Endoscopic ultrasound-guided vs endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography biliary drainage for obstructed distal malignant biliary strictures: A systematic review and meta-analysis

• 作者: Antonio C Madruga Neto Carolina O Matsubayashi Diogo T H de Moura Eduardo G H de Moura Facundo Galetti Fernanda P Logiudice Sergio E Matuguma Spencer Cheng Tomazo Franzini Vitor M Sagae Vitor O Brunaldi Wanderlei M Bernardo
• 来源期刊: 世界胃肠内镜杂志:英文版(电子版)
• 学科: 医学
• 关键词: Common bile duct neoplasms ENDOSCOPIC retrograde CHOLANGIOPANCREATOGRAPHY ENDOSONOGRAPHY Ultrasonography Interventional/methods ENDOSCOPIC ultrasound Systematic review META-ANALYSIS
• 年，卷（期）: 2019,（4）
• 页码范围: 281-291
• 页数: 11页
• 分类号: R

摘要

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;I2 = 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;I2 = 0%). The mean difference (MD) for the duration of the procedure was -0.12%(95%CI:-8.20, 7.97;P = 0.98;I2 = 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;I2 = 77%). The MD for stent patency was 9.32%(95%CI:-4.53, 23.18;P = 0.19;I2 = 44%). The stent dysfunction rate was significantly lower in the EUS group (MD =-0.