There is scarce evidence on the comparison between different methods for the drainage of distal malignant biliary obstruction (DMBO) after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) failure. Therefore, we performed a network meta‐analysis to compare the outcomes of these techniques. We searched main databases through September 2021 and identified five randomized controlled trials. The primary outcome was clinical success. The secondary outcomes were technical success, overall and serious adverse event rate. Percutaneous trans‐hepatic biliary drainage was found to be inferior to other interventions (PTBD: RR 1.01, 0.88– 1.17 with EUS‐choledochoduodenostomy (EUS‐CD); RR 1.03, 0.86–1.22 with EUS-hepaticogastrostomy (EUS‐HG); RR 1.42, 0.90–2.24 with surgical hepaticojejunostomy). The comparison between EUS‐HG and EUS‐CD was not significant (RR 1.01, 0.87–1.17). Surgery was not superior to other interventions (RR 1.40, 0.91–2.13 with EUS‐CD and RR 1.38, 0.88–2.16 with EUS‐HG). No difference in any of the comparisons concerning adverse event rate was detected, although PTBD showed a slightly poorer performance on ranking analysis (SUCRA score 0.13). In conclusion, all interventions seem to be effective for the drainage of DMBO, although PTBD showed a trend towards higher rates of adverse events.

Methods for Drainage of Distal Malignant Biliary Obstruction after ERCP Failure: A Systematic Review and Network Meta‐Analysis

Binda C.
;
Fugazza A.;Lisotti A.;Fusaroli P.;
2022

Abstract

There is scarce evidence on the comparison between different methods for the drainage of distal malignant biliary obstruction (DMBO) after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) failure. Therefore, we performed a network meta‐analysis to compare the outcomes of these techniques. We searched main databases through September 2021 and identified five randomized controlled trials. The primary outcome was clinical success. The secondary outcomes were technical success, overall and serious adverse event rate. Percutaneous trans‐hepatic biliary drainage was found to be inferior to other interventions (PTBD: RR 1.01, 0.88– 1.17 with EUS‐choledochoduodenostomy (EUS‐CD); RR 1.03, 0.86–1.22 with EUS-hepaticogastrostomy (EUS‐HG); RR 1.42, 0.90–2.24 with surgical hepaticojejunostomy). The comparison between EUS‐HG and EUS‐CD was not significant (RR 1.01, 0.87–1.17). Surgery was not superior to other interventions (RR 1.40, 0.91–2.13 with EUS‐CD and RR 1.38, 0.88–2.16 with EUS‐HG). No difference in any of the comparisons concerning adverse event rate was detected, although PTBD showed a slightly poorer performance on ranking analysis (SUCRA score 0.13). In conclusion, all interventions seem to be effective for the drainage of DMBO, although PTBD showed a trend towards higher rates of adverse events.
Facciorusso A.; Mangiavillano B.; Paduano D.; Binda C.; Crino S.F.; Gkolfakis P.; Ramai D.; Fugazza A.; Tarantino I.; Lisotti A.; Fusaroli P.; Fabbri C.; Anderloni A.
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
Cancers 2022 Facciorusso.pdf

accesso aperto

Tipo: Versione (PDF) editoriale
Licenza: Licenza per Accesso Aperto. Creative Commons Attribuzione (CCBY)
Dimensione 864.49 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
864.49 kB Adobe PDF Visualizza/Apri
cancers-14-03291-s001.zip

accesso aperto

Tipo: File Supplementare
Licenza: Licenza per Accesso Aperto. Creative Commons Attribuzione (CCBY)
Dimensione 406.14 kB
Formato Zip File
406.14 kB Zip File Visualizza/Apri

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11585/902184
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 1
  • Scopus 0
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 0
social impact