No abstract

Introduction: Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography is the preferred method in biliary drainage. Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) guidance has shown tremendous success in situations where endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography fails or is contraindicated. EUS-guided choledochoduodenostomy (CDD) in particular is gathering a lot of interest due to its ease, and high rates of success. The reported adverse events with this procedure have been inconsistent among studies. Methods: We conducted a search of multiple electronic databases and conference proceedings from inception through June 2018. The primary outcome was to estimate the risk of adverse events, and the commonly reported subtype of adverse events in EUS-CDD. The secondary outcome was to estimate the pooled technical and clinical success rates. Results: Thirteen studies including 572 patients underwent biliary drainage with EUS-CDD. The pooled rate of all adverse events was 0.136 (95% confidence interval, 0.097-0.188; P=0.01) with moderate heterogeneity (I 2=56.9), and pooled rate of cholangitis was 4.2%, bleeding was 4.1%, bile leak was 3.7%, and perforation was 2.9%. On subgroup analysis, the pooled rate of adverse events with the use of lumen-apposing metal stent was 9.3% (95% confidence interval, 4.8-17.3). Conclusions: On the basis of our analysis EUS-CDD has an adverse event risk of 13.4%, which is lowest reported in literature so far. Reported adverse rates appeared to be lower with the use of lumen-apposing metal stent, except for perforation.

No abstract

Lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMS) are increasingly being used in the drainage of pancreatic walled-off necrosis (WON). Best choice of stent is subject to argument, and studies are varied in the reported outcomes between LAMS and plastic stents (PS) to this end. We conducted a comprehensive search of multiple electronic databases and conference proceedings including PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science databases (earliest inception through July 2018) to identify studies that reported on the use of LAMS and PS in WON drainage. Studies published since the release of the revised Atlanta classification for pancreatic fluid collections (2014 to current) were included in the analysis. The outcomes were to estimate and compare the pooled rates of clinical success, and adverse-events. A total of 9 studies (737 patients) for LAMS and 6 studies (527 patients) for PS were included in the analysis. The pooled rate of clinical-success with LAMS was 88.5% (95% CI 82.5-92.6, I 2 = 71.7) and with PS was 88.1% (95% CI 80.5-93.0, I 2 = 78.1) and the difference was not statistically significant, P = 0.93. No difference was noted in the pooled rates of all adverse-events, LAMS: 11.2% (6.8-17.9, I 2 = 82.0); vs PS: 15.9% (8.4-27.8, I 2 = 78.8); P = 0.38. Based on our meta-analysis, LAMS and PS demonstrate equal clinical outcomes and equal adverse-events in the drainage of pancreatic WON.