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=0%]. Clinical success was 88.5% in CDS and 84.5% in HGS, pooled OR=0.76 (95% CI=0.42-1.35, I=17%). There was no difference for adverse events OR=0.97 (95% CI=0.60-1.56), I=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.
Assuntos
Coledocostomia/métodos , Endossonografia/métodos , Gastrostomia/métodos , Colangiopancreatografia Retrógrada Endoscópica/métodos , Coledocostomia/efeitos adversos , Drenagem/métodos , Gastrostomia/efeitos adversos , Humanos , Fígado/cirurgia , Stents , Ultrassonografia de Intervenção/métodosRESUMO
The most common biliary complication after liver transplantation is anastomotic stricture (AS) and it can occur isolated or in combination with other complications. Liver graft from a cadaveric donor or a living donor has an influence on the incidence of biliary strictures as well as on the response to endoscopic treatment. Endoscopic treatment using balloon dilation and insertion of biliary stents by endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is the initial approach to these complications. AIM: The aim of this article is to compare different endoscopic techniques to treat post-liver transplantation biliary strictures. METHODS: The search was carried out on MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scielo-LILACS and Cochrane Library databases through June 2015. A total of 1100 articles were retrieved. Ten clinical trials were analyzed, and seven were included in the meta-analysis. CONCLUSIONS: The endoscopic treatment of AS was equally effective when compared the use of fully covered self-expandable metal stents (FCSEMS) vs. plastic stents, but the use of FCSEMS was associated with a lower complication risk. The treatment of AS with balloon dilation or balloon dilation associated with plastic stents presented similar results. Deceased donor liver transplantation reduced the risk of biliary stenosis and the endoscopic treatment in these patients was more effective when compared with Living donor liver transplantation.