Surgical endoscopy · 2021
Endoscopic gallbladder drainage for symptomatic gallbladder disease: a cumulative systematic review meta-analysis.
СтатьяМетаанализСистематический 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.
McCarty Thomas R, Hathorn Kelly E, Bazarbashi Ahmad Najdat, Jajoo Kunal, Ryou Marvin, Thompson Christopher C
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided transmural or endoscopic retrograde cholangiography (ERC)-based transpapillary drainage may provide alternative treatment strategies for high-risk surgical candidates with symptomatic gallbladder (GB) disease. The primary aim of this study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the efficacy and safety of endoscopic GB drainage for patients with symptomatic GB disease.
METHODS: Searches of PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases were performed in accordance with PRISMA and MOOSE guidelines. Pooled proportions were calculated for measured outcomes including technical success, clinical success, adverse event rate, recurrence rate, and rate of reintervention. Subgroup analyses were performed for transmural versus transpapillary, transmural lumen apposing stent (LAMS), and comparison to percutaneous transhepatic drainage. Heterogeneity was assessed with I2 statistics. Publication bias was ascertained by funnel plot and Egger regression testing.
RESULTS: Thirty-six studies (n = 1538) were included. Overall, endoscopic GB drainage achieved a technical and clinical success of 87.33% [(95% CI 84.42-89.77); I2 = 39.55] and 84.16% [(95% CI 80.30-87.38); I2 = 52.61], with an adverse event rate of 11.00% [(95% CI 9.25-13.03); I2 = 7.08]. On subgroup analyses, EUS-guided transmural compared to ERC-assisted transpapillary drainage resulted in higher technical and clinical success rates [OR 3.91 (95% CI 1.52-10.09); P = 0.005 and OR 4.59 (95% CI 1.84-11.46); P = 0.001] and lower recurrence rate [OR 0.17 (95% CI 0.06-0.52); P = 0.002]. Among EUS-guided LAMS studies, technical success was 94.65% [(95% CI 91.54-96.67); I2 = 0.00], clinical success was 92.06% [(95% CI 88.65-94.51); I2 = 0.00], and adverse event rate was 11.71% [(95% CI 8.92-15.23); I2 = 0.00]. Compared to percutaneous drainage, EUS-guided drainage possessed a similar efficacy and safety with significantly lower rate of reintervention [OR 0.05 (95% CI 0.02-0.13); P < 0.001].
DISCUSSION: Endoscopic GB drainage is a safe and effective treatment for high-risk surgical candidates with symptomatic GB disease. EUS-guided transmural drainage is superior to transpapillary drainage and associated with a lower rate of reintervention compared to percutaneous transhepatic drainage.
METHODS: Searches of PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases were performed in accordance with PRISMA and MOOSE guidelines. Pooled proportions were calculated for measured outcomes including technical success, clinical success, adverse event rate, recurrence rate, and rate of reintervention. Subgroup analyses were performed for transmural versus transpapillary, transmural lumen apposing stent (LAMS), and comparison to percutaneous transhepatic drainage. Heterogeneity was assessed with I2 statistics. Publication bias was ascertained by funnel plot and Egger regression testing.
RESULTS: Thirty-six studies (n = 1538) were included. Overall, endoscopic GB drainage achieved a technical and clinical success of 87.33% [(95% CI 84.42-89.77); I2 = 39.55] and 84.16% [(95% CI 80.30-87.38); I2 = 52.61], with an adverse event rate of 11.00% [(95% CI 9.25-13.03); I2 = 7.08]. On subgroup analyses, EUS-guided transmural compared to ERC-assisted transpapillary drainage resulted in higher technical and clinical success rates [OR 3.91 (95% CI 1.52-10.09); P = 0.005 and OR 4.59 (95% CI 1.84-11.46); P = 0.001] and lower recurrence rate [OR 0.17 (95% CI 0.06-0.52); P = 0.002]. Among EUS-guided LAMS studies, technical success was 94.65% [(95% CI 91.54-96.67); I2 = 0.00], clinical success was 92.06% [(95% CI 88.65-94.51); I2 = 0.00], and adverse event rate was 11.71% [(95% CI 8.92-15.23); I2 = 0.00]. Compared to percutaneous drainage, EUS-guided drainage possessed a similar efficacy and safety with significantly lower rate of reintervention [OR 0.05 (95% CI 0.02-0.13); P < 0.001].
DISCUSSION: Endoscopic GB drainage is a safe and effective treatment for high-risk surgical candidates with symptomatic GB disease. EUS-guided transmural drainage is superior to transpapillary drainage and associated with a lower rate of reintervention compared to percutaneous transhepatic drainage.