Endoscopic Treatment of Large Bile Duct Stones: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.


Journal

Clinical gastroenterology and hepatology : the official clinical practice journal of the American Gastroenterological Association
ISSN: 1542-7714
Titre abrégé: Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101160775

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
01 2023
Historique:
received: 22 07 2021
revised: 05 10 2021
accepted: 10 10 2021
pubmed: 20 10 2021
medline: 27 12 2022
entrez: 19 10 2021
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

Several endoscopic methods have been proposed for the treatment of large biliary stones. We assessed the comparative efficacy of these treatments through a network meta-analysis. Nineteen randomized controlled trials (2752 patients) comparing different treatments for management of large bile stones (>10 mm) (endoscopic sphincterotomy, balloon sphincteroplasty, sphincterotomy followed by endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation [S+EPLBD], mechanical lithotripsy, single-operator cholangioscopy [SOC]) with each other were identified. Study outcomes were the success rate of stone removal and the incidence of adverse events. We performed pairwise and network meta-analysis for all treatments, and used Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation criteria to appraise the quality of evidence. All treatments except mechanical lithotripsy significantly outperformed sphincterotomy in terms of stone removal rate (risk ratio [RR], 1.03-1.29). SOC was superior to other adjunctive interventions (vs balloon sphincteroplasty [RR, 1.24; 95% CIs, 1.07-1.45], vs S+EPLBD [RR, 1.23; range, 1.06-1.42] and vs mechanical lithotripsy [RR, 1.34; range, 1.14-1.58]). Cholangioscopy ranked the highest in increasing the success rate of stone removal (surface under the cumulative ranking [SUCRA] score, 0.99) followed by S+EPLBD (SUCRA score, 0.68). SOC and S+EPLBD outperformed the other modalities when only studies reporting on stones greater than 15 mm were taken into consideration (SUCRA scores, 0.97 and 0.71, respectively). None of the assessed interventions was significantly different in terms of adverse event rate compared with endoscopic sphincterotomy or with other treatments. Post-ERCP pancreatitis and bleeding were the most frequent adverse events. Among patients with large bile stones, cholangioscopy represents the most effective method, in particular in patients with larger (>15 mm) stones, whereas S+EPLBD could represent a less expensive and more widely available alternative.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND & AIMS
Several endoscopic methods have been proposed for the treatment of large biliary stones. We assessed the comparative efficacy of these treatments through a network meta-analysis.
METHODS
Nineteen randomized controlled trials (2752 patients) comparing different treatments for management of large bile stones (>10 mm) (endoscopic sphincterotomy, balloon sphincteroplasty, sphincterotomy followed by endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation [S+EPLBD], mechanical lithotripsy, single-operator cholangioscopy [SOC]) with each other were identified. Study outcomes were the success rate of stone removal and the incidence of adverse events. We performed pairwise and network meta-analysis for all treatments, and used Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation criteria to appraise the quality of evidence.
RESULTS
All treatments except mechanical lithotripsy significantly outperformed sphincterotomy in terms of stone removal rate (risk ratio [RR], 1.03-1.29). SOC was superior to other adjunctive interventions (vs balloon sphincteroplasty [RR, 1.24; 95% CIs, 1.07-1.45], vs S+EPLBD [RR, 1.23; range, 1.06-1.42] and vs mechanical lithotripsy [RR, 1.34; range, 1.14-1.58]). Cholangioscopy ranked the highest in increasing the success rate of stone removal (surface under the cumulative ranking [SUCRA] score, 0.99) followed by S+EPLBD (SUCRA score, 0.68). SOC and S+EPLBD outperformed the other modalities when only studies reporting on stones greater than 15 mm were taken into consideration (SUCRA scores, 0.97 and 0.71, respectively). None of the assessed interventions was significantly different in terms of adverse event rate compared with endoscopic sphincterotomy or with other treatments. Post-ERCP pancreatitis and bleeding were the most frequent adverse events.
CONCLUSIONS
Among patients with large bile stones, cholangioscopy represents the most effective method, in particular in patients with larger (>15 mm) stones, whereas S+EPLBD could represent a less expensive and more widely available alternative.

Identifiants

pubmed: 34666153
pii: S1542-3565(21)01126-5
doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2021.10.013
pii:
doi:

Types de publication

Meta-Analysis Systematic Review Journal Article Review Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

33-44.e9

Commentaires et corrections

Type : CommentIn

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2023 AGA Institute. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Auteurs

Antonio Facciorusso (A)

Gastroenterology Unit, Department of Surgical and Medical Sciences, University of Foggia, Foggia, Italy; Department of Medicine, Gastroenterology and Digestive Endoscopy Unit, The Pancreas Institute, University Hospital of Verona, Verona, Italy.

Paraskevas Gkolfakis (P)

Department of Gastroenterology, Hepatopancreatology, and Digestive Oncology, Cliniques Universitaires de Bruxelles Erasme Hospital, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium. Electronic address: paraskevas.gkolfakis@erasme.ulb.ac.be.

Daryl Ramai (D)

Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Utah Health, Salt Lake City, Utah.

Georgios Tziatzios (G)

Hepatogastroenterology Unit, Second Department of Internal Medicine-Propaedeutic, Medical School, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, "Attikon" University General Hospital, Athens, Greece.

Janice Lester (J)

Health Science Library, Long Island Jewish Medical Center, Northwell Health, New Hyde Park, New York.

Stefano Francesco Crinò (SF)

Department of Medicine, Gastroenterology and Digestive Endoscopy Unit, The Pancreas Institute, University Hospital of Verona, Verona, Italy.

Leonardo Frazzoni (L)

Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences, University of Bologna, Sant Orsola-Malpighi Hospital, Boogna, Italy.

Ioannis S Papanikolaou (IS)

Hepatogastroenterology Unit, Second Department of Internal Medicine-Propaedeutic, Medical School, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, "Attikon" University General Hospital, Athens, Greece.

Marianna Arvanitakis (M)

Department of Gastroenterology, Hepatopancreatology, and Digestive Oncology, Cliniques Universitaires de Bruxelles Erasme Hospital, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium.

Daniel Blero (D)

Department of Gastroenterology, Hepatopancreatology, and Digestive Oncology, Cliniques Universitaires de Bruxelles Erasme Hospital, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium.

Arnaud Lemmers (A)

Department of Gastroenterology, Hepatopancreatology, and Digestive Oncology, Cliniques Universitaires de Bruxelles Erasme Hospital, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium.

Pierre Eisendrath (P)

Department of Gastroenterology, Hepatopancreatology, and Digestive Oncology, Cliniques Universitaires de Bruxelles Erasme Hospital, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium.

Lorenzo Fuccio (L)

Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences, University of Bologna, Sant Orsola-Malpighi Hospital, Boogna, Italy.

Konstantinos Triantafyllou (K)

Hepatogastroenterology Unit, Second Department of Internal Medicine-Propaedeutic, Medical School, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, "Attikon" University General Hospital, Athens, Greece.

Armando Gabbrielli (A)

Department of Medicine, Gastroenterology and Digestive Endoscopy Unit, The Pancreas Institute, University Hospital of Verona, Verona, Italy.

Jacques Devière (J)

Department of Gastroenterology, Hepatopancreatology, and Digestive Oncology, Cliniques Universitaires de Bruxelles Erasme Hospital, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH