Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Endosc Int Open 2020; 08(11): E1664-E1672
DOI: 10.1055/a-1236-3350
Original article

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

Saurabh Chandan‡
1   Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, CHI Creighton University Medical Center, Omaha, Nebraska, United States
,
Babu P. Mohan‡
2   Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, Utah, United States
,
Shahab R. Khan
3   Section of Gastroenterology, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois, United States
,
Lena L. Kassab
4   Internal Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, United States
,
Suresh Ponnada
5   Internal Medicine, Carilion Roanoke Memorial Hospital, Roanoke, Virginia, United States
,
Andrew Ofosu
6   Gastroenterology, Brooklyn Hospital, New York, United States
,
Ishfaq Bhat
1   Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, CHI Creighton University Medical Center, Omaha, Nebraska, United States
,
Shailender Singh
1   Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, CHI Creighton University Medical Center, Omaha, Nebraska, United States
,
Douglas G. Adler
2   Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, Utah, United States
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

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.

Supplementary material



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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Giovannini M. EUS-guided pancreatic duct drainage: ready for prime time?. Gastrointestinal endoscopy 2013; 78: 865-867
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Adams DB, Ford MC, Anderson MC. Outcome after lateral pancreaticojejunostomy for chronic pancreatitis. Ann Surg 1994; 219: 481-489
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 François E, Kahaleh M, Giovannini M. et al. EUS-guided pancreaticogastrostomy. Gastrointest Endosc 2002; 56: 128-133
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Kato H, Mizukawa S, Yabe S. et al. The feasibility and effectiveness of EUS-guided pancreatic duct drainage. Pancreatology 2016; 16: S16-S17
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    Google Scholar
  • 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
    Google Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 DerSimonian R, Laird N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 1986; 7: 177-188
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Higgins J, Thompson SG, Spiegelhalter DJ. A re‐evaluation of random‐effects meta‐analysis. J R Stat Soc 2009; 172: 137-159
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Mohan BP, Adler DG. Heterogeneity in systematic review and meta-analysis: how to read between the numbers. Gastrointest Endosc 2019; 89: 902-903
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ. et al. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ 2003; 327: 557
    Google Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Rothstein HR, Sutton AJ, Borenstein M. Publication bias in meta-analysis: Prevention, assessment and adjustments. New York: John Wiley & Sons Ltd; 2006
    Google Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar