-
World Journal of Gastroenterology Dec 2016Portal biliopathy (PB) is defined as the presence of biliary abnormalities in patients with non-cirrhotic/non-neoplastic extrahepatic portal vein obstruction (EHPVO) and... (Review)
Review
Portal biliopathy (PB) is defined as the presence of biliary abnormalities in patients with non-cirrhotic/non-neoplastic extrahepatic portal vein obstruction (EHPVO) and portal cavernoma (PC). The pathogenesis of PB is due to compression of bile ducts by PC and/or to ischemic damage secondary to an altered biliary vascularization in EHPVO and PC. Although asymptomatic biliary abnormalities can be frequently seen by magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography in patients with PC (77%-100%), only a part of these (5%-38%) are symptomatic. Clinical presentation includes jaundice, cholangitis, cholecystitis, abdominal pain, and cholelithiasis. In this subset of patients is required a specific treatment. Different therapeutic approaches aimed to diminish portal hypertension and treat biliary strictures are available. In order to decompress PC, surgical porto-systemic shunt or transjugular intrahepatic porto-systemic shunt can be performed, and treatment on the biliary stenosis includes endoscopic (Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography with endoscopic sphincterotomy, balloon dilation, stone extraction, stent placement) and surgical (bilioenteric anastomosis, cholecystectomy) approaches. Definitive treatment of PB often requires multiple and combined interventions both on vascular and biliary system. Liver transplantation can be considered in patients with secondary biliary cirrhosis, recurrent cholangitis or unsuccessful control of portal hypertension.
Topics: Abdominal Pain; Bile Duct Diseases; Cholangiopancreatography, Endoscopic Retrograde; Cholangiopancreatography, Magnetic Resonance; Cholangitis; Cholecystitis; Cholelithiasis; Constriction, Pathologic; Humans; Hypertension, Portal; Jaundice, Obstructive; Portal Vein; Portasystemic Shunt, Surgical; Portasystemic Shunt, Transjugular Intrahepatic
PubMed: 28018098
DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v22.i45.9909 -
Digestion 2023At present, endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and percutaneous transhepatic cholangial drainage (PTCD) are frequently used for reducing malignant... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Comparison of Efficacy and Safety between Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography and Percutaneous Transhepatic Cholangial Drainage for the Treatment of Malignant Obstructive Jaundice: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
BACKGROUND
At present, endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and percutaneous transhepatic cholangial drainage (PTCD) are frequently used for reducing malignant obstructive jaundice (MOJ). However, it is controversial as to which method is superior in terms of efficacy and safety.
OBJECTIVES
The aim of this study was to compare the safety, feasibility, and clinical benefits of ERCP and PTCD in matched cases of MOJ.
METHODS
The Web of Science, Cochrane, PubMed, and CNKI databases were searched systematically to identify studies published between January 2000 and December 2019, without language restrictions, that compared ERCP and PTCD in patients with MOJ. The primary outcome was the success rate for each procedure. The secondary outcomes were the technical success rate, serum total bilirubin level, length of hospital stay, hospital expense, complication rate, and survival. This meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager 5.3.
RESULTS
Sixteen studies met the inclusion criteria, including 1,143 cases of ERCP and 854 cases of PTCD. The analysis demonstrated that jaundice remission in PTCD was equal to that in ERCP (mean difference [MD], 1.19; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.56 to -2.93; p = 0.18). However, the length of hospital stay in the ERCP group was 3.03 days shorter than that in the PTCD group (MD, -2.41; 95% CI: -4.61 to -0.22; p = 0.03). ERCP had a lower rate of postoperative complications (odds ratio, 0.66; 95% CI: 0.42-1.05); however, the difference was not significant (p = 0.08). ERCP was also more cost-efficient (MD, -5.42; 95% CI: -5.52 to -5.32; p < 0.01). Further, we calculated the absolute mean of hospital stay (ERCP:PTCD = 8.73:12.95 days), hospital expenses (ERCP:PTCD = 5,104.13:5,866.75 RMB), and postoperative complications (ERCP:PTCD = 11.2%:9.1%) in both groups.
CONCLUSION
For remission of MOJ, PTCD and ERCP had similar clinical efficacy. Each method has its own strengths and weaknesses. Considering that ERCP had a lower rate of postoperative complications, shorter hospital stay, and higher cost efficiency, ERCP may be a superior initial treatment choice for MOJ.
