EUS guided pancreatic duct decompression in surgically altered anatomy or failed ERCP-A systematic review, meta-analysis and meta-regression

被引:17
作者
Bhurwal, Abhishek [1 ]
Tawadros, Augustine [1 ]
Mutneja, Hemant [2 ]
Gjeorgjievski, Mihajlo [1 ]
Shah, Ishani [3 ]
Bansal, Vikas [4 ]
Patel, Anish [1 ]
Sarkar, Avik [1 ]
Bartel, Michal [5 ]
Brahmbhatt, Bhaumik [6 ]
机构
[1] Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Sch Med, Div Gastroenterol & Hepatol, New Brunswick, NJ 08901 USA
[2] John H Stroger Cook Cty Hosp, Div Gastroenterol & Hepatol, Chicago, IL USA
[3] BIDMC, Dept Gastroenterol, Boston, MA USA
[4] Mayo Clin, Div Pulm & Crit Care, Rochester, MN USA
[5] Fox Chase Canc Ctr, Div Gastroenterol & Hepatol, Philadelphia, PA 19111 USA
[6] Mayo Clin, Div Gastroenterol & Hepatol, Jacksonville, FL 32224 USA
关键词
EUS guided ERP; ERP in Surgically altered anatomy; Metaanalysis; Meta-regression; Safety and efficacy; TERM-FOLLOW-UP; DRAINAGE; CHOLANGIOPANCREATOGRAPHY; PANCREATOGRAPHY; MULTICENTER; OBSTRUCTION; STRICTURES; EFFICACY; OUTCOMES; BILIARY;
D O I
10.1016/j.pan.2021.03.021
中图分类号
R57 [消化系及腹部疾病];
学科分类号
摘要
Introduction: EUS-PD (EUS guided pancreatic duct drainage) is classified into two types: EUS-guided rendezvous techniques and EUS-guided PD stenting. Prior studies showed significant variation in terms of technical success, clinical success and adverse events. Methods: Three independent reviewers performed a comprehensive review of all original articles published from inception to June 2020, describing pancreatic duct drainage utilizing EUS. Primary outcomes were technical success, clinical success of EUS-PDD and safety of EUS-PD in terms of adverse events. All meta-analysis and meta-regression tests were 2-tailed. Finally, probability of publication bias was assessed using funnel plots and with Egger's test. Results: A total of sixteen studies (503 patients) described the use of EUS-PD for pancreatic duct decompression yielded a pooled technical success rate was 81.4% (95% CI 72-88.1, I 2 = 74). Metaregression revealed that proportion of altered anatomy and method of dilation of tract explain the variance. Overall pooled clinical success rate was 84.6% (95% CI 75.4-90.8, I 2 = 50.18). Meta-regression analysis revealed that the type of pancreatic duct decompression, proportion of altered anatomy and follow up time explained the variance. Overall pooled adverse event rate was 21.3% (95% CI 16.8-26.7, I 2 = 36.6). The most common post procedure adverse event was post procedure pain. Overall pooled adverse event rate of post EUS-PD pancreatitis was 5% (95% CI 3.2-7.8, I 2 = 0). Conclusion: The systematic review, meta-analysis and meta-regression provides answer to the questions of the overall technical success, clinical success and the adverse event rate of EUS-PD by summarizing the available literature. (c) 2021 IAP and EPC. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:990 / 1000
页数:11
相关论文
共 30 条
  • [1] OUTCOME AFTER LATERAL PANCREATICOJEJUNOSTOMY FOR CHRONIC-PANCREATITIS
    ADAMS, DB
    FORD, MC
    ANDERSON, MC
    [J]. ANNALS OF SURGERY, 1994, 219 (05) : 481 - 489
  • [2] Therapeutic EUS-assisted endoscopic retrograde pancreatography after failed pancreatic duct cannulation at ERCP
    Barkay, Olga
    Sherman, Stuart
    McHenry, Lee
    Yoo, Byung Moo
    Fogel, Evan L.
