Jayaraj, Mahendran

Abstract Background and study aims Palliative treatment of malignant gastric outlet obstruction (GOO) has conventionally been with surgical gastrojejunostomy (SGJ). Advent of devices like lumen apposing metal stents has made endoscopic ultrasound-guided gastroenterostomy (EUS-GE) a potential alternative to SGJ for these patients. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies that compared outcomes of EUS-GE versus SGJ. Methods We performed a comprehensive systematic search of multiple electronic databases and conference proceedings through January 2021 and identified six studies that compared outcomes of EUS-GE versus SGJ in the management of malignant GOO. The rates of technical success, clinical success, and AEs were analyzed, and pooled odds ratios were calculated using random effects model. Results Six studies were included in our analysis with a total of 484 patients, of which 291 underwent EUS-GE and 193 underwent SGJ. The technical success rate of SGJ was superior to EUS-GE (OR = 0.195; 95 %CI:0.054–0.702; P = 0.012; I2 = 0). The clinical success of EUS-GE was statistically similar to SGJ (OR = 1.566; 95 %CI:0.585–4.197; P = 0.372; I2 = 46.68 %). EUS-GE had significantly fewer AEs compared to SGJ (OR = 0.295; 95 %CI:0.172–0.506; P < 0.005; I2 = 0). Among studies which reported reintervention rates, EUS-GE was statistically similar to SGJ (OR = 0.587; 95 %CI:0.174–1.979; P = 0.390, I2 = 54.91). Minimal to moderate heterogeneity was noted in the analyses. Conclusions EUS-GE has equivalent clinical success and reintervention rates, but significantly lower adverse events compared to SGJ. When feasible, EUS-GE appears to be an effective and safe alternative to SGJ for palliative management of malignant GOO.

Background: Endoscopic ultrasound–guided rendezvous (EUS-RV) endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is an alternative to interventional radiology–guided rendezvous ERCP in patients who failed biliary cannulation with conventional ERCP. However, there is significant variation in reported rates of success and adverse events associated with EUS-RV-assisted ERCP. We performed a systematic review and a proportion meta-analysis to reliably assess the effectiveness and safety of the EUS-RV-assisted ERCP. Materials and Methods: We conducted a comprehensive search of multiple electronic databases and conference proceedings (from inception through August 2020) to identify studies reporting EUS-RV-assisted ERCP in patients who failed biliary cannulation with conventional ERCP techniques. Using the random-effects model described by DerSimonian and Laird, we calculated the pooled rates of technical success, clinical success, and adverse events of EUS-RV-assisted ERCP. Results: Twelve studies reporting a total of 342 patients were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled rate of technical success (12 studies reporting a total of 342 patients) was 86.1% [95% confidence interval (CI): 78.4-91.3]. The pooled rate of clinical success (4 studies reporting a total of 94 patients) was 80.8% (95% CI: 64.1-90.8). The pooled rate of overall adverse events (12 studies; 42 events in 342 patients) was 14% (95% CI: 10.5-18.4). Low to moderate heterogeneity was noted in the analyses. Conclusions: EUS-RV-assisted ERCP appears to be effective and safe in patients who failed biliary cannulation with conventional ERCP. Given the risk of adverse events, it should be performed in centers with expertise in therapeutic endoscopic ultrasound.

AbstractBackground Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in patients with Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) anatomy is challenging. Overtube-assisted enteroscopy (OAE) is usually needed to perform ERCP in these patients. There is significant variation in the reported rates of success and adverse events across published studies. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to reliably estimate the pooled rates of success and adverse events.Methods We performed a systematic search of multiple electronic databases through February 2020 to identify studies reporting outcomes of OAE-ERCP in post-RYGB patients. The pooled rates of enteroscopy success, technical success, and adverse events were estimated for OAE-ERCP. The pooled rates of success and adverse events were also estimated for ERCP using double-balloon enteroscopes (DBE) alone.Results 10 studies reporting a total of 398 procedures were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled rates of enteroscopy and technical success of OAE-ERCP were 75.3 % (95 % confidence interval [CI] 64.5 – 83.6) and 64.8 % (95 %CI 53.1 – 74.9) respectively. The pooled rate of adverse events was 8.0 % (95 %CI 5.2 – 12.2). The pooled rates of enteroscopy and technical success of DBE-ERCP (four studies) were 83.5 % (95 %CI 68.3 – 92.2) and 72.5 % (95 %CI 52.3 – 86.4), respectively. The pooled rate of adverse events with DBE-ERCP was 9.0 % (95 %CI 5.4 – 14.5). Substantial heterogeneity was noted.Conclusions OAE-ERCP appears to be effective and safe in post-RYGB patients. Among the currently available techniques, OAE-ERCP is the least invasive approach in this challenging group of patients. Future studies comparing the effectiveness and safety of alternative novel techniques, such as endosonography-directed transgastric ERCP, with OAE-ERCP are needed.

