Gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2024
EUS- versus ERCP-guided biliary drainage for malignant biliary obstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
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.
Barbosa Eduardo Cerchi, Santo Paula Arruda do Espírito, Baraldo Stefano, Nau Angélica Luciana, Meine Gilmara Coelho
Аннотация
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Increasing evidence supports EUS-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) as a potential alternative to ERCP-guided biliary drainage (ERCP-BD) in the primary treatment of malignant biliary obstruction (MBO). This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of both techniques as the initial approach for MBO.
METHODS: We systematically searched in MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane databases for randomized controlled trials comparing both techniques and reporting at least one of the outcomes of interest. The pooled estimates were calculated using the random-effects model, and I2 statistics were used to evaluate heterogeneity.
RESULTS: We included 6 randomized controlled trials (577 patients). There were no significant differences between both groups in terms of stent patency (mean difference [MD], 8.18 days; 95% confidence interval [CI], -22.55 to 38.91), procedure time (MD, -6.31 minutes; 95% CI, -12.68 to 0.06), and survival (MD, 4.59 days; 95% CI, -34.23 to 43.40). Technical success (risk ratio [RR], 1.04; 95% CI, 0.96-1.13), clinical success (RR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.96-1.08), overall adverse events (RR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.24-1.43), and cholangitis (RR, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.39-3.61) were also similar between groups. However, the hospital stay was significantly shorter (MD, -1.03 days; 95% CI, -1.53 to -0.53), and the risk of reintervention (RR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.37-0.88), postprocedure pancreatitis (RR, 0.15; 95% CI, 0.03-0.66), and tumor ingrowth/overgrowth (RR, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.11-0.70) were significantly lower with EUS-BD.
CONCLUSIONS: EUS-BD and ERCP-BD had similar efficacy and safety as the initial approach for MBO. However, EUS-BD had a significantly lower risk of reintervention, postprocedure pancreatitis, tumor ingrowth/overgrowth, and reduced hospital stay.
METHODS: We systematically searched in MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane databases for randomized controlled trials comparing both techniques and reporting at least one of the outcomes of interest. The pooled estimates were calculated using the random-effects model, and I2 statistics were used to evaluate heterogeneity.
RESULTS: We included 6 randomized controlled trials (577 patients). There were no significant differences between both groups in terms of stent patency (mean difference [MD], 8.18 days; 95% confidence interval [CI], -22.55 to 38.91), procedure time (MD, -6.31 minutes; 95% CI, -12.68 to 0.06), and survival (MD, 4.59 days; 95% CI, -34.23 to 43.40). Technical success (risk ratio [RR], 1.04; 95% CI, 0.96-1.13), clinical success (RR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.96-1.08), overall adverse events (RR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.24-1.43), and cholangitis (RR, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.39-3.61) were also similar between groups. However, the hospital stay was significantly shorter (MD, -1.03 days; 95% CI, -1.53 to -0.53), and the risk of reintervention (RR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.37-0.88), postprocedure pancreatitis (RR, 0.15; 95% CI, 0.03-0.66), and tumor ingrowth/overgrowth (RR, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.11-0.70) were significantly lower with EUS-BD.
CONCLUSIONS: EUS-BD and ERCP-BD had similar efficacy and safety as the initial approach for MBO. However, EUS-BD had a significantly lower risk of reintervention, postprocedure pancreatitis, tumor ingrowth/overgrowth, and reduced hospital stay.