Comparison of Efficacy and Safety between Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography and Percutaneous Transhepatic Cholangial Drainage for the Treatment of Malignant Obstructive Jaundice: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

IF 3 3区 医学 Q2 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY Digestion Pub Date : 2023-01-01 DOI:10.1159/000528020
Liwei Pang, Shuodong Wu, Jing Kong
{"title":"Comparison of Efficacy and Safety between Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography and Percutaneous Transhepatic Cholangial Drainage for the Treatment of Malignant Obstructive Jaundice: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.","authors":"Liwei Pang,&nbsp;Shuodong Wu,&nbsp;Jing Kong","doi":"10.1159/000528020","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>At present, endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and percutaneous transhepatic cholangial drainage (PTCD) are frequently used for reducing malignant obstructive jaundice (MOJ). However, it is controversial as to which method is superior in terms of efficacy and safety.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The aim of this study was to compare the safety, feasibility, and clinical benefits of ERCP and PTCD in matched cases of MOJ.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The Web of Science, Cochrane, PubMed, and CNKI databases were searched systematically to identify studies published between January 2000 and December 2019, without language restrictions, that compared ERCP and PTCD in patients with MOJ. The primary outcome was the success rate for each procedure. The secondary outcomes were the technical success rate, serum total bilirubin level, length of hospital stay, hospital expense, complication rate, and survival. This meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager 5.3.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Sixteen studies met the inclusion criteria, including 1,143 cases of ERCP and 854 cases of PTCD. The analysis demonstrated that jaundice remission in PTCD was equal to that in ERCP (mean difference [MD], 1.19; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.56 to -2.93; p = 0.18). However, the length of hospital stay in the ERCP group was 3.03 days shorter than that in the PTCD group (MD, -2.41; 95% CI: -4.61 to -0.22; p = 0.03). ERCP had a lower rate of postoperative complications (odds ratio, 0.66; 95% CI: 0.42-1.05); however, the difference was not significant (p = 0.08). ERCP was also more cost-efficient (MD, -5.42; 95% CI: -5.52 to -5.32; p < 0.01). Further, we calculated the absolute mean of hospital stay (ERCP:PTCD = 8.73:12.95 days), hospital expenses (ERCP:PTCD = 5,104.13:5,866.75 RMB), and postoperative complications (ERCP:PTCD = 11.2%:9.1%) in both groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>For remission of MOJ, PTCD and ERCP had similar clinical efficacy. Each method has its own strengths and weaknesses. Considering that ERCP had a lower rate of postoperative complications, shorter hospital stay, and higher cost efficiency, ERCP may be a superior initial treatment choice for MOJ.</p>","PeriodicalId":11315,"journal":{"name":"Digestion","volume":"104 2","pages":"85-96"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10015759/pdf/","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Digestion","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1159/000528020","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Background: At present, endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and percutaneous transhepatic cholangial drainage (PTCD) are frequently used for reducing malignant obstructive jaundice (MOJ). However, it is controversial as to which method is superior in terms of efficacy and safety.

Objectives: The aim of this study was to compare the safety, feasibility, and clinical benefits of ERCP and PTCD in matched cases of MOJ.

Methods: The Web of Science, Cochrane, PubMed, and CNKI databases were searched systematically to identify studies published between January 2000 and December 2019, without language restrictions, that compared ERCP and PTCD in patients with MOJ. The primary outcome was the success rate for each procedure. The secondary outcomes were the technical success rate, serum total bilirubin level, length of hospital stay, hospital expense, complication rate, and survival. This meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager 5.3.

Results: Sixteen studies met the inclusion criteria, including 1,143 cases of ERCP and 854 cases of PTCD. The analysis demonstrated that jaundice remission in PTCD was equal to that in ERCP (mean difference [MD], 1.19; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.56 to -2.93; p = 0.18). However, the length of hospital stay in the ERCP group was 3.03 days shorter than that in the PTCD group (MD, -2.41; 95% CI: -4.61 to -0.22; p = 0.03). ERCP had a lower rate of postoperative complications (odds ratio, 0.66; 95% CI: 0.42-1.05); however, the difference was not significant (p = 0.08). ERCP was also more cost-efficient (MD, -5.42; 95% CI: -5.52 to -5.32; p < 0.01). Further, we calculated the absolute mean of hospital stay (ERCP:PTCD = 8.73:12.95 days), hospital expenses (ERCP:PTCD = 5,104.13:5,866.75 RMB), and postoperative complications (ERCP:PTCD = 11.2%:9.1%) in both groups.

