Subscribe to RSS
![](/products/assets/desktop/img/oa-logo.png)
DOI: 10.1055/a-1236-3350
Efficacy and safety of endoscopic ultrasound-guided pancreatic duct drainage (EUS-PDD): A systematic review and meta-analysis of 714 patients
![](https://www.thieme-connect.de/media/10.1055-s-00025476/202011/lookinside/thumbnails/1982_10-1055-a-1236-3350-1.jpg)
Abstract
Background and study aims Endoscopic ultrasound guided pancreatic duct drainage (EUS-PDD) is a minimal-invasive therapeutic option to surgery and in patients with failed endoscopic retrograde pancreatography (ERP). The aim of this review was to quantitatively appraise the clinical outcomes of EUS-PDD by meta-analysis methods.
Methods We searched multiple databases from inception through March 2020 to identify studies that reported on EUS-PDD. Pooled rates of technical success, successful drainage of pancreatic duct, clinical success, and adverse events were calculated. Study heterogeneity was assessed using I2% and 95 % prediction interval.
Results A total of 22 studies (714 patients) were included. The pooled rate of technical success in EUS-PDD was 84.8 % (95 % CI 79.1–89.2). The pooled rate of successful PD drained by EUS-PDD was 77.5 % (95 % CI 63.1–87.4). The pooled rate of clinical success of EUS-PDD was 89.2 % (95 % CI 82.1–93.7). The pooled rate of all adverse events was 18.1 % (95 % CI 14.2–22.9). On sub-group analysis, the pooled technical success and clinical success of EUS-PDD from Japanese data were considerably superior (91.2 %, 83–95.6 & 92.5 %, 83.9–96.7, respectively). The pooled rate of post EUS-PDD acute pancreatitis was 6.6 % (95 % CI 4.5–9.4), bleeding was 4.1 % (95 % CI 2.7–6.2), perforation and/or pneumoperitoneum was 3.1 % (95 % CI 1.9–5), pancreatic leak and/or pancreatic fluid collection was 2.3 % (95 % CI 1.4–4), and infection was 2.8 % (95 % CI 1.7–4.6).
Conclusion EUS-PDD demonstrates high technical success and clinical success rates with acceptable adverse events. Technical success was especially high for anastomotic strictures.
Publication History
Received: 02 June 2020
Accepted: 23 July 2020
Article published online:
22 October 2020
© 2020. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commecial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany
-
References
- 1 Baars JE, Chen F, Sandroussi C. et al. EUS-guided pancreatic duct drainage: Approach to a challenging procedure. Endosc Ultrasound 2018; 7: 284-285
- 2 Giovannini M. EUS-guided pancreatic duct drainage: ready for prime time?. Gastrointestinal endoscopy 2013; 78: 865-867
- 3 Dumonceau J-M, Devière J, Le Moine O. et al. Endoscopic pancreatic drainage in chronic pancreatitis associated with ductal stones: long-term results. Gastrointest Endosc 1996; 43: 547-555
- 4 Adams DB, Ford MC, Anderson MC. Outcome after lateral pancreaticojejunostomy for chronic pancreatitis. Ann Surg 1994; 219: 481-489
- 5 François E, Kahaleh M, Giovannini M. et al. EUS-guided pancreaticogastrostomy. Gastrointest Endosc 2002; 56: 128-133
- 6 Barkay O, Sherman S, McHenry L. et al. Therapeutic EUS-assisted endoscopic retrograde pancreatography after failed pancreatic duct cannulation at ERCP. Gastrointest Endosc 2010; 71: 1166-1173
- 7 Chen YI, Levy MJ, Moreels TG. et al. An international multicenter study comparing EUS-guided pancreatic duct drainage with enteroscopy-assisted endoscopic retrograde pancreatography after Whipple surgery. Gastrointest Endosc 2017; 85: 170-177
- 8 Dalal A, Patil G, Maydeo A. Six-year retrospective analysis of endoscopic ultrasonography-guided pancreatic ductal interventions at a tertiary referral center. Digest Endosc 2020; 32: 409-416
- 9 Ergun M, Aouattah T, Gillain C. et al. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided transluminal drainage of pancreatic duct obstruction: long-term outcome. Endoscopy 2011; 43: 518-525
- 10 Fujii LL, Topazian MD, Abu Dayyeh BK. et al. EUS-guided pancreatic duct intervention: outcomes of a single tertiary-care referral center experience. Gastrointest Endosc 2013; 78: 854-864.e1
- 11 Godat S, David G, Maxime R. et al. Endoscopic ultra-sonography guided drainage of the main pancreatic duct: A Swiss multi-center experience. Swiss Med Weekly 2019; 149: 11-12
- 12 Hasegawa S, Sato T, Kubota K. et al. Usefulness of endoscopic ultrasonography-guided pancreatic duct drainage for patients in ERCP failure with pancreatitis due to obstruction of pancreatic duct. Pancreas 2019; 48: 1439-1440
- 13 Honjo M, Itoi T, Tsuchiya T. et al. Safety and efficacy of ultra-tapered mechanical dilator for EUS-guided hepaticogastrostomy and pancreatic duct drainage compared with electrocautery dilator (with video). Endosc Ultrasound 2018; 7: 376-382
- 14 Kahaleh M, Hernandez AJ, Tokar J. et al. EUS-guided pancreaticogastrostomy: analysis of its efficacy to drain inaccessible pancreatic ducts. Gastrointest Endosc 2007; 65: 224-230
