Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Biliary Drainage for Acute Cholangitis Secondary to Biliary Obstruction: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Le résumé fourni par la source

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) remains the primary treatment for biliary obstruction, yet fails in 5% to 7% of cases, necessitating alternative therapeutic options like endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD). With acute cholangitis posing significant morbidity and mortality risks, assessing the safety and efficacy of EUS-BD in these patients is vital. This is the first meta-analysis with a subgroup analysis assessing the outcomes of EUS-BD in patients with acute cholangitis secondary to biliary obstruction. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted following PRISMA guidelines, searching MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Clinicaltrials.gov, and Cochrane databases until December 23, 2023. Studies involving adult patients undergoing EUS-BD for cholangitis were included. Outcomes assessed were pooled technical and clinical success rates, complications, and mortality. Standard meta-analysis methods were employed using the random-effects model, and heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 % statistics. RESULTS: Among the included 5 studies (109 patients), EUS-BD achieved a pooled technical success rate of 95.5% (95% CI: 91.0-98.5) and a clinical success rate of 92.1% (95% CI: 86.4-96.3), with low heterogeneity across studies ( I2 : 0.00% for both outcomes). The pooled complication rate was 12.2% (95% CI: 5.1-21.8, I2 : 37.46%), with predominantly mild and self-limiting complications. CONCLUSION: EUS-BD demonstrated excellent pooled technical and clinical success rates, particularly when ERCP is not feasible in patients with acute cholangitis secondary to biliary obstruction. Most postprocedure complication rates are also mild and self-limiting making EUS-BD a possible alternative for the management of patients with cholangitis.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.