Topics: Humans; Cholangiopancreatography, Endoscopic Retrograde; Jaundice, Obstructive; Drainage; Treatment Outcome; Postoperative Complications
PubMed: 36617409
DOI: 10.1159/000528020 -
Digestive Diseases and Sciences May 2019Periampullary diverticulum (PAD) is most often asymptomatically found in elderly population. ERCP in the presence of PAD is technically challenging since the location... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
INTRODUCTION
Periampullary diverticulum (PAD) is most often asymptomatically found in elderly population. ERCP in the presence of PAD is technically challenging since the location and orientation of the ampulla could be altered. Various studies have reported differing results on the technical success and safety outcomes of ERCP in the presence of PAD. We aimed at a meta-analysis of such studies to assess the technical success and the occurrence of complications during ERCP in patients with PAD.
METHODS
We conducted a comprehensive search of several databases and conference proceedings including PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science databases (earliest inception to October 2017). The search was done in accordance with PRISMA guidelines to identify studies. Studies that reported on the ERCP outcomes based on the presence of PAD were included. Both prospective and retrospective studies, manuscripts and abstracts were included. Only articles in English literature were included. The primary analysis focused on the overall technical success of ERCP in the presence of PAD, and the secondary analysis was to estimate the risk of occurrence of complications.
RESULTS
Our search resulted in 16 studies that were included for final analysis. These 16 studies reported on 2794 patients, who had PAD, and the control group included 13,032 patients, who did not have a PAD during ERCP. Our meta-analysis of this data showed an Odd's ratio estimate of having a successful ERCP procedure in patients with PAD to be 0.51 [95% C.I. (0.35-0.72)] when compared to patients without it. This was statistically significant, with a p value 0.00. Considerable heterogeneity was noted among the studies. The heterogeneity proportion was quantified at 74.6% based on I statistic. The secondary outcomes measured were complications. We analyzed the pooled Post-ERCP Pancreatitis (PEP), cholangitis, perforation, and bleeding. Only those studies that had the data for these complications in both the study and the control groups were selected. PEP: The pooled Odd's estimate of having PEP was 1.28, [95% C.I (0.88-1.87)] from 12 studies reporting on 1863 patients with PAD in comparison with 7803 patients without it. The risk of PEP occurrence tended to be more in the group without PAD, though it was not statistically significant, with a p value 0.20. There was some heterogeneity observed between the studies, with the quantification I statistic being 28.6%. Our analysis shows that having PAD does not put a patient at increased risk for PEP. Bleeding: The pooled Odds estimate was 1.69, 95% C.I. 0.88-3.25 from nine studies reporting on 1816 patients with PAD in comparison with 5327 patients without it. This was not statistically significant, p value 0.11. Considerable heterogeneity was noted, with I being 55.7%. The risk of having a bleed was noted to be more in control group, and having PAD did not put patients at increased risk for bleeding during an ERCP procedure. Perforation: Patients with PAD undergoing ERCP were not at increased risk for perforation. Seven studies reported on this complication. This was noted in seven patients out of 1245 in study group, and 19 patients out of 4912 in control group. The pooled Odd's estimate was 1.24, 95% C.I. 0.54-2.87. There was no statistical significance, p value 0.61. No heterogeneity was noted among the studies included in this analysis. Cholangitis: Only four studies reported on this complication. In a total of 778 patients in study group, four had cholangitis and eight had this complication out of 3886 patients in the control group. The pooled Odd's was 2.12, 95% C.I. 0.61-7.33. There was no statistical significance, p value 0.24. No heterogeneity was noted.
CONCLUSION
ERCP is technically feasible and increasingly successful when performed by experts in the presence of PAD. The risk of complications such as PEP, bleeding, perforation and cholangitis does not differ between ERCP done in patients with and without PAD.
