Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Endoscopic ultrasound-guided vs ERCP-guided biliary drainage for malignant biliary obstruction: A up-to-date meta-analysis and systematic review.
Lyu, Yunxiao; Li, Ting; Cheng, Yunxiao; Wang, Bin; Cao, Yuchen; Wang, Yuan.
Afiliación
  • Lyu Y; Department of Hepatobiliary Surgery, Dongyang People's Hospital, Wenzhou Medical University Affiliated Dongyang Hospital, 60 West Wuning Road, Dongyang, Zhejiang Province 322100, China. Electronic address: yunxiao.lyu@hotmail.com.
  • Li T; Department of Personnel office, Wenzhou Medical University Affiliated Dongyang Hospital, Dongyang, Zhejiang Province 322100, China.
  • Cheng Y; Department of Hepatobiliary Surgery, Dongyang People's Hospital, Wenzhou Medical University Affiliated Dongyang Hospital, 60 West Wuning Road, Dongyang, Zhejiang Province 322100, China.
  • Wang B; Department of Hepatobiliary Surgery, Dongyang People's Hospital, Wenzhou Medical University Affiliated Dongyang Hospital, 60 West Wuning Road, Dongyang, Zhejiang Province 322100, China.
  • Cao Y; Department of Clinical Medicine, Zhejiang Chinese Medical University, Hangzhou, Zhejiang Province 310000, China.
  • Wang Y; Department of Pharmacy, Dongyang Hospital of Traditional Chinses Medicine, Dongyang, Zhejiang Province 322100, China.
Dig Liver Dis ; 53(10): 1247-1253, 2021 Oct.
Article en En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33926814
Endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) is being used increasingly as an alternative treatment for malignant biliary obstruction (MBO). However, few studies have compared EUS-BD and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography biliary drainage (ERCP-BD). We searched the PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases until 1 November 2020 for studies comparing EUS-BD versus ERCP-BD. The primary outcomes of interest in this study were technical and clinical success. Nine studies involving 634 patients were included in this meta-analysis. Regarding technical and clinical success, there were no significant differences between EUS-BD and ERCP-BD (odds ratio [OR], 0.76; 95% CI: 0.30-1.91; OR, 1.45, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.66-3.16, respectively). EUS-BD was associated with significantly less reintervention vs ERCP-BD (OR, 0.36, 95% CI, 0.15-0.86). Regarding adverse events, the rates were similar for EUS-BD and ERCP-BD (OR: 0.75, 95% CI, 0.45-1.24). There were no significant differences in the types of adverse events (stent occlusion, stent migration, stent dysfunction, and duration of stent patency) between the two techniques. EUS-BD was associated with lower reintervention rates compared with ERCP-BD, with comparable safety and efficacy outcomes. However, more high-quality randomized trials are required.
Asunto(s)
Palabras clave
Texto completo
Añadir a Mi BVS
Imprimir
XML
PubMed Links
Buscar en Google

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Base de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Colestasis Extrahepática / Drenaje / Colangiopancreatografia Retrógrada Endoscópica / Endosonografía Tipo de estudio: Clinical_trials / Etiology_studies / Systematic_reviews Límite: Humans Idioma: En Revista: Dig Liver Dis Asunto de la revista: GASTROENTEROLOGIA Año: 2021 Tipo del documento: Article Pais de publicación: Países Bajos
Texto completo
Añadir a Mi BVS
Imprimir
XML
PubMed Links
Buscar en Google

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Base de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Colestasis Extrahepática / Drenaje / Colangiopancreatografia Retrógrada Endoscópica / Endosonografía Tipo de estudio: Clinical_trials / Etiology_studies / Systematic_reviews Límite: Humans Idioma: En Revista: Dig Liver Dis Asunto de la revista: GASTROENTEROLOGIA Año: 2021 Tipo del documento: Article Pais de publicación: Países Bajos