Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Biliary Drainage: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Imagem de Miniatura
Arquivos
art_KHAN_Endoscopic_UltrasoundGuided_Biliary_Drainage_A_Systematic_Review_and_2016.PDF (2.15 MB)
Citações na Scopus
145
Tipo de produção
article
Data de publicação
2016
DOI
Scopus
Web of Science
PubMed
Título da Revista
ISSN da Revista
Título do Volume
Editora
SPRINGER
Autores
KHAN, Muhammad Ali
AKBAR, Ali
BARON, Todd H.
KHAN, Sobia
KOCAK, Mehmat
ALASTAL, Yaseen
HAMMAD, Tariq
LEE, Wade M.
SOFI, Aijaz
Citação
DIGESTIVE DISEASES AND SCIENCES, v.61, n.3, p.684-703, 2016
Projetos de Pesquisa
Unidades Organizacionais
Fascículo
Resumo
Variable success and adverse event rates have been reported for endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) utilizing either extrahepatic or intrahepatic approach. We aimed to conduct a proportion meta-analysis to evaluate the cumulative efficacy and safety of EUS-BD and to compare the two approaches and transluminal methods of EUS-BD. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, ISI Web of Science, and Scopus from January 2001 through January 5, 2015, to identify studies reporting technical success and adverse events of EUS-BD. A sample size of more than 20 patients was a further criterion. Weighted pooled rate (WPR) for technical success and post-procedure complications was calculated for overall studies and predefined subgroups. Pooled odds ratios were calculated for technical success and adverse events for two approaches and transluminal methods of EUS-BD for distal common bile duct (CBD) strictures. The WPR with 95 % confidence interval (CI) for technical success and post-procedure adverse events was 90 % (86, 93 %) and 17 % (13, 22 %), respectively, with considerable heterogeneity (I (2) = 77 %). For high-quality studies, the WPR for technical success was 94 % (91, 96 %), I (2) = 0 % and WPR for post-procedure adverse event was 16 % (12, 19 %), I (2) = 39 %. In meta-regression model, distal CBD stricture and transpapillary drainage were associated with higher technical success and intrahepatic access route was associated with higher adverse event rate. There was no difference in technical success using either approach OR 1.27 (0.52, 3.13), I (2) = 0 % or transluminal method OR 1.32 (0.51, 3.38), I (2) = 0 %. However, the extrahepatic approach appeared significantly safer as compared to the intrahepatic approach OR 0.35 (0.19, 0.67), I (2) = 27 %. Likewise, choledochoduodenostomy was found to have less adverse events as compared to hepaticogastrostomy, OR 0.40 (0.18, 0.87), I (2) = 0 %. In cases of failure of traditional ERC to achieve biliary drainage, EUS-BD appears to be an emerging therapeutic modality with a cumulative success rate of 90 % and cumulative adverse events rate of 17 %. Randomized controlled trials are required to further evaluate the efficacy and safety of the procedure along with the comparison to traditional modalities like percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage.
Palavras-chave
EUS-BD, Choledochoduodenostomy, Hepaticogastrostomy, Antegrade biliary drainage, Rendezvous
URI
https://observatorio.fm.usp.br/handle/OPI/14035
Referências
  1. Ang Tiing Leong, 2007, JOP, V8, P438
  2. COTTON PB, 1991, GASTROINTEST ENDOSC, V37, P383, DOI 10.1016/S0016-5107(91)70740-2
  3. Artifon ELA, 2015, GASTROINTEST ENDOSC, V81, P950, DOI 10.1016/j.gie.2014.09.047
  4. Maranki J, 2009, ENDOSCOPY, V41, P532, DOI 10.1055/s-0029-1214712
  5. Stroup DF, 2000, JAMA-J AM MED ASSOC, V283, P2008, DOI 10.1001/jama.283.15.2008
  6. Will U, 2015, ULTRASCHALL MED, V36, P276, DOI 10.1055/s-0034-1366557
  7. Khashab MA, 2013, GASTROINTEST ENDOSC, V78, P734, DOI 10.1016/j.gie.2013.05.013