- 15 Kato H, Mizukawa S, Yabe S. et al. The feasibility and effectiveness of EUS-guided pancreatic duct drainage. Pancreatology 2016; 16: S16-S17
- 16 Kurihara T, Itoi T, Sofuni A. et al. Endoscopic ultrasonography-guided pancreatic duct drainage after failed endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in patients with malignant and benign pancreatic duct obstructions. Digest Endosc 2013; 25: 109-116
- 17 Lee SS, Jang JW, Park DH. EUS-guided pancreatic duct drainage for symptomatic patients with pancreatic duct obstruction who are unsuitable for transpapillary drainage: Long-term follow-up results. Gastrointest Endosc 2012; 1: 845
- 18 Matsunami Y, Itoi T, Sofuni A. et al. Evaluation of a new stent for EUS-guided pancreatic duct drainage: long-term follow-up outcome. Endoscopy International Open 2018; 6: E505-E512
- 19 Oh D, Park DH, Cho MK. et al. Feasibility and safety of a fully covered self-expandable metal stent with antimigration properties for EUS-guided pancreatic duct drainage: early and midterm outcomes (with video). Gastrointest Endosc 2016; 83: 366-373
- 20 Oh D, Park DH, Song TJ. et al. Long-term outcome of endoscopic ultrasound-guided pancreatic duct drainage using a fully covered self-expandable metal stent for pancreaticojejunal anastomosis stricture. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2020; 35: 994-1001
- 21 Shah JN, Marson F, Weilert F. et al. Single-operator, single-session EUS-guided anterograde cholangiopancreatography in failed ERCP or inaccessible papilla. Gastrointest Endosc 2012; 75: 56-64
- 22 Tessier G, Bories E, Arvanitakis M. et al. EUS-guided pancreatogastrostomy and pancreatobulbostomy for the treatment of pain in patients with pancreatic ductal dilatation inaccessible for transpapillary endoscopic therapy. Gastrointest Endosc 2007; 65: 233-241
- 23 Trikudanathan G, Dirweesh A, Attam R. et al. EUS-guided pancreatic duct intervention: Technical outcomes at a single tertiary care center. Pancreas 2019; 48: 1537
- 24 Tyberg A, Sharaiha RZ, Kedia P. et al. EUS-guided pancreatic drainage for pancreatic strictures after failed ERCP: a multicenter international collaborative study. Gastrointest Endosc 2017; 85: 164-169
- 25 Uchida D, Kato H, Saragai Y. et al. Indications for endoscopic ultrasound-guided pancreatic drainage: for benign or malignant cases?. Can J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2018; 2018: 8216109
- 26 Vila JJ, Perez-Miranda M, Vazquez-Sequeiros E. et al. Initial experience with EUS-guided cholangiopancreatography for biliary and pancreatic duct drainage: a Spanish national survey. Gastrointest Endosc 2012; 76: 1133-1141
- 27 Will U, Reichel A, Fueldner F. et al. Endoscopic ultrasonography-guided drainage for patients with symptomatic obstruction and enlargement of the pancreatic duct. World J Gastroenterol 2015; 21: 13140-13151
- 28 Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC. et al. Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) group. JAMA 2000; 283: 2008-2012
- 29 Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J. et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The prisma statement. Ann Intern Med 2009; 151: 264-269
- 30 Stang A. Critical evaluation of the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for the assessment of the quality of nonrandomized studies in meta-analyses. Eur J Epidemiol 2010; 25: 603-605
- 31 Cotton PB, Eisen GM, Aabakken L. et al. A lexicon for endoscopic adverse events: report of an ASGE workshop. Gastrointest Endosc 2010; 71: 446-454
- 32 DerSimonian R, Laird N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 1986; 7: 177-188
- 33 Sutton AJ, Abrams KR, Jones DR. et al. Methods for meta-analysis in medical research. John Wiley & Sons Ltd., New York 2000; 205-228
- 34 Higgins J, Thompson SG, Spiegelhalter DJ. A re‐evaluation of random‐effects meta‐analysis. J R Stat Soc 2009; 172: 137-159
- 35 Mohan BP, Adler DG. Heterogeneity in systematic review and meta-analysis: how to read between the numbers. Gastrointest Endosc 2019; 89: 902-903
- 36 Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ. et al. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ 2003; 327: 557
- 37 Duval S, Tweedie R. Trim and Fill: A simple funnel-plot–based method of testing and adjusting for publication bias in meta-analysis. Biometrics 2000; 56: 455-463
- 38 Rothstein HR, Sutton AJ, Borenstein M. Publication bias in meta-analysis: Prevention, assessment and adjustments. New York: John Wiley & Sons Ltd; 2006
- 39 Itoi T, Kasuya K, Sofuni A. et al. Endoscopic ultrasonography-guided pancreatic duct access: Techniques and literature review of pancreatography, transmural drainage and rendezvous techniques. Digest Endosc 2013; 25: 241-252