Topics: Cholangiopancreatography, Endoscopic Retrograde; Diverticulum; Humans; Postoperative Complications; Prospective Studies; Retrospective Studies; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 30293190
DOI: 10.1007/s10620-018-5314-y -
Clinical Journal of Gastroenterology Apr 2022In 2019, the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) guideline on the endoscopic management of choledocholithiasis modified the individual predictors of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
In 2019, the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) guideline on the endoscopic management of choledocholithiasis modified the individual predictors of choledocholithiasis proposed in the widely referenced 2010 guideline to improve predictive performance. Nevertheless, the primary literature, especially for the 2019 iteration, is limited. We performed a systematic review with meta-analysis to examine the diagnostic performance of the 2010, and where possible the 2019, predictors. PROSPERO protocol CRD42020194226. A comprehensive literature search from 2001 to 2020 was performed to identify studies on the diagnostic performance of any of the 2010 and 2019 ASGE choledocholithiasis predictors. Identified studies underwent keyword screening, abstract review, and full-text review. The primary outcomes included multivariate odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals for each criterion. Secondary outcomes were reported sensitivities, specificities, and positive and negative predictive value. A total of 20 studies met inclusion criteria. Based on reported ORs, of the 2010 guideline "very strong" predictors, ultrasound with stone had the strongest performance. Of the "strong" predictors, CBD > 6 mm demonstrated the strongest performance. "Moderate" predictors had inconsistent and/or weak performance; moreover, all studies reported gallstone pancreatitis as non-predictive of choledocholithiasis. Only one study examined the new predictor (bilirubin > 4 mg/dL and CBD > 6 mm) proposed in the 2019 guideline. Based on this review, aside from CBD stone on ultrasound, there is discordance between the proposed strength of 2010 choledocholithiasis predictors and their published diagnostic performance. The 2019 guideline appears to do away with the weakest 2010 predictors.
Topics: Cholangiopancreatography, Endoscopic Retrograde; Choledocholithiasis; Endoscopy, Gastrointestinal; Humans; Predictive Value of Tests; Retrospective Studies; Ultrasonography; United States
PubMed: 35072902
DOI: 10.1007/s12328-021-01575-4 -
Journal of Hepato-biliary-pancreatic... Dec 2014The optimal management of patients with symptomatic gallstones and possible or proven common bile duct (CBD) stones and gallstones is still evolving. Today a number of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The optimal management of patients with symptomatic gallstones and possible or proven common bile duct (CBD) stones and gallstones is still evolving. Today a number of options exist: preoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (pre-op ERCP), laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) combined with intraoperative endoscopic sphincterotomy (IOES), laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (LCBDE) and postoperative ERCP (post-op ERCP). This meta-analysis was done to compare these management options and determine if any single option was clearly superior.
METHODS
A systematic search was conducted using several electronic databases. The search revealed 15 randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Six comparing pre-op ERCP with LCBDE, five comparing pre-op ERCP with IOES, two comparing IOES with LCBDE and two comparing post-op ERCP with LCBDE, comprising a total of 1992 patients.
RESULTS
The pre-op ERCP group had a significantly higher incidence of ERCP related complications (odds ratio: 2.40, 95% confidence interval: 1.21-4.75).
CONCLUSIONS
The evidence provided by this meta-analysis suggests that both of these approaches would appear comparable. To fully address which would be the better approach would require an RCT as discussed above.
Topics: Cholangiopancreatography, Endoscopic Retrograde; Cholecystolithiasis; Choledocholithiasis; Digestive System Surgical Procedures; Humans; Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures; Postoperative Complications
PubMed: 25187317
DOI: 10.1002/jhbp.152 -
Pancreatology : Official Journal of the... Jun 2018To perform a meta-analysis of all available studies on the effect of prophylactic somatostatin administration on prevention of post-endoscopic retrograde... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
To perform a meta-analysis of all available studies on the effect of prophylactic somatostatin administration on prevention of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP) and post-ERCP hyperamylasemia (PEHA).
METHODS
Electronic databases, including PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane library, and the Science Citation Index were searched to retrieve relevant trials. Randomized, placebo-controlled trials in adult patients that compared somatostatin versus placebo in prevention of PEP were included. Meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model to assess the ratios of PEP, PEHA and post-ERCP abdominal pain.
RESULTS
Total ratio of PEP of somatostatin group was significantly lower than that of placebo group. For the short-term injection or bolus injection there were no heterogeneity and no significance between the ratio of PEP of somatostatin group and placebo group. For the long-term injection subgroup there was heterogeneity, and the ratio of PEP of somatostatin group was significantly lower than that of placebo group. There was no significance between the ratio of PEP of somatostatin group and placebo group for the low-risk PEP subgroup, while the ratio of PEP of somatostatin group was significantly lower than that of placebo group for the high-risk PEP subgroup. The ratio of PEP of somatostatin group was significantly lower than that of placebo group for the long-term injection high-risk PEP subgroup. There was no significance between the ratio of PEHA of somatostatin group and placebo group for the short-term injection subgroup or bolus injection subgroup. The ratio of PEHA of somatostatin group was significantly lower than that of placebo group for the long-term injection subgroup. The total ratio of post-ERCP abdominal pain of somatostatin group was significantly lower than that of placebo group. The funnel plot of incidence of PEP and PEHA showed no asymmetry with a negative slope.