    Watkins, James L.
    DeWitt, John
    Al-Haddad, Mohammad A.
    Lehman, Glen A.
    [J]. GASTROINTESTINAL ENDOSCOPY, 2010, 71 (07) : 1166 - 1173
  • [3] Single-operator EUS-guided cholangiopancreatography for difficult pancreaticobiliary access
    Brauer, Brian C.
    Chen, Yang K.
    Fukami, Norio
    Shah, Raj J.
    [J]. GASTROINTESTINAL ENDOSCOPY, 2009, 70 (03) : 471 - 479
  • [4] Adverse events associated with ERCP
    Chandrasekhara, Vinay
    Khashab, Mouen A.
    Muthusamy, V. Raman
    Acosta, Ruben D.
    Agrawal, Deepak
    Bruining, David H.
    Eloubeidi, Mohamad A.
    Fanelli, Robert D.
    Faulx, Ashley L.
    Gurudu, Suryakanth R.
    Kothari, Shivangi
    Lightdale, Jenifer R.
    Qumseya, Bashar J.
    Shaukat, Aasma
    Wang, Amy
    Wani, Sachin B.
    Yang, Julie
    DeWitt, John M.
    [J]. GASTROINTESTINAL ENDOSCOPY, 2017, 85 (01) : 32 - 47
  • [5] An international multicenter study comparing EUS-guided pancreatic duct drainage with enteroscopy-assisted endoscopic retrograde pancreatography after Whipple surgery
    Chen, Yen-I
    Levy, Michael J.
    Moreels, Tom G.
    Hajijeva, Gulara
    Will, Uwe
    Artifon, Everson L.
    Hara, Kazuo
    Kitano, Masayuki
    Topazian, Mark
    Abu Dayyeh, Barham
    Reichel, Andreas
    Vilela, Tiago
    Ngamruengphong, Saowanee
    Haito-Chavez, Yamile
    Bukhari, Majidah
    Okolo, Patrick, III
    Kumbhari, Vivek
    Ismail, Amr
    Khashab, Mouen A.
    [J]. GASTROINTESTINAL ENDOSCOPY, 2017, 85 (01) : 170 - 177
  • [6] Multiple stenting of refractory pancreatic duct strictures in severe chronic pancreatitis: Long-term results
    Costamagna, G
    Bulajic, M
    Tringali, A
    Pandolfi, M
    Gabbrielli, A
    Spada, C
    Petruzziello, L
    Familiari, P
    Mutignani, M
    [J]. ENDOSCOPY, 2006, 38 (03) : 254 - 259
  • [7] STENTING IN SEVERE CHRONIC-PANCREATITIS - RESULTS OF MEDIUM-TERM FOLLOW-UP IN 76 PATIENTS
    CREMER, M
    DEVIERE, J
    DELHAYE, M
    BAIZE, M
    VANDERMEEREN, A
    [J]. ENDOSCOPY, 1991, 23 (03) : 171 - 176
  • [8] Updated guidance for trusted systematic reviews: a new edition of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions
    Cumpston, Miranda
    Li, Tianjing
    Page, Matthew J.
    Chandler, Jacqueline
    Welch, Vivian A.
    Higgins, Julian P. T.
    Thomas, James
    [J]. COCHRANE DATABASE OF SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS, 2019, (10):
  • [9] METAANALYSIS IN CLINICAL-TRIALS
    DERSIMONIAN, R
    LAIRD, N
    [J]. CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIALS, 1986, 7 (03): : 177 - 188
  • [10] Endoscopic pancreatic drainage in chronic pancreatitis associated with ductal stones: Long-term results
    Dumonceau, JM
    Deviere, J
    LeMoine, O
    Delhaye, M
    Vandermeeren, A
    Baize, M
    VanGansbeke, D
    Cremer, M
    [J]. GASTROINTESTINAL ENDOSCOPY, 1996, 43 (06) : 547 - 555