Cargando…

EUS-guided gastroenterostomy versus enteral stenting for gastric outlet obstruction: Systematic review and meta-analysis

Background and study aims  Endoscopic and surgical techniques have been utilized for palliation of gastric outlet obstruction (GOO). Enteral stenting (ES) is an established technique with high clinical success and low morbidity rate. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided gastroenterostomy (EUS-GE) is a novel...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Chandan, Saurabh, Khan, Shahab R., Mohan, Babu P., Shah, Aun R., Bilal, Mohammad, Ramai, Daryl, Bhogal, Neil, Dhindsa, Banreet, Kassab, Lena L., Singh, Shailendra, Ponnada, Suresh, Nguyen, Andrew K., McDonough, Stephanie, Adler, Douglas G.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Georg Thieme Verlag KG 2021
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7899789/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33655056
http://dx.doi.org/10.1055/a-1341-0788
_version_ 1783654080233603072
author Chandan, Saurabh
Khan, Shahab R.
Mohan, Babu P.
Shah, Aun R.
Bilal, Mohammad
Ramai, Daryl
Bhogal, Neil
Dhindsa, Banreet
Kassab, Lena L.
Singh, Shailendra
Ponnada, Suresh
Nguyen, Andrew K.
McDonough, Stephanie
Adler, Douglas G.
author_facet Chandan, Saurabh
Khan, Shahab R.
Mohan, Babu P.
Shah, Aun R.
Bilal, Mohammad
Ramai, Daryl
Bhogal, Neil
Dhindsa, Banreet
Kassab, Lena L.
Singh, Shailendra
Ponnada, Suresh
Nguyen, Andrew K.
McDonough, Stephanie
Adler, Douglas G.
author_sort Chandan, Saurabh
collection PubMed
description Background and study aims  Endoscopic and surgical techniques have been utilized for palliation of gastric outlet obstruction (GOO). Enteral stenting (ES) is an established technique with high clinical success and low morbidity rate. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided gastroenterostomy (EUS-GE) is a novel approach that aims to provide sustained palliation of GOO. We conducted a comprehensive review and meta-analysis to evaluate the effectiveness in terms of clinical and technical success, as well as the safety profile of EUS-GE and ES. Methods  We searched multiple databases from inception through July 2020 to identify studies that reported on safety and effectiveness of EUS-GE in comparison to ES. Pooled rates of technical success, clinical success, and adverse events (AEs) were calculated. Study heterogeneity was assessed using I (2) % and 95 % confidence interval. Results  Five studies including 659 patients were included in our final analysis. Pooled rate of technical and clinical success for EUS-GE was 95.2 % (CI 87.2-.98.3, I (2)  = 42) and 93.3 % (CI 84.4–97.3, I (2)  = 59) while for ES it was 96.9 % (CI 90.9–99, I (2)  = 64) and 85.6 % (CI 73–92.9, I (2)  = 85), respectively. Pooled rate of re-intervention was significantly lower with EUS-GE i. e. 4 % (CI 1.8–8.7, I (2)  = 35) compared to ES, where it was 23.6 % (CI 17.5–31, I (2)  = 35), p = 0.001 . Pooled rates of overall and major AEs were comparable between the two techniques. Conclusion  EUS-GE is comparable in terms of technical and clinical effectiveness and has a similar safety profile when compared to ES for palliation of GOO.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7899789
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Georg Thieme Verlag KG
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-78997892021-03-01 EUS-guided gastroenterostomy versus enteral stenting for gastric outlet obstruction: Systematic review and meta-analysis Chandan, Saurabh Khan, Shahab R. Mohan, Babu P. Shah, Aun R. Bilal, Mohammad Ramai, Daryl Bhogal, Neil Dhindsa, Banreet Kassab, Lena L. Singh, Shailendra Ponnada, Suresh Nguyen, Andrew K. McDonough, Stephanie Adler, Douglas G. Endosc Int Open Background and study aims  Endoscopic and surgical techniques have been utilized for palliation of gastric outlet obstruction (GOO). Enteral stenting (ES) is an established technique with high clinical success and low morbidity rate. