882 EUS-Guided Gastroenterostomy (GE) versus Surgical Gastroenterostomy for Patients With Malignant Gastric Outlet Obstruction: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis : Official journal of the American College of Gastroenterology | ACG

Secondary Logo

Journal Logo

ABSTRACTS

882 EUS-Guided Gastroenterostomy (GE) versus Surgical Gastroenterostomy for Patients With Malignant Gastric Outlet Obstruction: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Jayaraj, Mahendran MD1; Singh, Dhruv P. MBBS2; Gopalakrishnan Ravikumar, Naveen Prasad MD3; Narala, Sai MD4; Krishnamoorthi, Rajesh MD5

Author Information
The American Journal of Gastroenterology 114():p S510-S512, October 2019. | DOI: 10.14309/01.ajg.0000593064.39353.39
  • Free

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: 

Surgical gastroenterostomy has been the traditional approach to manage malignant gastric outlet obstruction (GOO). With advances in Endoscopic Ultrasound (EUS) technology and availability of dedicated devices and stents for EUS scopes, EUS guided gastroenterostomy (GE) is emerging as an alternative to surgical gastroenterostomy. Recently studies have been published comparing the outcomes between these two approaches. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies that compare the outcomes between the two approaches (EUS-GE vs Surgical GE).

METHODS: 

We performed a systematic search of multiple databases through May 2019 to identify studies that compared outcomes of EUS-GE vs surgical GE in management of malignant gastric outlet obstruction. Pooled odds ratios (OR) of technical success, clinical success and adverse events between EUS-GE and surgical GE groups were calculated.

RESULTS: 

Three comparative studies with a total of 171 patients; were included in the analysis. The pooled OR for technical success of EUS-GE in comparison to surgical GE was 0.16 (95% CI: 0.03-0.86; P = 0.033; I2 = 2%). The pooled OR for clinical success (EUS-GE vs surgical GE) was 0.98 (95% CI: 0.13-7.48; P = 0.984; I2 = 25%) The pooled OR for overall adverse events (EUS-GE vs surgical GE) was 0.35 (95% CI: 0.15-0.81; P = 0.014, I2 = 0%). There was minimal heterogeneity in the analysis.

CONCLUSION: 

While EUS-GE is associated with similar rates of clinical success compared to surgical GE, the rate of overall adverse events is statistically lower. Hence in centers with expertise in EUS, EUS-GE could be considered as an effective alternate option.

© 2019 by The American College of Gastroenterology