Affiliation:
1. Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Illinois College of Medicine at Peoria, 530 NE Glen Oak Avenue, Peoria, IL 61637, USA
2. Boca Raton Regional Hospital, Boca Raton, FL, USA
3. Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Illinois College of Medicine at Peoria, Peoria, IL, USA
Abstract
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, I2 = 32] and 97.96% (95% CI, 96.06–99.25, I2 = 63) for ES. The pooled rate of clinical success for EUS-GE was 93.62% (95% CI, 90.76–95.98, I2 = 54) while for ES it was lower at 85.57% (95% CI, 79.63–90.63, I2 = 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, I2 = 0). The pooled rates of re-intervention for EUS-GE were lower at 3.77% (95% CI, 1.77–6.46, I2 = 44) compared with ES, which was 25.13% (95% CI, 18.96–31.85, I2 = 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, I2 = 13). Overall, the pooled rate for AEs for EUS-GE was 8.97% (95% CI, 6.88–11.30, I2 = 15), whereas that for ES was 19.63% (95% CI, 11.75–28.94, I2 = 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.