Search

Competing Interests: Disclosure The author disclosed no financial relationships.

Background and Aims: Several methods with variable efficacy have been proposed for difficult biliary cannulation in ERCP. We assessed the comparative efficacy of different strategies for difficult biliary cannulation through a network meta-analysis combining direct and indirect treatment comparisons., Methods: We identified 17 randomized controlled trials (2015 patients) that compared the efficacy of different adjunctive methods for difficult biliary cannulation (needle-knife techniques, pancreatic guidewire-assisted technique, pancreatic-assisted technique, and transpancreatic sphincterotomy) either with each other or with persistence with the standard cannulation techniques. The success rate of biliary cannulation and the incidence of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) were the outcomes of interest. We performed pairwise and network meta-analysis for all treatments and used Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation criteria to appraise quality of evidence., Results: Low-quality evidence supported the use of transpancreatic sphincterotomy over persistence with standard cannulation techniques (risk ratio [RR], 1.29; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.05-1.59) and over any other adjunctive intervention (RR, 1.21 [95% CI, 1.01-1.44] vs pancreatic guidewire-assisted technique, RR, 1.19 [95% CI, 1.01-1.43] vs early needle-knife techniques, RR, 1.47 [95% CI, 1.03-2.10] vs pancreatic stent-assisted technique) for increasing the success rate of biliary cannulation. No other significant results were observed in any other comparisons. Based on the network model, transpancreatic sphincterotomy (P-score, .97) followed by early needle-knife techniques (P-score, .62) were ranked highest in terms of increasing the success rate of biliary cannulation. Early needle-knife techniques outperformed persistence with standard cannulation techniques in terms of decreasing PEP rate (RR, .61; 95% CI, .37-1.00), whereas both early needle-knife techniques and transpancreatic sphincterotomy led to lower PEP rates as compared with pancreatic guidewire-assisted technique (RR, .49 [95% CI, .23-.99] and .53 [95% CI, .30-.92], respectively)., Conclusions: Transpancreatic sphincterotomy increases the success rate of biliary cannulation as compared with persistence with the standard cannulation techniques. Early needle-knife techniques and transpancreatic sphincterotomy are superior to other interventions in decreasing PEP rates and should be considered in patients with difficult cannulation., (Copyright © 2022 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background and Aims: Self-expandable metal stents (SEMSs) are used for palliation of malignant gastric outlet obstruction (GOO). Studies comparing covered SEMSs (C-SEMSs) and uncovered SEMSs (U-SEMSs) have led to inconclusive results. We compared efficacy and safety of C-SEMSs versus U-SEMSs in patients with GOO., Methods: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library from 2000 to 2019 to identify available studies comparing C-SEMSs versus U-SEMSs in patients with GOO. Primary outcomes were stent survival and patient survival, whereas secondary outcomes were clinical and technical success, Gastric Outlet Obstruction Score System (GOOSS) score after the procedure, overall adverse events, reintervention rate, dysfunction rate, stent occlusion, and stent migration., Results: Overall, 7 randomized controlled trials and 9 observational studies were identified that included 1741 patients. C-SEMSs were associated with higher stent survival (hazard ratio, .68; 95% confidence interval [CI], .48-.96), whereas patient survival did not statistically significantly differ between C-SEMS and U-SEMS groups (hazard ratio, .96; 95% CI, .75-1.23). Clinical and technical success were not statistically different between groups (odds ratios, 1.1 [95% CI, .76-1.61] and .69 [95% CI, .21-2.3], respectively). There were no differences in terms of overall adverse events, reintervention rate, dysfunction rate, and GOOSS rate ≥2 after SEMS placement. U-SEMSs were associated with a higher rate of occlusion (odds ratio, .34; 95% CI, .21-.53) and C-SEMSs with a higher rate of migration (odds ratio, 4.28; 95% CI, 2.79-6.57)., Conclusions: C-SEMSs were associated with higher stent survival (time between stent deployment and stent dysfunction) compared with U-SEMSs, whereas no differences in terms of patient survival (time between stent deployment and patient's death) emerged. However, U-SEMSs were associated with higher risk of occlusion and C-SEMSs with higher risk of migration. Further studies using new C-SEMSs with an antimigration system are needed., (Copyright © 2020 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background and Aims: There are 2 techniques described for selective bile duct guidewire cannulation, the touch (T) technique (engaging the papilla with a sphincterotome and then advancing the guidewire) and the no-touch (NT) technique (engaging the papilla only with the guidewire). The aim of this prospective, multicenter randomized study was to compare the outcomes of the 2 guidewire cannulation techniques., Methods: Three hundred consecutive patients with naïve papillae were enrolled in 2 groups (150 to T group and 150 to NT group). A maximum of 15 biliary cannulation attempts, for no longer than 5 minutes, or a maximum of 5 unintentional cannulations of the pancreatic duct for each group were performed. If biliary cannulation failed, the patient was crossed over to the other technique with the same parameters. The primary outcome was the guidewire cannulation success rate using either the T or NT technique. Secondary outcomes were the number of attempts and cannulation duration, number of pancreatic duct cannulations, and adverse events., Results: The primary cannulation rate was significantly higher in the T group compared with the NT group (88% vs 54%, P < .001), and the cannulation rate was significantly higher using the T technique compared with the NT technique also after crossover (77% vs 17%, P < .001). The mean number of cannulation attempts was 4.6 in the T group versus 5.5 in the NT group (P = .006), and the duration of cannulation before crossover (P < .001) and overall cannulation duration after crossover (P < .001) were significantly lower in the T group. The number of unintended pancreatic duct cannulations was statistically higher using the T technique compared with the NT technique (P = .037). The rates of adverse events did not significantly differ between the 2 groups., Conclusions: Our results clearly indicated that the T technique is superior to the NT technique for biliary cannulation. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT01954602.)., (Copyright © 2018 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)