Download This Paper
Preprints with The Lancet is a collaboration between The Lancet Group of journals and SSRN to facilitate the open sharing of preprints for early engagement, community comment, and collaboration. Preprints available here are not Lancet publications or necessarily under review with a Lancet journal. These preprints are early-stage research papers that have not been peer-reviewed. The usual SSRN checks and a Lancet-specific check for appropriateness and transparency have been applied. The findings should not be used for clinical or public health decision-making or presented without highlighting these facts. For more information, please see the FAQs.
Comparison of Biliary Drainage Techniques for Malignant Biliary Obstruction: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis
35 Pages Posted: 30 Jun 2020
More...Abstract
Background: The various techniques for relief of malignant biliary obstruction include endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD), and endoscopic ultrasound guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD). We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) comparing all three modalities with respect to efficacy, adverse events, and re-intervention rate.
Methods: We searched multiple databases from inception to October 2019 to identify comparative studies of malignant biliary obstruction patients treated with EUS-BD, ERCP or PTBD. Outcomes of interest were technical success, clinical success, adverse events and need for re-intervention. Pooled odds ratios (OR) were calculated and analyzed using the random effects model. To incorporate indirect comparisons, we conducted NMA using a multivariate, consistency model with random-effects meta-regression. We followed the GRADE approach to rate the certainty of evidence.
Findings: We included 17 studies; of which 8 were randomized (3 EUS vs ERCP; 1 EUS vs PTBD; 13 ERCP vs PTBD) with 1566 patients (220: EUS vs ERCP; 33: EUS vs PTBD; 1313: ERCP vs PTBD). NMA did not show statistically significant differences to favor one intervention with certainty over the other across multiple outcomes. The analysis suggested that PTBD may have a higher clinical and technical success rate than ERCP and that EUS may have a lower re-intervention rate than ERCP.
Interpretation: The available evidence cannot favor one of the 3 interventions with certainty across multiple outcomes. Shared-decision making is recommended to choose the approach most consistent with patient’s values, goals of treatment and comorbidities and consider the availability of procedural expertise.
Funding: None.
Conflict of Interest: None.
Keywords: Systematic review, meta-analysis, malignant biliary obstruction, biliary drainage, ERCP, EUS, PTBD
Suggested Citation: Suggested Citation