RESUMO
Background: Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMS) are preferred for draining symptomatic large pancreatic fluid collections (PFCs). A concurrent coaxial double-pigtail plastic stent (DPPS) is proposed to reduce adverse events associated with LAMS. We aimed to perform a comparative outcome analysis of LAMS with or without DPPS for PFCs. Methods: Electronic databases from January 2005 through July 2023 were searched for studies comparing the use of LAMS with or without DPPS for PFCs. Pooled proportions were calculated using fixed (inverse variance) and random-effects (DerSimonian-Laird) models. Results: After reviewing 1780 studies, we extracted data from 6 studies comprising 348 patients. The weighted odds of overall technical success, using LAMS plus DPPS compared to LAMS alone, were 0.53 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.15-1.83), and the odds of clinical success were 1.10 (95%CI 0.59-2.05). The weighted odds of total adverse events with LAMS compared to LAMS plus DPPS were 2.21 (95%CI 1.37-3.59). Analysis of individual adverse events showed that the odds of stent occlusion when LAMS alone was used compared to LAMS plus DPPS was 2.36 (95%CI 1.12-4.98). The odds of bleeding were 1.84 (95%CI 0.77-4.38), and the odds of stent migration 0.95 (95%CI 0.40-2.23). Conclusions: EUS-guided LAMS placement is the current standard of care for managing symptomatic large PFCs. Concurrent use of coaxial DPPS can mitigate the overall adverse events observed with LAMS, while maintaining similar technical and clinical success.
RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: Endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) is an alternative to endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP)-guided transpapillary drainage in malignant distal biliary obstruction (MDBO). This meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) aims to compare the outcomes of these 2 approaches. METHODS: Electronic databases from January 2005 through December 2023 were searched for RCTs comparing outcomes of EUS-BD and ERCP for treating MDBO. Pooled proportions, risk ratio (RR), and odds ratio were calculated using random-effects models. RESULTS: Five RCTs comprising 519 patients were included in the final analysis. The pooled RR for overall technical success with EUS-BD compared with ERCP was 1.05 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.96-1.16, P = 0.246, I2 = 61%) and for clinical success was 0.99 (95% CI = 0.95-1.04, P = 0.850, I2 = 0%). The pooled rate of procedure-related pancreatitis was 7.20% (95% CI = 3.60-13.80, I2 = 34%) in the ERCP group compared with zero in the EUS-BD group. The pooled RR for stent dysfunction with EUS-BD compared with ERCP was 0.48 (95% CI = 0.28-0.83, P = 0.008, I2 = 7%). The weighted mean procedure time was 13.43 (SD = 10.12) minutes for EUS-BD compared with 21.06 (SD = 6.64) minutes for ERCP. The mean stent patency was 194.11 (SD = 52.12) days in the EUS-BD group and 187 (SD = 60.70) days in the ERCP group. DISCUSSION: EUS-BD is an efficient and safe alternative to ERCP in MDBO. An almost nonexistent risk of procedure-related pancreatitis, lower procedure time, and ease of use make this an attractive primary approach to biliary decompression in centers with expertise.
RESUMO
Background: Endoscopic ultrasound guided celiac plexus neurolysis (EUS- CPN) has been reported to be an effective way to help with pain in pancreatic cancer patient. The aim of our updated meta-analysis is to assess the efficacy of pain relief in patients with pancreatic cancer who underwent EUS guided neurolysis. Methods: Pooled proportions were calculated using both Mantel-Haenszel method (fixed effects model) and DerSimonian Laird method (random effects model). The heterogeneity among studies was tested using Cochran's Q test based upon inverse variance weights. Results: Initial search identified 176 reference articles, of which 34 were selected and reviewed in detail. Sixteen studies that met the inclusion criteria were included in this analysis. The mean age of patients undergoing neurolysis was 56.31 ± 19.72 years. Number of males, N = 563 (57.4%), was higher than the number of females, N = 417 (42.5%). The pooled proportion of patients who showed pain relief with EUS-guided neurolysis was 71% (95% CI = 68-74). Bias calculated using Begg-Mazumdar was not significant (p = 0.8). In a subgroup analysis, when comparing the central and bilateral techniques, the pooled proportion of patients with pain relief was 66% (95% CI = 61-71) and 57% (95% CI = 48-67), respectively. Conclusions: Our results show that EUS guided CPN could provide relief in as much as 70% of patients with central neurolysis technique having some edge over peripheral neurolysis. Further larger scale randomized controlled trials may further help to elaborate the efficacy of central vs peripheral neurolysis.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Pancreatic cancer (PC) mortality remains high despite advances in therapy. Combination chemoradiotherapy offers modest survival benefit over monotherapy with either. Fiducial markers serve as needed landmarks for image-guided radiotherapy (IGRT). Traditionally, these markers were placed surgically or percutaneously with limitations of each. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided placement overcomes these limitations. AIM: To evaluate the safety, efficacy, and feasibility of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fiducial placement for PC undergoing IGRT. METHODS: Articles were searched in MEDLINE, PubMed, and Ovid journals. Pooling was conducted by fixed and random effects models. Heterogeneity was assessed using Cochran's Q test based upon inverse variance weights. RESULTS: Initial search identified 1024 reference articles for EUS-guided fiducial placement in PC. Of these, 261 relevant articles were reviewed. Data was extracted from 11 studies (n = 820) meeting inclusion criteria. Pooled proportion of successful placement was 96.27% (95%CI: 95.35-97.81) with fiducial migration rates low at 4.33% (95%CI: 2.45-6.71). Adverse event rates remained low, with overall pooled proportion of 4.85% (95%CI: 3.04-7.03). CONCLUSION: EUS-guided placement of fiducial markers for IGRT of PC is safe, feasible, and efficacious. The ability to target deep structures under direct visualization while remaining minimally invasive are added benefits. Moreover, the ability to perform fine needle aspiration or celiac plexus neurolysis add value and increase patient-care efficiency. Whether EUS-guided fiducial placement improves outcomes in IGRT or offers any mortality benefits over traditional placement remains unknown and future studies are needed.