CONCLUSION
Prophylactic use of long-term injection of somatostatin can significantly reduce the incidence of PEP, PEHA and post-ERCP abdominal pain for the high-risk PEP patients, while it is not necessary to be used for the low-risk PEP patients.
Topics: Cholangiopancreatography, Endoscopic Retrograde; Humans; Hyperamylasemia; Pancreatitis; Somatostatin
PubMed: 29550097
DOI: 10.1016/j.pan.2018.03.002 -
Clinical Gastroenterology and... Jan 2023Several endoscopic methods have been proposed for the treatment of large biliary stones. We assessed the comparative efficacy of these treatments through a network... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND & AIMS
Several endoscopic methods have been proposed for the treatment of large biliary stones. We assessed the comparative efficacy of these treatments through a network meta-analysis.
METHODS
Nineteen randomized controlled trials (2752 patients) comparing different treatments for management of large bile stones (>10 mm) (endoscopic sphincterotomy, balloon sphincteroplasty, sphincterotomy followed by endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation [S+EPLBD], mechanical lithotripsy, single-operator cholangioscopy [SOC]) with each other were identified. Study outcomes were the success rate of stone removal and the incidence of adverse events. We performed pairwise and network meta-analysis for all treatments, and used Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation criteria to appraise the quality of evidence.
RESULTS
All treatments except mechanical lithotripsy significantly outperformed sphincterotomy in terms of stone removal rate (risk ratio [RR], 1.03-1.29). SOC was superior to other adjunctive interventions (vs balloon sphincteroplasty [RR, 1.24; 95% CIs, 1.07-1.45], vs S+EPLBD [RR, 1.23; range, 1.06-1.42] and vs mechanical lithotripsy [RR, 1.34; range, 1.14-1.58]). Cholangioscopy ranked the highest in increasing the success rate of stone removal (surface under the cumulative ranking [SUCRA] score, 0.99) followed by S+EPLBD (SUCRA score, 0.68). SOC and S+EPLBD outperformed the other modalities when only studies reporting on stones greater than 15 mm were taken into consideration (SUCRA scores, 0.97 and 0.71, respectively). None of the assessed interventions was significantly different in terms of adverse event rate compared with endoscopic sphincterotomy or with other treatments. Post-ERCP pancreatitis and bleeding were the most frequent adverse events.
CONCLUSIONS
Among patients with large bile stones, cholangioscopy represents the most effective method, in particular in patients with larger (>15 mm) stones, whereas S+EPLBD could represent a less expensive and more widely available alternative.
Topics: Humans; Cholangiopancreatography, Endoscopic Retrograde; Gallstones; Network Meta-Analysis; Treatment Outcome; Sphincterotomy, Endoscopic; Dilatation
PubMed: 34666153
DOI: 10.1016/j.cgh.2021.10.013 -
Endoscopy Oct 2010Pancreatitis is one of the most frequent complications of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). The placement of a prophylactic pancreatic stent after... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS
Pancreatitis is one of the most frequent complications of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). The placement of a prophylactic pancreatic stent after ERCP can help prevent post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP). We aimed to provide an up-to-date meta-analysis regarding pancreatic stent placement for prevention of PEP and review the immediate adverse events associated with pancreatic stent placement.
METHODS
We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) considering pancreatic stent placement and the subsequent incidence of PEP. The primary outcome measure was the incidence of PEP. We also did a meta-analysis of RCTs and observational studies that reported on immediate adverse events, in order to estimate their incidence.
RESULTS
Eight studies, involving 680 patients, were included in the meta-analysis; 336 patients had pancreatic stent placement, and 344 patients formed the control group. Pancreatic stent placement was associated with a statistically significant reduction in PEP (relative risk [RR] 0.32, 95 % confidence interval [CI] 0.19 - 0.52; P<0.001). Subgroup analysis with stratification according to PEP severity showed that pancreatic stenting was beneficial in patients with mild to moderate PEP (RR 0.36, 95 %CI 0.22 -0.60; P<0.001) and in patients with severe PEP (RR 0.23, 95 %CI 0.06 - 0.91; P=0.04). Subgroup analysis according to patient selection demonstrated that pancreatic stenting was effective for both high risk and mixed-case groups. Weighted pooled estimates from between one and 17 studies for incidences of immediate adverse events were: overall complications 4.4 %; any infection 3.0 %; bleeding 2.5 %; cholangitis or cholecystitis 3.1 %; necrosis 0.4 %; pancreatic stent migration 4.9 % and occlusion 7.9 %; perforation 0.8 %; pseudocysts 3.0 %; and retroperitoneal perforation 1.2 %.
