Safety and efficacy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided gastroenterostomy for gastric outlet obstruction in different sites: A single-center retrospective study

EUS-guided gastroenterostomy for gastric outlet obstruction: a comprehensive meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

A comprehensive meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of endoscopic ultrasound-guided gastroenterostomy (EUS-GE) for benign and malignant gastric outlet obstruction (GOO).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane Library were searched to identify relevant studies. The primary outcomes evaluated technical success, clinical success, and adverse events (AEs).

RESULTS

Twenty‑six studies with 1493 patients were included in this meta-analysis. The pooled rates of technical success, clinical success, and overall AEs of EUS-GE were 94.0%, 89.9%, and 13.1%, respectively. Eight studies were included in the subgroup meta-analysis for comparative evaluation of EUS-GE and surgical gastroenterostomy (SGE), while seven studies were for EUS-GE and enteral stenting (ES). Compared with SGE, the pooled odds ratios (ORs) of technical success, clinical success, and overall AEs of EUS-GE were 0.17 (p = .003), 1.42 (p = .40), and 0.15 (p < .00001), respectively. When compared with ES, the above corresponding pooled ORs were 0.55 (p = .11), 2.64 (p < .0001), and 0.41 (p = .01), respectively.

CONCLUSION

Although it is technically challenging, this largest meta-analysis indicates that EUS‑GE has comparable and high technical and clinical success rates and hence a very effective minimally invasive procedure for GOO.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided gastroenterostomy with lumen-apposing metal stents: a retrospective multicentric comparison of wireless and over-the-wire techniques

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided gastroenterostomy (EUS-GE) using lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMSs) appears to be effective and safe in gastric outlet obstruction (GOO); however, the EUS-GE procedure is not standardized, with the use of assisted or direct methods still debated. The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of EUS-GE techniques focusing on an assisted with orointestinal drain wireless endoscopic simplified technique (WEST) and the nonassisted direct technique over a guidewire (DTOG).

METHOD

This was a multicenter European retrospective study involving four tertiary centers. Consecutive patients who underwent EUS-GE for GOO between August 2017 and May 2022 were included. The primary aim was to compare the technical success and adverse event (AE) rates of the different EUS-GE techniques. Clinical success was also analyzed.

RESULTS

71 patients (mean [SD] age 66.2 10 years; 42.3 % men; 80.3 % malignant etiology) were included. Technical success was higher in the WEST group (95.1 % vs. 73.3 %; estimate of relative risk from odds ratio (eRR) 3.2, 95 %CI 0.94-10.9; P = 0.01). The rate of AEs was lower in the WEST group (14.6 % vs. 46.7 %; eRR 2.3, 95 %CI 1.2-4.5; P = 0.007). Clinical success was comparable between the two groups at 1 month (97.5 % vs. 89.3 %). The median follow-up was 5 months (range 1-57).

CONCLUSION

The WEST resulted in a higher technical success rate with fewer AEs, with clinical success comparable with the DTOG. Therefore, the WEST (with an orointestinal drain) should be preferred when performing EUS-GE.

Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Gastroenterostomy for the Palliation of Gastric Outlet Obstruction (GOO): A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of the Different Techniques

INTRODUCTION

Gastric outlet obstruction (GOO) is usually associated with a poor prognosis and a significant decrease in a patient's quality of life. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided gastroenterostomy (EUS-GE) using lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMS) has emerged as a safe and effective palliation procedure for GOO in patients that are unfit for surgery. Without an exclusive gold-standard technique for EUS-GE, we aimed to compare the currently available ones in this systematic review and meta-analysis, the first on this subspecialty.

METHODS

A comprehensive search from multiple electronic databases was performed. The search had a particular emphasis on the techniques used in performing EUS-GE. We identified all the studies in which EUS-GE was performed as palliation for GOO from its inception to the current date. The outcomes analyzed were the following: technical and clinical success, total and severe adverse events (AEs), procedure duration, and length of hospital stay (LOHS).

RESULTS

Twenty studies involving 863 patients were the basis of this statistical analysis. Patients underwent the following techniques: direct gastroenterostomy (DGE) (n=718), balloon-assisted gastroenterostomy (BAGE) (n=27), and endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided double-balloon-occluded gastrojejunostomy bypass (n=118). In comparison to balloon-assisted techniques, DGE had a lower rate of AEs, -0.121 (95% CI -0.191 to -0.051 p=0.001); and LOHS for the DGE group, -2.684 (95% CI -1.031 to -4.337 p=0.001). The other analyzed outcomes presented no statistically significant differences. On a sub-analysis, BAGE showed a lower rate of AEs than EUS-guided double-balloon-occluded gastrojejunostomy bypass, -0.196 (95% CI -0.061 to -0.331 p=0.004).

CONCLUSIONS

EUS-GE is a safe and effective procedure for palliating GOO. When correctly administered, any of the analyzed techniques may be used to palliate GOO with similar technical and clinical outcomes. DGE had significantly lower rates of AEs and LOHS, which can be inferred as a safer procedure. These results should be interpreted cautiously due to the limited few studies that are available and accessible. Therefore, further well-designed, randomized clinical studies on the topic are warranted to compare the different techniques from more sources.