Scholarlink

Background and aims <p>When ERCP is not feasible in the management of malignant biliary obstruction (MBO), endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage has been proven to be a valuable alternative. EUS-guided hepaticogastrostomy (EUS-HGS) carries a relatively high risk of complications. To mitigate these risks, EUS-guided antegrade stenting combined with EUS-HGS (EUS-HGAS) has been explored. We aimed to conduct a pairwise and a single-arm meta-analysis comparing both techniques and analyzing the efficacy and safety of HGAS for MBO, respectively.</p> Methods <p>We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library. We included randomized controlled trials or observational studies enrolling patients who underwent EUS-HGAS placement with or without a control group of EUS-HGS without antegrade stenting. We used R statistical software, version 4.4.1.</p> Results <p>Eight studies were included in the pairwise meta-analysis, and 11 studies were included in the single-arm meta-analysis. Analysis of the need for reintervention showed a significant difference between HGAS and HGS groups, favoring HGAS (p = 0.005), but this group also had a significantly higher rate of pancreatitis (p = 0.027). For HGAS, the pooled analyses demonstrated high technical and clinical success rates (94.06% and 98.05%, respectively); a need for reintervention rate of 8.03%, an overall adverse events rate of 11.67%, mean survival time of 118.53&#xa0;days, and mean time to stent dysfunction or patient death of 134.61&#xa0;days.</p> Conclusion <p>The performance of HGAS in patients who failed ECRP for MBO showed lower need for reintervention rates but higher pancreatitis rates compared to HGS alone. Performing HGAS is associated with high technical and clinical success rates and a low overall adverse event occurrence.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Evaluating the use of EUS-guided hepaticogastrostomy combined with antegrade stenting for malignant biliary obstruction and comparing to EUS-guided hepaticogastrostomy alone for patients who failed ERCP: a pairwise and single-arm meta-analysis

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2025年5月5日

查看全文
  • Otavio Cosendey Martins,
  • Vanio Antunes,
  • Marcelo Cristalli Pacheco da Costa,
  • Cynthia Florêncio de Mesquita,
  • Tulio L. Correa,
  • Matheus Vanzin Fernandes,
  • Natália Junkes Milioli,
  • Stefano Baraldo

摘要

Background and aims

When ERCP is not feasible in the management of malignant biliary obstruction (MBO), endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage has been proven to be a valuable alternative. EUS-guided hepaticogastrostomy (EUS-HGS) carries a relatively high risk of complications. To mitigate these risks, EUS-guided antegrade stenting combined with EUS-HGS (EUS-HGAS) has been explored. We aimed to conduct a pairwise and a single-arm meta-analysis comparing both techniques and analyzing the efficacy and safety of HGAS for MBO, respectively.

Methods

We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library. We included randomized controlled trials or observational studies enrolling patients who underwent EUS-HGAS placement with or without a control group of EUS-HGS without antegrade stenting. We used R statistical software, version 4.4.1.

Results

Eight studies were included in the pairwise meta-analysis, and 11 studies were included in the single-arm meta-analysis. Analysis of the need for reintervention showed a significant difference between HGAS and HGS groups, favoring HGAS (p = 0.005), but this group also had a significantly higher rate of pancreatitis (p = 0.027). For HGAS, the pooled analyses demonstrated high technical and clinical success rates (94.06% and 98.05%, respectively); a need for reintervention rate of 8.03%, an overall adverse events rate of 11.67%, mean survival time of 118.53 days, and mean time to stent dysfunction or patient death of 134.61 days.

Conclusion

The performance of HGAS in patients who failed ECRP for MBO showed lower need for reintervention rates but higher pancreatitis rates compared to HGS alone. Performing HGAS is associated with high technical and clinical success rates and a low overall adverse event occurrence.