Biliary stenting with and without endoscopic sphincterotomy in patients with malignant biliary obstruction: meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

IF 1.8 4区 医学 Q3 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY European Journal of Gastroenterology & Hepatology Pub Date : 2025-03-01 Epub Date: 2025-01-29 DOI:10.1097/MEG.0000000000002913
Aamir Saeed, Saira Yousuf, Muhammad Ali Khan, Manesh Kumar Gangwani, Muhammad Aziz, Ray Arnab, Janak Shah, Anand Kumar, Alexander Schlachterman, Thomas Kowalski, Faisal Kamal
{"title":"Biliary stenting with and without endoscopic sphincterotomy in patients with malignant biliary obstruction: meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.","authors":"Aamir Saeed, Saira Yousuf, Muhammad Ali Khan, Manesh Kumar Gangwani, Muhammad Aziz, Ray Arnab, Janak Shah, Anand Kumar, Alexander Schlachterman, Thomas Kowalski, Faisal Kamal","doi":"10.1097/MEG.0000000000002913","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Endoscopic biliary sphincterotomy (EBS) is commonly performed during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in patients with malignant biliary obstruction (MBO) before stent placement. Studies comparing adverse events between patients with MBO undergoing ERCP with and without EBS have reported conflicting results. We conducted an updated meta-analysis including randomized controlled trials (RCTs) only to evaluate the safety of EBS in these patients and its efficacy in decreasing the risk of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP). We reviewed several databases from inception to 10 January 2024 to identify RCTs that compared adverse events of biliary stenting with and without EBS in the patients with MBO. Our outcomes of interest were PEP, successful stent insertion, and adverse events such as cholangitis, bleeding, perforation, stent migration, and stent occlusion. We calculated pooled risk ratio with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for all of the outcomes and used a random effect model to analyze the data. We included six RCTs with 1070 patients. There was no significant difference in rate of PEP between groups [risk ratio (95% CI): 0.50 (0.23-1.08)]. We found no significant difference in the rate of successful stent insertion between groups [risk ratio (95% CI): 1.01 (0.99-1.02)]. The rate of post-ERCP bleeding was significantly higher in EBS group [risk ratio (95% CI): 7.43 (2.45-22.53)]. We found no significant difference in rates of cholangitis, perforation, stent migration, and stent occlusion between groups. EBS does not decrease the risk of PEP in patients with MBO and is associated with increased risk of bleeding.</p>","PeriodicalId":11999,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Gastroenterology & Hepatology","volume":"37 3","pages":"257-262"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Gastroenterology & Hepatology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/MEG.0000000000002913","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/29 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Endoscopic biliary sphincterotomy (EBS) is commonly performed during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in patients with malignant biliary obstruction (MBO) before stent placement. Studies comparing adverse events between patients with MBO undergoing ERCP with and without EBS have reported conflicting results. We conducted an updated meta-analysis including randomized controlled trials (RCTs) only to evaluate the safety of EBS in these patients and its efficacy in decreasing the risk of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP). We reviewed several databases from inception to 10 January 2024 to identify RCTs that compared adverse events of biliary stenting with and without EBS in the patients with MBO. Our outcomes of interest were PEP, successful stent insertion, and adverse events such as cholangitis, bleeding, perforation, stent migration, and stent occlusion. We calculated pooled risk ratio with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for all of the outcomes and used a random effect model to analyze the data. We included six RCTs with 1070 patients. There was no significant difference in rate of PEP between groups [risk ratio (95% CI): 0.50 (0.23-1.08)]. We found no significant difference in the rate of successful stent insertion between groups [risk ratio (95% CI): 1.01 (0.99-1.02)]. The rate of post-ERCP bleeding was significantly higher in EBS group [risk ratio (95% CI): 7.43 (2.45-22.53)]. We found no significant difference in rates of cholangitis, perforation, stent migration, and stent occlusion between groups. EBS does not decrease the risk of PEP in patients with MBO and is associated with increased risk of bleeding.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
恶性胆道梗阻患者行内镜下或不经内镜下括约肌切开术的胆道支架植入术:随机对照试验的荟萃分析
内镜下胆道括约肌切开术(EBS)通常在内镜逆行胆管造影(ERCP)中用于恶性胆道梗阻(MBO)患者置入支架前。比较MBO患者接受ERCP合并EBS和不合并EBS的不良事件的研究报告了相互矛盾的结果。我们进行了一项更新的荟萃分析,包括随机对照试验(rct),仅评估EBS在这些患者中的安全性及其降低ercp后胰腺炎(PEP)风险的有效性。我们回顾了从建立到2024年1月10日的几个数据库,以确定比较MBO患者胆道支架置入与不置入EBS的不良事件的随机对照试验。我们感兴趣的结果是PEP、支架置入成功和不良事件,如胆管炎、出血、穿孔、支架迁移和支架闭塞。我们以95%置信区间(ci)计算所有结果的合并风险比,并使用随机效应模型分析数据。我们纳入了6项随机对照试验,共1070例患者。两组患者PEP发生率差异无统计学意义[危险比(95% CI): 0.50(0.23-1.08)]。我们发现两组间支架置入成功率无显著差异[风险比(95% CI): 1.01(0.99-1.02)]。EBS组ercp后出血发生率明显高于对照组[风险比(95% CI): 7.43(2.45-22.53)]。我们发现两组之间胆管炎、穿孔、支架迁移和支架闭塞的发生率无显著差异。EBS不能降低MBO患者PEP的风险,而且与出血风险增加有关。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
4.80%
发文量
269
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: European Journal of Gastroenterology & Hepatology publishes papers reporting original clinical and scientific research which are of a high standard and which contribute to the advancement of knowledge in the field of gastroenterology and hepatology. The journal publishes three types of manuscript: in-depth reviews (by invitation only), full papers and case reports. Manuscripts submitted to the journal will be accepted on the understanding that the author has not previously submitted the paper to another journal or had the material published elsewhere. Authors are asked to disclose any affiliations, including financial, consultant, or institutional associations, that might lead to bias or a conflict of interest.
期刊最新文献
Nutrition and the pancreas. Role of vessels encapsulating tumor clusters patterns in hepatocellular carcinoma: a literature review. Global, regional, and national burden of liver cancer due to hepatitis B, 1990-2021 and projections to 2051: a systematic analysis of the Global Burden of Disease Study 2021. Eosinophilic esophagitis is the leading cause of dysphagia in an outpatient setting. Correlating endoscopic findings with pathology to optimize biopsy strategies in gastritis: insights from a large cohort study.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1