Year 2019 / Volume 111 / Number 12
Review
Is ERCP-BD or EUS-BD the preferred decompression modality for malignant distal biliary obstruction? A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

953-960

DOI: 10.17235/reed.2019.6125/2018

De-Feng Li, Chun-Hua Zhou, Li-Sheng Wang, Jun Yao, Duo-Wu Zou,

Abstract
Background: endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP)-guided biliary drainage (ERCP-BD) with transpapillary stent placement is the standard palliative treatment for malignant distal biliary obstruction. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) has been evaluated for efficacy and safety as an alternative for failed ERCP. Purpose: we aimed to determine whether ERCP-BD or EUS-BD is the preferred treatment modality for decompressing malignant distal biliary obstruction. Methods: we systematically searched for relevant published, prospective, and randomized trials comparing ERCP-BD with EUS-BD in decompressing malignant distal biliary obstruction in databases (i.e., PubMed and Cochrane). Technical success, treatment success, and procedure duration were primary outcome measurements; overall adverse events, post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP), and stent reintervention rate were the secondary outcomes. Results: three trials with 220 patients met the inclusion criteria. Technical success, treatment success, procedure duration, and overall adverse event rate were similar between ERCP-BD and EUS-BD. However, ERCP-BD had a significantly higher PEP rate than EUS-BD (9.2% vs. 0%), the difference being significant (risk ratio [RR] = 8.5; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.03-69.91, p = 0.05). Similarly, ERCP-BD had a higher stent reintervention rate than EUS-BD (28.4% vs. 4.5%), although the difference was not significant (RR = 1.91; 95% CI: 0.94-3.88, p = 0.07). Conclusion: technical success, treatment success, procedure duration, and overall adverse event rate were comparable between ERCP-BD and EUS-BD in decompressing malignant distal biliary obstruction. Nevertheless, EUS-BD had a significantly lower rate of PEP and a lower tendency toward stent reintervention than ERCP-BD. Therefore, EUS-BD might be a suitable alternative to ERCP-BD when performed by experts.
Share Button
New comment
Comments
No comments for this article
References
1. Smith AC, Dowsett JF, Russell RC, et al. Randomised trial of endoscopic stenting versus surgical bypass in malignant low bileduct obstruction. Lancet. 1994;344:1655-60.
2. Moss AC, Morris E, Mac Mathuna P. Palliative biliary stents for obstructing pancreatic carcinoma. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006:Cd004200. 10.1002/14651858.CD004200.pub4.
3. Inamdar S, Slattery E, Bhalla R, et al. Comparison of Adverse Events for Endoscopic vs Percutaneous Biliary Drainage in the Treatment of Malignant Biliary Tract Obstruction in an Inpatient National Cohort. JAMA Oncol. 2016;2:112-7. 10.1001/jamaoncol.2015.3670.
4. Castano R, Lopes TL, Alvarez O, et al. Nitinol biliary stent versus surgery for palliation of distal malignant biliary obstruction. Surg Endosc. 2010;24:2092-8. 10.1007/s00464-010-0903-7.
5. Isayama H, Kawabe T, Nakai Y, et al. Cholecystitis after metallic stent placement in patients with malignant distal biliary obstruction. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2006;4:1148-53. 10.1016/j.cgh.2006.06.004.
6. Kawakubo K, Isayama H, Nakai Y, et al. Risk factors for pancreatitis following transpapillary self-expandable metal stent placement. Surg Endosc. 2012;26:771-6. 10.1007/s00464-011-1950-4.
7. Kawakubo K, Isayama H, Kato H, et al. Multicenter retrospective study of endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage for malignant biliary obstruction in Japan. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci. 2014;21:328-34. 10.1002/jhbp.27.
8. Wang K, Zhu J, Xing L, et al. Assessment of efficacy and safety of EUS-guided biliary drainage: a systematic review. Gastrointest Endosc. 2016;83:1218-27. 10.1016/j.gie.2015.10.033.
9. Khashab MA, Van der Merwe S, Kunda R, et al. Prospective international multicenter study on endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage for patients with malignant distal biliary obstruction after failed endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. Endosc Int Open. 2016;4:E487-96. 10.1055/s-0042-102648.
10. Minaga K, Kitano M. Recent advances in endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage. Dig Endosc. 2018;30:38-47. 10.1111/den.12910.
11. Khan MA, Akbar A, Baron TH, et al. Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Biliary Drainage: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Dig Dis Sci. 2016;61:684-703. 10.1007/s10620-015-3933-0.
12. Kawakubo K, Kawakami H, Kuwatani M, et al. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided choledochoduodenostomy vs. transpapillary stenting for distal biliary obstruction. Endoscopy. 2016;48:164-9. 10.1055/s-0034-1393179.
13. Poincloux L, Rouquette O, Buc E, et al. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage after failed ERCP: cumulative experience of 101 procedures at a single center. Endoscopy. 2015;47:794-801. 10.1055/s-0034-1391988.
14. Hara K, Yamao K, Hijioka S, et al. Prospective clinical study of endoscopic ultrasound-guided choledochoduodenostomy with direct metallic stent placement using a forward-viewing echoendoscope. Endoscopy. 2013;45:392-6. 10.1055/s-0032-1326076.
