These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Endoscopic ultrasound-guided vs endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography biliary drainage for obstructed distal malignant biliary strictures: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
    Author: Logiudice FP, Bernardo WM, Galetti F, Sagae VM, Matsubayashi CO, Madruga Neto AC, Brunaldi VO, de Moura DTH, Franzini T, Cheng S, Matuguma SE, de Moura EGH.
    Journal: World J Gastrointest Endosc; 2019 Apr 16; 11(4):281-291. PubMed ID: 31040889.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND: For palliation of malignant biliary obstruction (MBO), the gold-standard method of biliary drainage is endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) with the placement of metallic stents. Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided drainage is an alternative that is typically reserved for cases of ERCP failure. Recently, however, there have been robust randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing EUS-guided drainage and ERCP as primary approaches to MBO. AIM: To compare EUS guidance and ERCP in terms of their effectiveness and safety in palliative biliary drainage for MBO. METHODS: This was a systematic review and meta-analysis, in which we searched the MEDLINE, Excerpta Medica, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases. Only RCTs comparing EUS and ERCP for primary drainage of MBO were eligible. All of the studies selected provided data regarding the rates of technical and clinical success, as well as the duration of the procedure, adverse events, and stent patency. We assessed the risk of biases using the Jadad score and the quality of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation criteria. RESULTS: The database searches yielded 5920 records, from which we selected 3 RCTs involving a total of 222 patients (112 submitted to EUS and 110 submitted to ERCP). In the EUS and ERCP groups, the rate of technical success was 91.96% and 91.81%, respectively, with a risk difference (RD) of 0.00% (95%CI: -0.07, 0.07; P = 0.97; I 2 = 0%). The clinical success was 84.81% and 85.53% in the EUS and ERCP groups, respectively, with an RD of -0.01% (95%CI: -0.12, 0.10; P = 0.90; I 2 = 0%). The mean difference (MD) for the duration of the procedure was -0.12% (95%CI: -8.20, 7.97; P = 0.98; I 2 = 84%). In the EUS and ERCP groups, there were 14 and 25 adverse events, respectively, with an RD of -0.06% (95%CI: -0.23, 0.12; P = 0.54; I 2 = 77%). The MD for stent patency was 9.32% (95%CI: -4.53, 23.18; P = 0.19; I 2 = 44%). The stent dysfunction rate was significantly lower in the EUS group (MD = -0.22%; 95CI:-0.35, -0.08; P = 0.001; I 2 = 0%). CONCLUSION: EUS represents an interesting alternative to ERCP for MBO drainage, demonstrating lower stent dysfunction rates compared with ERCP. Technical and clinical success, duration, adverse events and patency rates were similar.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]