Methods for Drainage of Distal Malignant Biliary Obstruction after ERCP Failure: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.
EUS
cancer
metastasis
stent
surgery
Journal
Cancers
ISSN: 2072-6694
Titre abrégé: Cancers (Basel)
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101526829
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
05 Jul 2022
05 Jul 2022
Historique:
received:
01
06
2022
revised:
29
06
2022
accepted:
04
07
2022
entrez:
9
7
2022
pubmed:
10
7
2022
medline:
10
7
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
There is scarce evidence on the comparison between different methods for the drainage of distal malignant biliary obstruction (DMBO) after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) failure. Therefore, we performed a network meta-analysis to compare the outcomes of these techniques. We searched main databases through September 2021 and identified five randomized controlled trials. The primary outcome was clinical success. The secondary outcomes were technical success, overall and serious adverse event rate. Percutaneous trans-hepatic biliary drainage was found to be inferior to other interventions (PTBD: RR 1.01, 0.88-1.17 with EUS-choledochoduodenostomy (EUS-CD); RR 1.03, 0.86-1.22 with EUS-hepaticogastrostomy (EUS-HG); RR 1.42, 0.90-2.24 with surgical hepaticojejunostomy). The comparison between EUS-HG and EUS-CD was not significant (RR 1.01, 0.87-1.17). Surgery was not superior to other interventions (RR 1.40, 0.91-2.13 with EUS-CD and RR 1.38, 0.88-2.16 with EUS-HG). No difference in any of the comparisons concerning adverse event rate was detected, although PTBD showed a slightly poorer performance on ranking analysis (SUCRA score 0.13). In conclusion, all interventions seem to be effective for the drainage of DMBO, although PTBD showed a trend towards higher rates of adverse events.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35805062
pii: cancers14133291
doi: 10.3390/cancers14133291
pmc: PMC9266204
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Review
Langues
eng
Références
United European Gastroenterol J. 2019 Feb;7(1):60-68
pubmed: 30788117
Gastrointest Endosc. 2022 May;95(5):896-904.e1
pubmed: 34995640
Endosc Ultrasound. 2021 May-Jun;10(3):214-215
pubmed: 33463553
Medicina (Kaunas). 2022 Feb 22;58(3):
pubmed: 35334507
Gastrointest Endosc. 2022 Jan;95(1):115-122
pubmed: 34339667
J Clin Gastroenterol. 2018 Feb;52(2):123-130
pubmed: 29095426
Gastrointest Endosc. 2017 May;85(5):904-914
pubmed: 28063840
Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2012 Aug;10(8):920-4
pubmed: 22387254
Endoscopy. 2007 Aug;39(8):731-6
pubmed: 17661249
Endoscopy. 2021 Oct;53(10):1037-1047
pubmed: 33246343
Dig Endosc. 2019 Sep;31(5):575-582
pubmed: 30908711
Endoscopy. 2018 Sep;50(9):910-930
pubmed: 30086596
World J Gastrointest Endosc. 2019 May 16;11(5):354-364
pubmed: 31205596
Gastrointest Endosc. 2016 Jun;83(6):1218-27
pubmed: 26542374
J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci. 2014 May;21(5):328-34
pubmed: 24026963
Endosc Ultrasound. 2015 Jul-Sep;4(3):235-43
pubmed: 26374583
Endoscopy. 2001 Oct;33(10):898-900
pubmed: 11571690
Gastrointest Endosc. 2010 Mar;71(3):446-54
pubmed: 20189503
Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2016 Jul;14(7):1011-1019.e3
pubmed: 26748220
Dig Dis Sci. 2016 Mar;61(3):684-703
pubmed: 26518417
J Clin Gastroenterol. 2015 Oct;49(9):764-70
pubmed: 25518004
Res Synth Methods. 2012 Jun;3(2):111-25
pubmed: 26062085
J Clin Epidemiol. 2011 Feb;64(2):163-71
pubmed: 20688472
Dig Endosc. 2021 Nov;33(7):1139-1145
pubmed: 33284467
Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech. 2021 Aug 31;32(1):124-132
pubmed: 34469370
BMJ. 2014 Sep 24;349:g5630
pubmed: 25252733
BMJ. 2011 Oct 18;343:d5928
pubmed: 22008217
Gastrointest Endosc. 2015 Apr;81(4):950-9
pubmed: 25500330
J Clin Gastroenterol. 2012 Oct;46(9):768-74
pubmed: 22810111