Conclusion: For remission of MOJ, PTCD and ERCP had similar clinical efficacy. Each method has its own strengths and weaknesses. Considering that ERCP had a lower rate of postoperative complications, shorter hospital stay, and higher cost efficiency, ERCP may be a superior initial treatment choice for MOJ.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

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
内镜逆行胆管造影与经皮经肝胆管引流治疗恶性梗阻性黄疸的疗效和安全性比较:系统综述和meta分析。
背景:目前,内镜逆行胆管造影(ERCP)和经皮经肝胆管引流(PTCD)是治疗恶性梗阻性黄疸(MOJ)的常用方法。然而,哪一种方法在疗效和安全性方面更优,一直存在争议。目的:本研究的目的是比较ERCP和PTCD在MOJ匹配病例中的安全性、可行性和临床益处。方法:系统检索Web of Science、Cochrane、PubMed和CNKI数据库,以确定2000年1月至2019年12月期间发表的无语言限制的研究,这些研究比较了MOJ患者的ERCP和PTCD。主要结果是每次手术的成功率。次要结果为技术成功率、血清总胆红素水平、住院时间、住院费用、并发症发生率和生存率。meta分析使用Review Manager 5.3进行。结果:16项研究符合纳入标准,其中ERCP 1143例,PTCD 854例。分析显示PTCD组黄疸缓解与ERCP组相同(平均差值[MD], 1.19;95%置信区间[CI]: -0.56 ~ -2.93;P = 0.18)。ERCP组住院时间比PTCD组短3.03 d (MD, -2.41;95% CI: -4.61 ~ -0.22;P = 0.03)。ERCP术后并发症发生率较低(优势比0.66;95% ci: 0.42-1.05);但差异无统计学意义(p = 0.08)。ERCP也更具成本效益(MD, -5.42;95% CI: -5.52 ~ -5.32;P < 0.01)。进一步计算两组患者的绝对平均住院时间(ERCP:PTCD = 8.73:12.95天)、住院费用(ERCP:PTCD = 5,104.13:5,866.75元)和术后并发症(ERCP:PTCD = 11.2%:9.1%)。结论:PTCD与ERCP治疗MOJ的临床疗效相近。每种方法都有自己的优点和缺点。考虑到ERCP术后并发症发生率低,住院时间短,成本效益高,ERCP可能是MOJ的首选初始治疗选择。
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
Digestion
Digestion 医学-胃肠肝病学
CiteScore
7.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
39
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: ''Digestion'' concentrates on clinical research reports: in addition to editorials and reviews, the journal features sections on Stomach/Esophagus, Bowel, Neuro-Gastroenterology, Liver/Bile, Pancreas, Metabolism/Nutrition and Gastrointestinal Oncology. Papers cover physiology in humans, metabolic studies and clinical work on the etiology, diagnosis, and therapy of human diseases. It is thus especially cut out for gastroenterologists employed in hospitals and outpatient units. Moreover, the journal''s coverage of studies on the metabolism and effects of therapeutic drugs carries considerable value for clinicians and investigators beyond the immediate field of gastroenterology.
期刊最新文献
Estimation of invasion depth of early colorectal cancer using Endoscopic ultrasonography and Magnifying chromoendoscopy: a meta-analysis. Effects of a protease inhibitor camostat mesilate on gut microbial function in patients with irritable bowel syndrome: A pilot randomized placebo-controlled study. Surveillance after endoscopic resection for colorectal tumors: a comprehensive review. DYRK2 regulates epithelial-mesenchymal transition restriction in pancreatic cancer liver metastasis by inhibiting Twist. Endoscopic resection for colorectal tumors.
×
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:481959085
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