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided gastroenterostomy (EUS-GE) is a novel approach that aims to provide sustained palliation of GOO. We conducted a comprehensive review and meta-analysis to evaluate the effectiveness in terms of clinical and technical success, as well as the safety profile of EUS-GE and ES. Methods  We searched multiple databases from inception through July 2020 to identify studies that reported on safety and effectiveness of EUS-GE in comparison to ES. Pooled rates of technical success, clinical success, and adverse events (AEs) were calculated. Study heterogeneity was assessed using I (2) % and 95 % confidence interval. Results  Five studies including 659 patients were included in our final analysis. Pooled rate of technical and clinical success for EUS-GE was 95.2 % (CI 87.2-.98.3, I (2)  = 42) and 93.3 % (CI 84.4–97.3, I (2)  = 59) while for ES it was 96.9 % (CI 90.9–99, I (2)  = 64) and 85.6 % (CI 73–92.9, I (2)  = 85), respectively. Pooled rate of re-intervention was significantly lower with EUS-GE i. e. 4 % (CI 1.8–8.7, I (2)  = 35) compared to ES, where it was 23.6 % (CI 17.5–31, I (2)  = 35), p = 0.001 . Pooled rates of overall and major AEs were comparable between the two techniques. Conclusion  EUS-GE is comparable in terms of technical and clinical effectiveness and has a similar safety profile when compared to ES for palliation of GOO. Georg Thieme Verlag KG 2021-03 2021-02-22 /pmc/articles/PMC7899789/ /pubmed/33655056 http://dx.doi.org/10.1055/a-1341-0788 Text en The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commecial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License, which permits unrestricted reproduction and distribution, for non-commercial purposes only; and use and reproduction, but not distribution, of adapted material for non-commercial purposes only, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Chandan, Saurabh
Khan, Shahab R.
Mohan, Babu P.
Shah, Aun R.
Bilal, Mohammad
Ramai, Daryl
Bhogal, Neil
Dhindsa, Banreet
Kassab, Lena L.
Singh, Shailendra
Ponnada, Suresh
Nguyen, Andrew K.
McDonough, Stephanie
Adler, Douglas G.
EUS-guided gastroenterostomy versus enteral stenting for gastric outlet obstruction: Systematic review and meta-analysis
title EUS-guided gastroenterostomy versus enteral stenting for gastric outlet obstruction: Systematic review and meta-analysis
title_full EUS-guided gastroenterostomy versus enteral stenting for gastric outlet obstruction: Systematic review and meta-analysis
title_fullStr EUS-guided gastroenterostomy versus enteral stenting for gastric outlet obstruction: Systematic review and meta-analysis
title_full_unstemmed EUS-guided gastroenterostomy versus enteral stenting for gastric outlet obstruction: Systematic review and meta-analysis
title_short EUS-guided gastroenterostomy versus enteral stenting for gastric outlet obstruction: Systematic review and meta-analysis
title_sort eus-guided gastroenterostomy versus enteral stenting for gastric outlet obstruction: systematic review and meta-analysis
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7899789/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33655056
http://dx.doi.org/10.1055/a-1341-0788
work_keys_str_mv AT chandansaurabh eusguidedgastroenterostomyversusenteralstentingforgastricoutletobstructionsystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT khanshahabr eusguidedgastroenterostomyversusenteralstentingforgastricoutletobstructionsystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT mohanbabup eusguidedgastroenterostomyversusenteralstentingforgastricoutletobstructionsystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT shahaunr eusguidedgastroenterostomyversusenteralstentingforgastricoutletobstructionsystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT bilalmohammad eusguidedgastroenterostomyversusenteralstentingforgastricoutletobstructionsystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT ramaidaryl eusguidedgastroenterostomyversusenteralstentingforgastricoutletobstructionsystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT bhogalneil eusguidedgastroenterostomyversusenteralstentingforgastricoutletobstructionsystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT dhindsabanreet eusguidedgastroenterostomyversusenteralstentingforgastricoutletobstructionsystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT kassablenal eusguidedgastroenterostomyversusenteralstentingforgastricoutletobstructionsystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT singhshailendra eusguidedgastroenterostomyversusenteralstentingforgastricoutletobstructionsystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT ponnadasuresh eusguidedgastroenterostomyversusenteralstentingforgastricoutletobstructionsystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT nguyenandrewk eusguidedgastroenterostomyversusenteralstentingforgastricoutletobstructionsystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT mcdonoughstephanie eusguidedgastroenterostomyversusenteralstentingforgastricoutletobstructionsystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT adlerdouglasg eusguidedgastroenterostomyversusenteralstentingforgastricoutletobstructionsystematicreviewandmetaanalysis