Dataset Information

Double Stenting for Malignant Biliary and Duodenal Obstruction: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

ABSTRACT: INTRODUCTION:Data about the efficacy of palliative double stenting for malignant duodenal and biliary obstruction are limited. METHODS:A systematic literature search was performed to assess the feasibility and optimal method of double stenting for malignant duodenobiliary obstruction compared with surgical double bypass in terms of technical and clinical success, adverse events, reinterventions, and survival. Event rates with 95% confidence intervals were calculated. RESULTS:Seventy-two retrospective and 8 prospective studies published until July 2018 were included. Technical and clinical success rates of double stenting were 97% (95%-99%) and 92% (89%-95%), respectively. Clinical success of endoscopic biliary stenting was higher than that of surgery (97% [94%-99%] vs 86% [78%-92%]). Double stenting was associated with less adverse events (13% [8%-19%] vs 28% [19%-38%]) but more frequent need for reintervention (21% [16%-27%] vs 10% [4%-19%]) than double bypass. No significant difference was found between technical and clinical success and reintervention rate of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), percutaneous transhepatic drainage, and endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage. ERCP was associated with the least adverse events (3% [1%-6%]), followed by percutaneous transhepatic drainage (10% [0%-37%]) and endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage (23% [15%-33%]). DISCUSSION:Substantially high technical and clinical success can be achieved with double stenting. Based on the adverse event profile, ERCP can be recommended as the first choice for biliary stenting as part of double stenting, if feasible. Prospective comparative studies with well-defined outcomes and cohorts are needed.

SUBMITTER: Fabian A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7263659 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Double Stenting for Malignant Biliary and Duodenal Obstruction: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Fábián Anna A Bor Renáta R Gede Noémi N Bacsur Péter P Pécsi Dániel D Hegyi Péter P Tóth Barbara B Szakács Zsolt Z Vincze Áron Á Ruzsics István I Rakonczay Zoltán Z Erőss Bálint B Sepp Róbert R Szepes Zoltán Z

Clinical and translational gastroenterology 20200401 4

<h4>Introduction</h4>Data about the efficacy of palliative double stenting for malignant duodenal and biliary obstruction are limited.<h4>Methods</h4>A systematic literature search was performed to assess the feasibility and optimal method of double stenting for malignant duodenobiliary obstruction compared with surgical double bypass in terms of technical and clinical success, adverse events, reinterventions, and survival. Event rates with 95% confidence intervals were calculated.<h4>Results</h ...[more]

PMID: 32352679

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.

Dataset Information

Double Stenting for Malignant Biliary and Duodenal Obstruction: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Publications

Double Stenting for Malignant Biliary and Duodenal Obstruction: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets