We have located links that may give you full text access.
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Meta-Analysis
Systematic Review
Endoscopic ultrasound-guided versus endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography-guided biliary drainage for primary treatment of distal malignant biliary obstruction: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Digestive Endoscopy : Official Journal of the Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society 2020 January
OBJECTIVES: Current evidence supporting the utility of endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) as primary treatment for distal malignant biliary obstruction (MBO) is limited. We conducted a meta-analysis to compare the performance of EUS-BD and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography-guided biliary drainage (ERCP-BD) as primary palliation of distal MBO.
METHODS: We searched several databases for comparative studies evaluating EUS-BD vs. ERCP-BD in primary drainage of distal MBO up to 28 February 2019. Primary outcomes were technical success and clinical success. Secondary outcomes included adverse events, stent patency, stent dysfunction, tumor in/overgrowth, reinterventions, procedure duration, and overall survival.
RESULTS: Four studies involving 302 patients were qualified for the final analysis. There was no difference in technical success (risk ratio [RR] 1.00; 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 0.93-1.08), clinical success (RR 1.00; 95% CI 0.94-1.06) and total adverse events (RR 0.68; 95% CI: 0.31-1.48) between the two procedures. EUS-BD was associated with lower rates of post-procedure pancreatitis (RR 0.12; 95% CI 0.02-0.62), stent dysfunction (RR 0.54; 95% CI 0.32-0.91), and tumor in/overgrowth (RR 0.22; 95% CI 0.07-0.76). No differences were noted in reinterventions (RR 0.59; 95% CI 0.21-1.69), procedure duration (weighted mean difference -2.11; 95% CI -9.51 to 5.29), stent patency (hazard ratio [HR] 0.61; 95% CI 0.34-1.11), and overall survival (HR 1.00; 95% CI 0.66-1.51).
CONCLUSIONS: With adequate endoscopy expertise, EUS-BD could show similar efficacy and safety when compared with ERCP-BD for primary palliation of distal MBO and exhibits several clinical advantages.
METHODS: We searched several databases for comparative studies evaluating EUS-BD vs. ERCP-BD in primary drainage of distal MBO up to 28 February 2019. Primary outcomes were technical success and clinical success. Secondary outcomes included adverse events, stent patency, stent dysfunction, tumor in/overgrowth, reinterventions, procedure duration, and overall survival.
RESULTS: Four studies involving 302 patients were qualified for the final analysis. There was no difference in technical success (risk ratio [RR] 1.00; 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 0.93-1.08), clinical success (RR 1.00; 95% CI 0.94-1.06) and total adverse events (RR 0.68; 95% CI: 0.31-1.48) between the two procedures. EUS-BD was associated with lower rates of post-procedure pancreatitis (RR 0.12; 95% CI 0.02-0.62), stent dysfunction (RR 0.54; 95% CI 0.32-0.91), and tumor in/overgrowth (RR 0.22; 95% CI 0.07-0.76). No differences were noted in reinterventions (RR 0.59; 95% CI 0.21-1.69), procedure duration (weighted mean difference -2.11; 95% CI -9.51 to 5.29), stent patency (hazard ratio [HR] 0.61; 95% CI 0.34-1.11), and overall survival (HR 1.00; 95% CI 0.66-1.51).
CONCLUSIONS: With adequate endoscopy expertise, EUS-BD could show similar efficacy and safety when compared with ERCP-BD for primary palliation of distal MBO and exhibits several clinical advantages.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app