Dataset Information

Endoscopic Biliary Darinage (EBD) versus Percutaneous Transhepatic Biliary Drainage (PTBD) for biliary drainage in patients with Perihilar Cholangiocarcinoma (PCCA): A systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT: Biliary drainage for Perihilar Cholangiocarcinoma (PCCA) can be performed either by endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography or Percutaneous Transhepatic Biliary Drainage (PTBD). To date there is no consensus about which method is preferred. Taking that into account, the aim of this study is to compare Endoscopic Biliary Drainage (EBD) versus percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage in patients with perihilar cholangiocarcinoma through a systematic review and metanalysis. A comprehensive search of multiple electronic databases was performed. Evaluated outcomes included technical success, clinical success, post drainage complications (cholangitis, pancreatitis, bleeding, and major complications), crossover, hospital length stay, and seeding metastases. Data extracted from the studies were used to calculate Mean Differences (MD). Seventeen studies were included, with a total of 2284 patients (EBD = 1239, PTBD = 1045). Considering resectable PCCA, the PTBD group demonstrated lower rates of crossover (RD = 0.29; 95% CI 0.07‒0.51; p = 0.009 I² = 90%), post-drainage complications (RD = 0.20; 95% CI 0.06‒0.33; p < 0.0001; I² = 78%), and post-drainage pancreatitis (RD = 0.10; 95% CI 0.05‒0.16; p < 0.0001; I² = 64%). The EBD group presented reduced length of hospital stay (RD = -2.89; 95% CI -3.35 ‒ -2,43; p < 0.00001; I² = 42%). Considering palliative PCCA, the PTBD group demonstrated a higher clinical success (RD = -0.19; 95% CI -0.27 ‒ -0.11; p < 0.00001; I² = 0%) and less post-drainage cholangitis (RD = 0.08; 95% CI 0.01‒0.15; p = 0.02; I² = 48%) when compared to the EBD group. There was no statistical difference between the groups regarding: technical success, post-drainage bleeding, major post-drainage complications, and seeding metastases.

SUBMITTER: Moll CF

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10757298 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Jan-Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Endoscopic Biliary Darinage (EBD) versus Percutaneous Transhepatic Biliary Drainage (PTBD) for biliary drainage in patients with Perihilar Cholangiocarcinoma (PCCA): A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Moll Caroline Flaksbaum CF de Moura Diogo Turiani Hourneaux DTH Ribeiro Igor Braga IB Proença Igor Mendoça IM do Monte Junior Epifanio Silvino ES Sánchez-Luna Sergio A SA Merchán Maria Fernanda Shinin MFS Intriago Josselyn Mariana Vera JMV Bernardo Wanderley Marques WM de Moura Eduardo Guimarães Hourneaux EGH

Clinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil) 20230119

Biliary drainage for Perihilar Cholangiocarcinoma (PCCA) can be performed either by endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography or Percutaneous Transhepatic Biliary Drainage (PTBD). To date there is no consensus about which method is preferred. Taking that into account, the aim of this study is to compare Endoscopic Biliary Drainage (EBD) versus percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage in patients with perihilar cholangiocarcinoma through a systematic review and metanalysis. A comprehensive ...[more]

PMID: 36681067

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background and study aims Preoperative biliary drainage of hilar cholangiocarcinoma (HC) is controversial. The goal of this study was to compare the clinical outcome and associated complications for types II, III, and IV HC managed by percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD) and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). Patients and methods Between January 2011 and June 2017, a total of 180 patients with II, III, and IV HC were enrolled in this retrospective cohort study. According to the drainage method, patients were divided into two groups: PTBD (n = 81) and ERCP (n = 99). This study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03104582, and was completed. Results Compared with the PTBD group, the ERCP group had a higher incidence of post-procedural cholangitis (37 [37.37 %] vs. 18 [22.22 %], P = 0.028) and pancreatitis (17 [17.17 %] vs. 2 [2.47 %], P = 0.001); required more salvaged biliary drainage (18 [18.18 %] vs. 5 [6.17 %], P = 0.029), and incurred a higher cost ( P < 0.05). Patients with type III and IV HC in the ERCP group had more cholangitis than those in the PTBD group (26 [36.62 %] vs. 11 [18.03 %], P = 0.018). The rate of cholangitis in patients who received endoscopic bilateral biliary stents insertion was higher than patients with unilateral stenting (23 [50.00 %] vs. 9 [26.47 %], P = 0.034), and underwent PTBD internal-external drainage had a higher incidence of cholangitis than those with only external drainage (11 [34.36 %] vs. 7 [14.29 %], P = 0.034). No significant difference in the rate of cholangitis was observed between the endoscopic unilateral stenting group and the endoscopic nasobiliary drainage group (9 [26.47 %] vs. 5 [26.32 %], P = 0.990). Conclusion Compared to ERCP, PTBD reduced the rate of cholangitis, pancreatitis, salvage biliary drainage, and decreased hospitalization costs in patients with types II, III, and IV HC. Risk of cholangitis for patients with types III and IV was significantly lower in the PTBD group.

Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate and compare the efficacy and safety of Endoscopic Nasobiliary Drainage (ENBD) and Percutaneous Transhepatic Cholangiography Drainage (PTCD) in patients with advanced Hilar Cholangiocarcinoma (HCCA) through a meta-analysis of clinical studies.MethodsWe searched Chinese and English databases, including China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang database, PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science, for relevant literatures on PTCD and ENBD for advanced HCCA clinical trials. Two investigators independently screened the literatures, and the quality of the included studies was evaluated using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). The primary endpoint was the success rate of biliary drainage operation, while secondary endpoints included Total Bilirubin (TBIL) change, acute pancreatitis, biliary tract infection, hemobilia, and other complications. R software was used for data analysis.ResultsA comprehensive database search, based on predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria, yielded 26 articles for this study. Analysis revealed that PTCD had a significantly higher success rate than ENBD [OR (95% CI) = 2.63 (1.98, 3.49), Z=6.70, P<0.05]. PTCD was also more effective in reducing TBIL levels post-drainage [SMD (95%CI) =-0.13 (-0.23, -0.03), Z=-2.61, P<0.05]. While ENBD demonstrated a lower overall complication rate [OR (95%CI) = 0.60 (0.43, 0.84), Z=-2.99, P<0.05], it was associated with a significantly lower incidence of post-drainage biliary hemorrhage compared to PTCD [OR=3.02, 95%CI: (1.94-4.71), Z= 4.89, P<0.01].ConclusionsThis meta-analysis compares the efficacy and safety of ENBD and PTCD for palliative treatment of advanced HCCA. While both are effective, PTCD showed superiority in achieving successful drainage, reducing TBIL, and lowering the incidence of acute pancreatitis and biliary infections. However, ENBD had a lower risk of post-drainage bleeding. Clinicians should weigh these risks and benefits when choosing between ENBD and PTCD for individual patients. Further research is needed to confirm these findings and explore long-term outcomes.

Dataset Information

Endoscopic Biliary Darinage (EBD) versus Percutaneous Transhepatic Biliary Drainage (PTBD) for biliary drainage in patients with Perihilar Cholangiocarcinoma (PCCA): A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Publications

Endoscopic Biliary Darinage (EBD) versus Percutaneous Transhepatic Biliary Drainage (PTBD) for biliary drainage in patients with Perihilar Cholangiocarcinoma (PCCA): A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets