EUS-guided Choledochoduodenostomy Versus Hepaticogastrostomy A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Imagem de Miniatura
Arquivos
art_UEMURA_EUSguided_Choledochoduodenostomy_Versus_Hepaticogastrostomy_A_Systematic_Review_and_2018.PDF (504.09 KB)
Citações na Scopus
78
Tipo de produção
article
Data de publicação
2018
Editora
LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI
Indexadores
Scopus
Web of Science
PubMed
Título da Revista
ISSN da Revista
Título do Volume
Autores
KHAN, Muhammad Ali
KAHALEH, Michel
Autor de Grupo de pesquisa
Editores
Coordenadores
Organizadores
Citação
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL GASTROENTEROLOGY, v.52, n.2, p.123-130, 2018
Projetos de Pesquisa
Unidades Organizacionais
Fascículo
Resumo
Background and Aims: Endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) has emerged as an alternative in cases of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) failure. Two types of EUS-BD methods for achieving biliary drainage when ERCP fails are choledochoduodenostomy (CDS) or hepaticogastrostomy (HGS). However, there is no consensus if one approach is better than the other. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate these 2 main EUS-BD methods. Methods: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane database, LILACS from inception through April 8, 2017, using the following search terms in various combinations: biliary drainage, biliary stent, transluminal biliary drainage, choledochoduodenostomy, hepaticogastrostomy, endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage. We selected studies comparing CDS and HGS in patients with malignant biliary obstruction with ERCP failure. Pooled odds ratio (OR) were calculated for technical success, clinical success, and adverse events and difference of means calculated for duration of procedure and survival after procedure. Results: A total of 10 studies with 434 patients were included in the meta-analysis: 208 underwent biliary drainage via HGS and the remaining 226 via CDS. The technical success for CDS and HGS was 94.1% and 93.7%, respectively, pooled OR = 0.96 [95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.39-2.33, I-2 = 0%]. Clinical success was 88.5% in CDS and 84.5% in HGS, pooled OR = 0.76 (95% CI = 0.42-1.35, I-2 = 17%). There was no difference for adverse events OR = 0.97 (95% CI = 0.60-1.56), I-2 = 37%. CDS was about 2 minutes faster with a pooled difference in means of was -2.69 (95% CI = -4.44 to -0.95). Conclusion: EUS-CDS and EUS-HGS have equal efficacy and safety, and are both associated with a very high technical and clinical success. The choice of approach may be selected based on patient anatomy.
Palavras-chave
choledochoduodenostomy, hepaticogastrostomy, EUS, biliary drainage
URI
https://observatorio.fm.usp.br/handle/OPI/25454
Referências
  1. Adler DG, 2005, GASTROINTEST ENDOSC, V62, P1, DOI 10.1016/j.gie.2005.04.015
  2. Amano M, 2017, J GASTROEN HEPATOL, V32, P716, DOI 10.1111/jgh.13489
  3. Artifon ELA, 2015, GASTROINTEST ENDOSC, V81, P950, DOI 10.1016/j.gie.2014.09.047
  4. Asadi H, 2016, CLIN RADIOL, V71, DOI 10.1016/j.crad.2016.05.013
  5. Bahra M., 2008, V177, P111
  6. Beissert M, 2002, Z GASTROENTEROL, V40, P503, DOI 10.1055/s-2002-32806
  7. Born P, 1999, ENDOSCOPY, V31, P725
  8. Cho DH, 2017, GASTROINTEST ENDOSC, V85, P1067, DOI 10.1016/j.gie.2016.09.010
  9. Dhir V, 2015, GASTROINTEST ENDOSC, V81, P913, DOI 10.1016/j.gie.2014.09.054
  10. Dhir V, 2013, UNITED EUR GASTROENT, V1, P103, DOI 10.1177/2050640613480145
  11. Dhir V, 2014, DIGEST ENDOSC, V26, P430, DOI 10.1111/den.12153
  12. Fogel EL, 2001, ENDOSCOPY, V33, P31, DOI 10.1055/s-2001-11186
  13. Giovannini M, 2001, ENDOSCOPY, V33, P898, DOI 10.1055/s-2001-17324
  14. Guo J, 2016, GASTROENT RES PRACT, V2016
  15. Jadad AR, 1996, CONTROL CLIN TRIALS, V17, P1, DOI 10.1016/0197-2456(95)00134-4
  16. Jang SI, 2017, J GASTROEN HEPATOL, V32, P932, DOI 10.1111/jgh.13602
  17. Kawakubo K, 2014, J HEPATO-BIL-PAN SCI, V21, P328, DOI 10.1002/jhbp.27
  18. Khan MA, 2016, DIGEST DIS SCI, V61, P684, DOI 10.1007/s10620-015-3933-0
  19. Khashab MA, 2016, ENDOSC INT OPEN, V4, pE175, DOI 10.1055/s-0041-109083
  20. Kim TH, 2012, WORLD J GASTROENTERO, V18, P2526, DOI 10.3748/wjg.v18.i20.2526
  21. Klein F, 2014, HPB SURG, V2014
  22. Liberati A, 2009, PLOS MED, V6, DOI [10.1371/journal.pmed.1000100, 10.7326/0003-4819-151-4-200908180-00136, 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.06.006]
  23. Ogura T, 2016, ENDOSCOPY, V48, P156, DOI 10.1055/s-0034-1392859
  24. Oh HC, 2007, ENDOSCOPY, V39, P731, DOI 10.1055/s-2007-966577
  25. Park DH, 2015, J GASTROEN HEPATOL, V30, P1461, DOI 10.1111/jgh.13027
  26. Prachayakul V, 2013, WORLD J GASTROENTERO, V19, P4758, DOI 10.3748/wjg.v19.i29.4758
  27. Puspok A, 2005, AM J GASTROENTEROL, V100, P1743, DOI 10.1111/j.1572-0241.2005.41806.x
  28. Sharaiha RZ, 2017, GASTROINTEST ENDOSC, V85, P904, DOI 10.1016/j.gie.2016.12.023
  29. SMITH AC, 1994, LANCET, V344, P1655, DOI 10.1016/S0140-6736(94)90455-3
  30. Sommerville CAM, 2009, J SURG ONCOL, V100, P651, DOI 10.1002/jso.21390
  31. Stroup DF, 2000, JAMA-J AM MED ASSOC, V283, P2008, DOI 10.1001/jama.283.15.2008
  32. Tyberg A, 2016, GASTROINTEST ENDOSC, V84, P941, DOI 10.1016/j.gie.2016.05.035
  33. Wiersema MJ, 1996, GASTROINTEST ENDOSC, V43, P102, DOI 10.1016/S0016-5107(06)80108-2

Coleções
Artigos e Materiais de Revistas Científicas - FM/MCG
Artigos e Materiais de Revistas Científicas - HC/ICESP
Artigos e Materiais de Revistas Científicas - HC/ICHC
Artigos e Materiais de Revistas Científicas - HU
Artigos e Materiais de Revistas Científicas - LIM/26
Artigos e Materiais de Revistas Científicas - LIM/62