Methods for Drainage of Distal Malignant Biliary Obstruction after ERCP Failure: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis
Antonio Facciorusso, Benedetto Mangiavillano, Danilo Paduano, Cecilia Binda, Stefano Francesco Crinò, Paraskevas Gkolfakis, Daryl Ramai, Alessandro Fugazza, Ilaria Tarantino, Andrea Lisotti, Pietro Fusaroli, Carlo Fabbri, Andrea Anderloni
Abstract
There is scarce evidence on the comparison between different methods for the drainage of distal malignant biliary obstruction (DMBO) after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) failure. Therefore, we performed a network meta-analysis to compare the outcomes of these techniques. We searched main databases through September 2021 and identified five randomized controlled trials. The primary outcome was clinical success. The secondary outcomes were technical success, overall and serious adverse event rate. Percutaneous trans-hepatic biliary drainage was found to be inferior to other interventions (PTBD: RR 1.01, 0.88-1.17 with EUS-choledochoduodenostomy (EUS-CD); RR 1.03, 0.86-1.22 with EUS-hepaticogastrostomy (EUS-HG); RR 1.42, 0.90-2.24 with surgical hepaticojejunostomy). The comparison between EUS-HG and EUS-CD was not significant (RR 1.01, 0.87-1.17). Surgery was not superior to other interventions (RR 1.40, 0.91-2.13 with EUS-CD and RR 1.38, 0.88-2.16 with EUS-HG). No difference in any of the comparisons concerning adverse event rate was detected, although PTBD showed a slightly poorer performance on ranking analysis (SUCRA score 0.13). In conclusion, all interventions seem to be effective for the drainage of DMBO, although PTBD showed a trend towards higher rates of adverse events.