Efficacy and safety of endoscopic ultrasound-guided pancreatic duct drainage (EUS-PDD): A systematic review and meta-analysis of 714 patients

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.

Publikationsverlauf

Eingereicht: 02. Juni 2020

Angenommen: 23. Juli 2020

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
22. Oktober 2020

• 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