  8. Shah JN, 2012, GASTROINTEST ENDOSC, V75, P56, DOI 10.1016/j.gie.2011.08.032
  9. Kelley George A, 2012, World J Methodol, V2, P27, DOI 10.5662/wjm.v2.i4.27
  10. Song TJ, 2014, GASTROINTEST ENDOSC, V80, P707, DOI 10.1016/j.gie.2014.05.327
  11. Artifon ELA, 2012, J CLIN GASTROENTEROL, V46, P768, DOI 10.1097/MCG.0b013e31825f264c
  12. Oh HC, 2007, ENDOSCOPY, V39, P731, DOI 10.1055/s-2007-966577
  13. Jadad AR, 1996, CONTROL CLIN TRIALS, V17, P1, DOI 10.1016/0197-2456(95)00134-4
  14. Dhir V, 2015, GASTROINTEST ENDOSC, V81, P913, DOI 10.1016/j.gie.2014.09.054
  15. DERSIMONIAN R, 1986, CONTROL CLIN TRIALS, V7, P177, DOI 10.1016/0197-2456(86)90046-2
  16. Gupta K, 2014, J CLIN GASTROENTEROL, V48, P80, DOI 10.1097/MCG.0b013e31828c6822
  17. STANLEY J, 1986, RADIOLOGY, V158, P195
  18. Park DH, 2011, GASTROINTEST ENDOSC, V74, P1276, DOI 10.1016/j.gie.2011.07.054
  19. Dhir V, 2015, GASTROINTEST ENDOSC, V81, P440, DOI 10.1016/j.gie.2014.09.011
  20. Dhir V, 2012, GASTROINTEST ENDOSC, V75, P354, DOI 10.1016/j.gie.2011.07.075
  21. Tarantino I, 2015, GASTROINTEST ENDOSC, V81, P1016, DOI 10.1016/j.gie.2014.10.042
  22. Park DH, 2013, GASTROINTEST ENDOSC, V78, P91, DOI 10.1016/j.gie.2013.01.042
  23. Kuhn JP, 2010, AM J ROENTGENOL, V195, P851, DOI 10.2214/AJR.09.3461
  24. Giovannini M, 2001, ENDOSCOPY, V33, P898, DOI 10.1055/s-2001-17324
  25. Attasaranya S, 2012, GASTROENT RES PRACT, DOI 10.1155/2012/680753
  26. Sterne JAC, 2000, J CLIN EPIDEMIOL, V53, P1119, DOI 10.1016/S0895-4356(00)00242-0
  27. Cotton PB, 2010, GASTROINTEST ENDOSC, V71, P446, DOI 10.1016/j.gie.2009.10.027
  28. Kahaleh M, 2013, WORLD J GASTROENTERO, V19, P1372, DOI 10.3748/wjg.v19.i9.1372
  29. Iwashita T, 2012, ENDOSCOPY, V44, P60, DOI 10.1055/s-0030-1256871
  30. Prachayakul V, 2013, WORLD J GASTROENTERO, V19, P4758, DOI 10.3748/wjg.v19.i29.4758
  31. Varadarajulu S, 2006, GASTROINTEST ENDOSC, V64, P338, DOI 10.1016/j.gie.2005.05.016
  32. Beissert M, 2002, Z GASTROENTEROL, V40, P503, DOI 10.1055/s-2002-32806
  33. Burmester E, 2003, GASTROINTEST ENDOSC, V57, P246, DOI 10.1067/mge.2003.85
  34. Garcarek J, 2012, ADV CLIN EXP MED, V21, P621
  35. Vila JJ, 2012, GASTROINTEST ENDOSC, V76, P1133, DOI 10.1016/j.gie.2012.08.001
  36. Kawakubo K, 2014, J HEPATO-BIL-PAN SCI, V21, P328, DOI 10.1002/jhbp.27
  37. TADDIO A, 1994, CAN MED ASSOC J, V150, P1611
  38. Doctor N, 1999, EUR J GASTROEN HEPAT, V11, P775, DOI 10.1097/00042737-199907000-00016
  39. Dhir V, 2014, DIGEST ENDOSC, V26, P430, DOI 10.1111/den.12153
  40. Puspok A, 2005, AM J GASTROENTEROL, V100, P1743, DOI 10.1111/j.1572-0241.2005.41806.x
  41. Kahaleh M, 2006, GASTROINTEST ENDOSC, V64, P52, DOI 10.1016/j.gie.2006.01.063
  42. Artifon Everson L A, 2012, JOP, V13, P7
  43. Bapaye A, 2013, UNITED EUR GASTROENT, V1, P285, DOI 10.1177/2050640613490928
  44. BEGG CB, 1994, BIOMETRICS, V50, P1088, DOI 10.2307/2533446
  45. Deeks JJ, 2008, COCHRANE HDB SYSTEMA
  46. Dhir V, 2013, GASTROINTEST ENDOSC, V1, P103, DOI [DOI 10.1177/2050640613480145], 10.1177/ 2050640613480145]
  47. Kahaleh M, 2015, WORLD J GASTROENTERO, V21, P726, DOI 10.3748/wjg.v21.i3.726
  48. Khashab MA, 2015, DIGEST DIS SCI, V60, P557, DOI 10.1007/s10620-014-3300-6
  49. Liberati A, 2009, BMJ-BRIT MED J, V339, DOI 10.1136/bmj.b2700
  50. Scherer RW, 2007, COCHRANE DB SYST REV, DOI 10.1002/14651858.MR000005.pub3
  51. Takada J, 2013, J INTERV GASTROENTER, V3, P76, DOI 10.7178/JIG.128]
  52. Weilert F, 2014, SURG ENDOSC, V28, P3193, DOI 10.1007/s00464-014-3588-5
  53. Wells GA, NEWCASTLE OTTAWA SCA
  54. Winick A B, 2001, Tech Vasc Interv Radiol, V4, P200, DOI 10.1053/tvir.2001.28465

Coleções
Artigos e Materiais de Revistas Científicas - HC/ICHC
Artigos e Materiais de Revistas Científicas - LIM/26