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
  

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

Publication Date:
22 October 2020 (online)

© 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