CONCLUSIONS
The meta-analysis shows that pancreatic stent placement after ERCP reduces the risk of PEP.
Topics: Acute Disease; Cholangiopancreatography, Endoscopic Retrograde; Humans; Pancreatitis; Postoperative Complications; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Stents
PubMed: 20886403
DOI: 10.1055/s-0030-1255781 -
Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Feb 2011Acute pancreatitis is a common complication of ERCP. Several randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) have evaluated the use of pancreatic stents in the prevention of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Acute pancreatitis is a common complication of ERCP. Several randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) have evaluated the use of pancreatic stents in the prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis with varying results.
OBJECTIVE
We conducted a meta-analysis and systematic review to assess the role of prophylactic pancreatic stents for prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis.
DESIGN
MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Database of Systematic Reviews, PubMed, and recent abstracts from major conference proceedings were searched. RCTs and retrospective or prospective, nonrandomized studies comparing prophylactic stent with placebo or no stent for post-ERCP pancreatitis were included for the meta-analysis and systematic review. Standard forms were used to extract data by 2 independent reviewers. The effect of stents (for RCTs) was analyzed by calculating pooled estimates of post-ERCP pancreatitis, hyperamylasemia, and grade of pancreatitis. Separate analyses were performed for each outcome by using the odds ratio (OR) or weighted mean difference. Random- or fixed-effects models were used. Publication bias was assessed by funnel plots. Heterogeneity among studies was assessed by calculating I(2) measure of inconsistency.
SETTING
Systematic review and meta-analysis of patients undergoing pancreatic stent placement for prophylaxis against post-ERCP pancreatitis.
PATIENTS
Adult patients undergoing ERCP.
INTERVENTIONS
Pancreatic stent placement for the prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS
Post-ERCP pancreatitis, hyperamylasemia, and complications after pancreatic stent placement.
RESULTS
Eight RCTs (656 subjects) and 10 nonrandomized studies met the inclusion criteria (4904 subjects). Meta-analysis of the RCTs showed that prophylactic pancreatic stents decreased the odds of post-ERCP pancreatitis (odds ratio, 0.22; 95% CI, 0.12-0.38; P<.01). The absolute risk difference was 13.3% (95% CI, 8.8%-17.8%). The number needed to treat was 8 (95% CI, 6-11). Stents also decreased the level of hyperamylasemia (WMD, -309.22; 95% CI, -350.95 to -267.49; P≤.01). Similar findings were also noted from the nonrandomized studies.
LIMITATIONS
Small sample size of some trials, different types of stents used, inclusion of low-risk patients in some studies, and lack of adequate study of long-term complications of pancreatic stent placement.
CONCLUSIONS
Pancreatic stent placement decreases the risk of post-ERCP pancreatitis and hyperamylasemia in high-risk patients.
Topics: Cholangiopancreatography, Endoscopic Retrograde; Humans; Pancreas; Pancreatitis; Stents
PubMed: 21295641
DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2010.10.039 -
European Journal of Radiology Oct 2023The growing application of deep learning in radiology has raised concerns about cybersecurity, particularly in relation to adversarial attacks. This study aims to... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
The growing application of deep learning in radiology has raised concerns about cybersecurity, particularly in relation to adversarial attacks. This study aims to systematically review the literature on adversarial attacks in radiology.
METHODS
We searched for studies on adversarial attacks in radiology published up to April 2023, using MEDLINE and Google Scholar databases.
RESULTS
A total of 22 studies published between March 2018 and April 2023 were included, primarily focused on image classification algorithms. Fourteen studies evaluated white-box attacks, three assessed black-box attacks and five investigated both. Eleven of the 22 studies targeted chest X-ray classification algorithms, while others involved chest CT (6/22), brain MRI (4/22), mammography (2/22), abdominal CT (1/22), hepatic US (1/22), and thyroid US (1/22). Some attacks proved highly effective, reducing the AUC of algorithm performance to 0 and achieving success rates up to 100 %.
CONCLUSIONS
Adversarial attacks are a growing concern. Although currently the threats are more theoretical than practical, they still represent a potential risk. It is important to be alert to such attacks, reinforce cybersecurity measures, and influence the formulation of ethical and legal guidelines. This will ensure the safe use of deep learning technology in medicine.
Topics: Humans; Radiography; Radiology; Mammography; Tomography, X-Ray Computed; Algorithms
PubMed: 37699278
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2023.111085