Pancreatico-Biliary Endoscopy and Endosonography Division, Pancreas Translational and Clinical Research Center, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy.
Pancreatico-Biliary Endoscopy and Endosonography Division, Pancreas Translational and Clinical Research Center, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy; Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy.
Dig Liver Dis. 2024 Dec;56(12):2004-2010. doi: 10.1016/j.dld.2024.08.053. Epub 2024 Sep 13.
The effectiveness of various primary upfront drainage techniques for distal malignant biliary obstructions (dMBO) is not well-established.
To compare the technical and clinical success rates and adverse event (AE) rates of various primary drainage techniques.
We systematically reviewed RCTs comparing the technical and clinical success and AE rates of EUS-choledochoduodenostomy (CDS) with lumen-apposing metal stent (LAMS), EUS-CDS with self-expandable metal stents (SEMS), EUS-hepaticogastrostomy (HGS), ERCP, and PTBD performed upfront.
Six RCTs involving 583 patients were analyzed. EUS-CDS with LAMS showed significantly higher technical success compared to EUS-CDS with SEMS (RR 1.21, 95 % CI 1.07-1.37) and ERCP (RR 1.17, 95 % CI 1.07-1.28). EUS-CDS with LAMS had the highest rank in technical success (SUCRA = 0.86). The clinical success rate was also higher with EUS-CDS with LAMS than with ERCP (RR 1.12, 1.01-1.25). PTBD was the worst ranked procedure for safety (SUCRA score = 0.18), while EUS-CDS with LAMS was the top procedure for procedural time (SUCRA score = 0.83).
EUS-CDS with LAMS has the highest technical and clinical success rates and is significantly superior to ERCP as the upfront technique for dMBO treatment. PTBD should be abandoned as first-line treatment due to the poor safety profile.
各种原发性直接引流技术治疗远端恶性胆道梗阻(dMBO)的疗效尚未得到充分证实。
比较各种原发性引流技术的技术和临床成功率及不良事件(AE)发生率。
我们系统地回顾了比较超声内镜下胆肠吻合术(EUS-CDS)联合金属覆膜支架(LAMS)与 EUS-CDS 联合自膨式金属支架(SEMS)、EUS-CDS 与 LAMS 与内镜逆行胰胆管造影术(ERCP)和经皮经肝胆管引流术(PTBD)在原发性治疗中技术和临床成功率及 AE 发生率的 RCT。
纳入了 6 项 RCT 共 583 例患者。EUS-CDS 联合 LAMS 的技术成功率明显高于 EUS-CDS 联合 SEMS(RR 1.21,95%CI 1.07-1.37)和 ERCP(RR 1.17,95%CI 1.07-1.28)。EUS-CDS 联合 LAMS 的技术成功率最高(SUCRA=0.86)。EUS-CDS 联合 LAMS 的临床成功率也高于 ERCP(RR 1.12,1.01-1.25)。PTBD 的安全性最差(SUCRA 评分=0.18),而 EUS-CDS 联合 LAMS 的操作时间最短(SUCRA 评分=0.83)。
EUS-CDS 联合 LAMS 具有最高的技术和临床成功率,作为 dMBO 治疗的首选方法,明显优于 ERCP。PTBD 由于安全性差,应放弃作为一线治疗。