Back to Authors

Narala, Sai B.

Mayo Clinic

University of Nevada, Reno

Citations 2

The outcomes ofClostridioides difficileinfection in patients with diverticular disease: a nationwide analysis
Abdalla, Abubaker , Narala, Sai B., Abdallah, Mohamed A., Doshi, Rajkumar , Gullapalli, Nageshwara , Abdalla, Abubaker O , Doshi, Rajkumar P , Abdallah, Mohamed A.

Scandinavian Journal of Gastroenterology | October 30, 2019 | Volume: 54 | Issue: 11 | Pages: 1353-1356

10.1080/00365521.2019.1683223 Get It

882 EUS-Guided Gastroenterostomy (GE) versus Surgical Gastroenterostomy for Patients With Malignant Gastric Outlet Obstruction: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Jayaraj, Mahendran , Singh, Dhruv P. , Ravikumar, Naveen Prasad Gopalakrishnan, Narala, Sai B., Krishnamoorthi, Rajesh

American Journal of Gastroenterology | October 8, 2019 | Volume: 114 | Issue: 1 | Pages: S510-S512

10.14309/01.ajg.0000593064.39353.39 Get It

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.