Dataset Information

Comparison of effect between nasobiliary drainage and biliary stenting in malignant biliary obstruction: a systematic review and updated meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

To compare the efficacy of endoscopic nasobiliary drainage (ENBD) and endoscopic biliary stenting (EBS) in preoperative biliary drainage (PBD).

Methods

ENBD and EBS related literature of patients with malignant biliary obstruction published before September 2019 were collected from PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library for comparison analysis. Revman 5.3 statistical software was used for analysis.

Results

Nine studies were used for our comparative study. A total of 1435 patients were included, which consisted of 813 in the ENBD group and 622 in the EBS group. Meta-analysis showed that patients with malignant biliary obstruction who received ENBD had reductions in the rates of preoperative cholangitis (RR = 0.46, 95% CI = 0.34-0.62, P < 0.00001), preoperative pancreatitis (RR = 0.69, 95% CI = 0.50-0.95, P = 0.02), stent dysfunction (RR = 0.58, 95% CI = 0.43-0.80, P = 0.0008), morbidity (RR = 0.77, 95% CI = 0.64-0.93, P = 0.007), and postoperative pancreatic fistula (RR = 0.65, 95% CI = 0.45-0.92, P = 0.02) compared with patients who received EBS.

Conclusions

The rates of preoperative cholangitis, preoperative pancreatitis, post-operative pancreatic fistula, stent dysfunction, and morbidity of ENBD patients were lower than those of EBS patients. In clinical practice, the physical condition of each patient and their tolerance should be fully considered. ENBD should be given priority. EBS should be replaced if stent dysfunction or intolerance occurs.

SUBMITTER: Zhang W

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7149920 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPreoperative biliary drainage (PBD) has been widely used to treat patients with malignant biliary obstruction. However, it is still unclear which method of PBD (endoscopic nasobiliary drainage or endoscopic biliary stenting) is more effective. Thus, we carried out a meta-analysis to compare the safety and efficacy of endoscopic nasobiliary drainage (ENBD) and endoscopic biliary stenting (EBS) in malignant biliary obstruction in terms of preoperative and postoperative complications.MethodsWe conducted a literature search of EMBASE databases, PubMed, and the Cochrane Library to identify relevant available articles that were published in English, and we then compared ENBD and EBS in malignant biliary obstruction patients. The preoperative cholangitis rate, the preoperative pancreatitis rate, the incidence of stent dysfunction, the postoperative pancreatic fistula rate, and morbidity were analyzed. Odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were used to express the pooled effect on dichotomous variables, and the pooled analyses were performed using RevMan 5.3.ResultsSeven published studies (n = 925 patients) were included in this meta-analysis. We determined that patients with malignant biliary obstruction who received ENBD had reductions in the preoperative cholangitis rate (OR = 0.35, 95% CI = 0.25-0.51, P < 0.0001), the postoperative pancreatic fistula rate (OR = 0.38, 95% CI = 0.18-0.82, P = 0.01), the incidence of stent dysfunction (OR = 0.39, 95% CI = 0.28-0.56, P < 0.0001), and morbidity (OR = 0.47, 95% CI = 0.27-0.82, P = 0.008) compared with patients who received EBS.ConclusionsThe current meta-analysis suggests that ENBD is better than EBS for malignant biliary obstruction in terms of the preoperative cholangitis rate, the postoperative pancreatic fistula rate, the incidence of stent dysfunction, and morbidity. However, a limitation is that there are no data from randomized controlled trials.

Project description:To compare the outcomes of preoperative endoscopic nasobiliary drainage (ENBD) and endoscopic retrograde biliary drainage (ERBD) in patients with malignant distal biliary obstruction prior to pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD).Data from 153 consecutive patients who underwent preoperative endoscopic biliary drainage prior to PD between January 2009 and July 2016 were analyzed. We compared the clinical data, procedure-related complications of endoscopic biliary drainage (EBD) and postoperative complications of PD between the ENBD and ERBD groups. Univariate and multivariate analyses with odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (95%CIs) were used to identify the risk factors for deep abdominal infection after PD.One hundred and two (66.7%) patients underwent ENBD, and 51 (33.3%) patients underwent ERBD. Endoscopic sphincterotomy was less frequently performed in the ENBD group than in the ERBD group (P = 0.039); the EBD duration in the ENBD group was shorter than that in the ERBD group (P = 0.036). After EBD, the levels of total bilirubin (TB) and alanine aminotransferase (ALT) were obviously decreased in both groups, and the decreases of TB and ALT in the ERBD group were greater than those in the ENBD group (P = 0.004 and P = 0.000, respectively). However, the rate of EBD procedure-related cholangitis was significantly higher in the ERBD group than in the ENBD group (P = 0.007). The postoperative complications of PD as graded by the Clavien-Dindo classification system were not significantly different between the two groups (P = 0.864). However, the incidence of deep abdominal infection after PD was significantly lower in the ENBD group than in the ERBD group (P = 0.019). Male gender (OR = 3.92; 95%CI: 1.63-9.47; P = 0.002), soft pancreas texture (OR = 3.60; 95%CI: 1.37-9.49; P = 0.009), length of biliary stricture (≥ 1.5 cm) (OR = 5.20; 95%CI: 2.23-12.16; P = 0.000) and ERBD method (OR = 4.08; 95%CI: 1.69-9.87; P = 0.002) were independent risk factors for deep abdominal infection after PD.ENBD is an optimal method for patients with malignant distal biliary obstruction prior to PD. ERBD is superior to ENBD in terms of patient tolerance and the effect of biliary drainage but is associated with an increased risk of EBD procedure-related cholangitis and deep abdominal infection after PD.