Odat Ramez M, Hussein Ayham Mohammad, Abbasi Haleema Qayyum, Madaan Hritik, Goyal Aman, Jain Jyoti, Ahmed Mushood, Marsool Mohammed Dheyaa Marsool, Yadav Rukesh
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Gastric outlet obstruction (GOO) refers to mechanical obstruction at the level of the gastric outlet and is associated with significantly impacted quality of life and mortality. Duodenal stenting (DS) offers a minimally invasive approach to managing GOO but is associated with a high risk of stent obstruction. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided gastroenterostomy (EUS-GE) is a novel intervention that uses lumen-apposing metal stents to open the restricted lumen. The current evidence comparing EUS-GE to DS is limited and inconsistent.
METHODS: We conducted a systematic literature search on PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, Scopus, and clinicaltrials.gov to retrieve studies comparing EUS-GE to DS for GOO. Odds ratios (OR) and mean differences (MD) with their 95% confidence intervals (CI) were pooled using the DerSimonian-Laird inverse variance random-effects model. Statistical significance was set at P < .05.
RESULTS: Ten studies with a total of 1275 GOO patients (585: EUS-GE and 690: DS) were included. EUS-GE was associated with statistically significant higher clinical success [OR: 2.52; 95% CI: 1.64, 3.86; P < .001], lower re-intervention rate [OR: 0.12; 95% CI: 0.06, 0.22; P < .00001], longer procedural time [MD: 20.91; 95% CI: 15.48, 26.35; P < .00001], and lower risk of adverse events [OR: 0.49; 95% CI: 0.29, 0.82; P = .007] than DS. Technical success [OR: 0.62; 95% CI: 0.31, 1.25] and the length of hospital stay [MD: -2.12; 95% CI: -5.23, 0.98] were comparable between the 2 groups.
CONCLUSION: EUS-GE is associated with higher clinical success, longer total procedural time, lower re-intervention rate, and lower risk of adverse events than DS. Technical success and the length of hospital stay were comparable between the 2 groups. EUS-GE appears to be a safe and effective procedure for managing GOO. Further large, multicentric randomized controlled trials are warranted to investigate the safety and outcomes of EUS-GE in patients with malignant GOO.
METHODS: We conducted a systematic literature search on PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, Scopus, and clinicaltrials.gov to retrieve studies comparing EUS-GE to DS for GOO. Odds ratios (OR) and mean differences (MD) with their 95% confidence intervals (CI) were pooled using the DerSimonian-Laird inverse variance random-effects model. Statistical significance was set at P < .05.
RESULTS: Ten studies with a total of 1275 GOO patients (585: EUS-GE and 690: DS) were included. EUS-GE was associated with statistically significant higher clinical success [OR: 2.52; 95% CI: 1.64, 3.86; P < .001], lower re-intervention rate [OR: 0.12; 95% CI: 0.06, 0.22; P < .00001], longer procedural time [MD: 20.91; 95% CI: 15.48, 26.35; P < .00001], and lower risk of adverse events [OR: 0.49; 95% CI: 0.29, 0.82; P = .007] than DS. Technical success [OR: 0.62; 95% CI: 0.31, 1.25] and the length of hospital stay [MD: -2.12; 95% CI: -5.23, 0.98] were comparable between the 2 groups.
CONCLUSION: EUS-GE is associated with higher clinical success, longer total procedural time, lower re-intervention rate, and lower risk of adverse events than DS. Technical success and the length of hospital stay were comparable between the 2 groups. EUS-GE appears to be a safe and effective procedure for managing GOO. Further large, multicentric randomized controlled trials are warranted to investigate the safety and outcomes of EUS-GE in patients with malignant GOO.