| Abstrakt: |
Background: The symptoms of gastric outlet obstruction have traditionally been managed surgically or endoscopically. Enteral stenting (ES) is a less invasive endoscopic treatment strategy for this condition. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided gastroenterostomy (EUS-GE) has recently become a potential alternative technique. Objectives: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the effectiveness and safety profile of EUS-GE compared with ES. Design: Meta-analysis and systematic review. Data sources and methods: We searched multiple databases from inception to August 2023 to identify studies that reported the effectiveness and safety of EUS-GE compared with ES. The outcomes of technical success, clinical success, and adverse events (AEs) were evaluated. Pooled proportions were calculated using both fixed and random effects models. Results: We included 13 studies with 1762 patients in our final analysis. The pooled rates of technical success for EUS-GE were 95.59% [95% confidence interval (CI), 94.01–97.44, I 2 = 32] and 97.96% (95% CI, 96.06–99.25, I 2 = 63) for ES. The pooled rate of clinical success for EUS-GE was 93.62% (95% CI, 90.76–95.98, I 2 = 54) while for ES it was lower at 85.57% (95% CI, 79.63–90.63, I 2 = 81). The pooled odds ratio (OR) of clinical success was higher for EUS-GE compared to ES at 2.71 (95% CI, 1.87–3.93). The pooled OR of clinical success for EUS-GE was higher compared to ES at 2.72 (95% CI, 1.86–3.97, I 2 = 0). The pooled rates of re-intervention for EUS-GE were lower at 3.77% (95% CI, 1.77–6.46, I 2 = 44) compared with ES, which was 25.13% (95% CI, 18.96–31.85, I 2 = 69). The pooled OR of the rate of re-intervention in the ES group was higher at 7.96 (95% CI, 4.41–14.38, I 2 = 13). Overall, the pooled rate for AEs for EUS-GE was 8.97% (95% CI, 6.88–11.30, I 2 = 15), whereas that for ES was 19.63% (95% CI, 11.75–28.94, I 2 = 89). Conclusion: EUS-GE and ES are comparable in terms of their technical effectiveness. However, EUS-GE has demonstrated improved clinical effectiveness, a lower need for re-intervention, and a better safety profile compared to ES for palliation of gastric outlet obstruction. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