15. Dhir V, Artifon EL, Gupta K, et al. Multicenter study on endoscopic ultrasound-guided expandable biliary metal stent placement: choice of access route, direction of stent insertion, and drainage route. Dig Endosc. 2014;26:430-5. 10.1111/den.12153.
16. Park DH, Jang JW, Lee SS, et al. EUS-guided biliary drainage with transluminal stenting after failed ERCP: predictors of adverse events and long-term results. Gastrointest Endosc. 2011;74:1276-84. 10.1016/j.gie.2011.07.054.
17. Khashab MA, Levy MJ, Itoi T, et al. EUS-guided biliary drainage. Gastrointest Endosc. 2015;82:993-1001. 10.1016/j.gie.2015.06.043.
18. Dhir V, Itoi T, Khashab MA, et al. Multicenter comparative evaluation of endoscopic placement of expandable metal stents for malignant distal common bile duct obstruction by ERCP or EUS-guided approach. Gastrointest Endosc. 2015;81:913-23. 10.1016/j.gie.2014.09.054.
19. Paik WH, Lee TH, Park DH, et al. EUS-Guided Biliary Drainage Versus ERCP for the Primary Palliation of Malignant Biliary Obstruction: A Multicenter Randomized Clinical Trial. Am J Gastroenterol. 2018;113:987-97. 10.1038/s41395-018-0122-8.
20. Park JK, Woo YS, Noh DH, et al. Efficacy of EUS-guided and ERCP-guided biliary drainage for malignant biliary obstruction: prospective randomized controlled study. Gastrointest Endosc. 2018;88:277-82. 10.1016/j.gie.2018.03.015.
21. Bang JY, Navaneethan U, Hasan M, et al. Stent placement by EUS or ERCP for primary biliary decompression in pancreatic cancer: a randomized trial (with videos). Gastrointest Endosc. 2018;88:9-17. 10.1016/j.gie.2018.03.012.
22. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151:W65-94.
23. Cotton PB, Eisen GM, Aabakken L, et al. A lexicon for endoscopic adverse events: report of an ASGE workshop. Gastrointest Endosc. 2010;71:446-54. 10.1016/j.gie.2009.10.027.
24. Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, et al. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. Bmj. 2003;327:557-60. 10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557.
25. Matsubayashi H, Fukutomi A, Kanemoto H, et al. Risk of pancreatitis after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography and endoscopic biliary drainage. HPB (Oxford). 2009;11:222-8. 10.1111/j.1477-2574.2008.00020.x.
26. Giovannini M, Moutardier V, Pesenti C, et al. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided bilioduodenal anastomosis: a new technique for biliary drainage. Endoscopy. 2001;33:898-900. 10.1055/s-2001-17324.
27. Khashab MA, Valeshabad AK, Afghani E, et al. A comparative evaluation of EUS-guided biliary drainage and percutaneous drainage in patients with distal malignant biliary obstruction and failed ERCP. Dig Dis Sci. 2015;60:557-65. 10.1007/s10620-014-3300-6.
28. Nakai Y, Isayama H, Kawakami H, et al. Prospective multicenter study of primary EUS-guided choledochoduodenostomy using a covered metal stent. Endosc Ultrasound. 2018. 10.4103/eus.eus_17_18.
29. Spadaccini M, Fugazza A, Troncone E, et al. EUS-Guided Biliary Drainage Versus ERCP for the Primary Palliation of Malignant Biliary Obstruction: An Unfair Comparison. Am J Gastroenterol. 2019;114:174. 10.1038/s41395-018-0371-6.
30. Zhang H, Cho J, Buxbaum J. Update on the Prevention of Post-ERCP Pancreatitis. Curr Treat Options Gastroenterol. 2018. 10.1007/s11938-018-0194-y.
31. Leerhoy B, Elmunzer BJ. How to Avoid Post-Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography Pancreatitis. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am. 2018;28:439-54. 10.1016/j.giec.2018.05.007.
32. Mine T, Morizane T, Kawaguchi Y, et al. Clinical practice guideline for post-ERCP pancreatitis. J Gastroenterol. 2017;52:1013-22. 10.1007/s00535-017-1359-5.
33. Song TJ, Lee SS, Park DH, et al. Preliminary report on a new hybrid metal stent for EUS-guided biliary drainage (with videos). Gastrointest Endosc. 2014;80:707-11. 10.1016/j.gie.2014.05.327.
34. Ardengh JC, Lopes CV, Kemp R, et al. Different options of endosonography-guided biliary drainage after endoscopic retrograde cholangio-pancreatography failure. World J Gastrointest Endosc. 2018;10:99-108. 10.4253/wjge.v10.i5.99.
35. Giuffrida MA. Type II error and statistical power in reports of small animal clinical trials. J Am Vet Med Assoc. 2014;244:1075-80. 10.2460/javma.244.9.1075.
Related articles
Citation tools
Li D, Zhou C, Wang L, Yao J, Zou D. Is ERCP-BD or EUS-BD the preferred decompression modality for malignant distal biliary obstruction? A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials . 6125/2018


Download to a citation manager

Download the citation for this article by clicking on one of the following citation managers:

Metrics
This article has received 1695 visits.
This article has been downloaded 494 times.

Statistics from Dimensions


Statistics from Plum Analytics

Publication history

Received: 14/12/2018

Accepted: 29/05/2019

Online First: 15/11/2019

Published: 05/12/2019

Article revision time: 151 days

Article Online First time: 336 days

Article editing time: 356 days


Share
This article hasn't been rated yet.
Reader rating:
Valora este artículo:




Asociación Española de Ecografía Digestiva Sociedad Española de Endoscopia Digestiva Sociedad Española de Patología Digestiva
The Spanish Journal of Gastroenterology is the official organ of the Sociedad Española de Patología Digestiva, the Sociedad Española de Endoscopia Digestiva and the Asociación Española de Ecografía Digestiva
Cookie policy Privacy Policy Legal Notice © Copyright 2023 y Creative Commons. The Spanish Journal of Gastroenterology