INTRODUCTION: In patients with acute cholecystitis who were deemed high risk for cholecystectomy, percutaneous cholecystostomy (PC) was historically performed for decompression of the gallbladder. There are several limitations associated with PC. Endoscopic gallbladder drainage [Endoscopic trans-papillary gallbladder drainage (ET-GBD) via ERCP and EUS-guided gallbladder drainage (EUS-GBD)] is an alternative to PC. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the outcomes between the two endoscopic techniques (EUS-GBD vs ET-GBD). METHODS: We performed a systematic search of multiple databases through May 2019 to identify studies that compared outcomes of EUS-GBD versus ET-GBD in management of acute cholecystitis in high risk surgical patients. Pooled odds ratios (OR) of technical success, clinical success and adverse events between EUS-GBD and ET-GBD groups were calculated. RESULTS: Five comparative studies with a total of 861 patients; were included in the analysis. The pooled OR for technical success of EUS-GBD in comparison to ET-GBD was 5.22 (95% CI: 2.03-13.44; P = 0.01; I 2 = 20%). The pooled OR for clinical success (EUS-GBD vs ET-GBD) in intention-to-treat analysis was 4.16 (95% CI: 2.00-8.66; P = 0.001; I 2 = 19%) and per-protocol analysis was 1.81 (95% CI: 0.80-4.09; P = 0.15; I 2 =0%). The pooled OR for overall acute adverse events (EUS-GBD vs ET-GBD) was 1.32 (95% CI: 0.78 -2.25; P = 0.31, I 2 = 0%). The pooled OR for perforation and pancreatitis (EUS-GBD vs ETGBD) were 1.98 (95% CI: 0.32-12.29) and 0.19 (95% CI: 0.03-0.99) respectively. The pooled OR for recurrent cholecystitis (EUS-GBD vs ETGBD) was 0.33 (95% CI: 0.13-0.82). There was minimal heterogeneity in the analysis. CONCLUSION: EUS-GBD is associated with higher rate of technical and clinical success compared to ET-GBD. While the rate of overall acute adverse events are statistically similar between the two techniques, EUS-GBD is associated with lower rate of recurrent cholecystitis. In centers with expertise in EUS, EUS-GBD could be considered as first-line treatment in carefully selected patients.

INTRODUCTION: Surgical gastroenterostomy has been the traditional approach to manage malignant gastric outlet obstruction (GOO). With advances in Endoscopic Ultrasound (EUS) technology and availability of dedicated devices and stents for EUS scopes, EUS guided gastroenterostomy (GE) is emerging as an alternative to surgical gastroenterostomy. Recently studies have been published comparing the outcomes between these two approaches. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies that compare the outcomes between the two approaches (EUS-GE vs Surgical GE). METHODS: We performed a systematic search of multiple databases through May 2019 to identify studies that compared outcomes of EUS-GE vs surgical GE in management of malignant gastric outlet obstruction. Pooled odds ratios (OR) of technical success, clinical success and adverse events between EUS-GE and surgical GE groups were calculated. RESULTS: Three comparative studies with a total of 171 patients; were included in the analysis. The pooled OR for technical success of EUS-GE in comparison to surgical GE was 0.16 (95% CI: 0.03-0.86; P = 0.033; I 2 = 2%). The pooled OR for clinical success (EUS-GE vs surgical GE) was 0.98 (95% CI: 0.13-7.48; P = 0.984; I 2 = 25%) The pooled OR for overall adverse events (EUS-GE vs surgical GE) was 0.35 (95% CI: 0.15-0.81; P = 0.014, I 2 = 0%). There was minimal heterogeneity in the analysis. CONCLUSION: While EUS-GE is associated with similar rates of clinical success compared to surgical GE, the rate of overall adverse events is statistically lower. Hence in centers with expertise in EUS, EUS-GE could be considered as an effective alternate option.

INTRODUCTION: Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) guided gastroenterostomy (GE) is emerging as an alternative to enteral stenting and surgical GE for management of malignant gastric outlet obstruction (GOO). With advances in EUS technology and availability of dedicated devices/stents for EUS scopes, the use of EUS-GE is expected to increase in the future. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to estimate the success rate and adverse events associated with EUS-GE. METHODS: We conducted a comprehensive search of multiple electronic databases and conference proceedings including PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science databases (from inception through May 2019) to identify studies that reported success rate and adverse events of EUS-GE. The primary outcome was to estimate the pooled rates of technical and clinical success of EUS-GE. The secondary outcome was to estimate the rate of adverse events. RESULTS: 9 studies with a total of 268 patients were included. The pooled rate of technical success of EUS-GE was 91.7 % (95% CI 87.5 – 94.5; I2 = 0). The pooled rate of clinical success of EUS-GJ was 87.8% (95% CI 83.1 – 91.3; I 2 = 0). The pooled rate of overall adverse events was 12.6% (95% CI 9.0- 17.6; I 2 = 0). The pooled rate of individual adverse events – perforation, bleeding, peritonitis and stent migration / misdeployment were 2% (95% CI 0.7 – 5.1), 3.2% (95% CI 1.5 – 6.5), 2.6% (95% CI 1.1-6.1) and 8.9 % (95% CI 4.3-17.5) respectively.The rate of surgical intervention for adverse events was 2%. CONCLUSION: While the rates of technical success (92%) and clinical success (88%) of EUS-GJ is promising, the risk of adverse events is considerable at 12.6%, with stent misdeployment (9%) being the most common adverse event. Hence, EUS-GJ should be performed at tertiary referral centers in a multidisciplinary (surgery, oncology, gastroenterology) team-based approach.