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 ERCP-guided biliary drainage for malignant biliary obstruction: A up-to-date meta-analysis and systematic review.
    Author: Lyu Y, Li T, Cheng Y, Wang B, Cao Y, Wang Y.
    Journal: Dig Liver Dis; 2021 Oct; 53(10):1247-1253. PubMed ID: 33926814.
    Abstract:
    Endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) is being used increasingly as an alternative treatment for malignant biliary obstruction (MBO). However, few studies have compared EUS-BD and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography biliary drainage (ERCP-BD). We searched the PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases until 1 November 2020 for studies comparing EUS-BD versus ERCP-BD. The primary outcomes of interest in this study were technical and clinical success. Nine studies involving 634 patients were included in this meta-analysis. Regarding technical and clinical success, there were no significant differences between EUS-BD and ERCP-BD (odds ratio [OR], 0.76; 95% CI: 0.30-1.91; OR, 1.45, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.66-3.16, respectively). EUS-BD was associated with significantly less reintervention vs ERCP-BD (OR, 0.36, 95% CI, 0.15-0.86). Regarding adverse events, the rates were similar for EUS-BD and ERCP-BD (OR: 0.75, 95% CI, 0.45-1.24). There were no significant differences in the types of adverse events (stent occlusion, stent migration, stent dysfunction, and duration of stent patency) between the two techniques. EUS-BD was associated with lower reintervention rates compared with ERCP-BD, with comparable safety and efficacy outcomes. However, more high-quality randomized trials are required.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]