Background and Aims: In the management of gastric outlet obstruction (GOO), EUS-guided gastroenterostomy (EUS-GE) seems to be safe and more effective than enteral stent placement. However, comparisons with laparoscopic GE (L-GE) are scarce. Our aim was to perform a propensity score–matched comparison between EUS-GE and L-GE. Methods: An international, multicenter, retrospective analysis was performed of consecutive EUS-GE and L-GE procedures in 3 academic centers (January 2015 to May 2020) using propensity score matching to minimize selection bias. A standard maximum propensity score difference of .1 was applied, also considering underlying disease and oncologic staging. Results: Overall, 77 patients were treated with EUS-GE and 48 patients with L-GE. By means of propensity score matching, 37 patients were allocated to both groups, resulting in 74 (1:1) matched patients. Technical success was achieved in 35 of 37 EUS-GE–treated patients (94.6%) versus 100% in the L-GE group (P = .493). Clinical success, defined as eating without vomiting or GOO Scoring System ≥2, was achieved in 97.1% and 89.2%, respectively (P = .358). Median time to oral intake (1 [interquartile range {IQR}, 3-1.0] vs 3 [IQR, 1.0-5.0] days, P < .001) and median hospital stay (4 [IQR, 2-8] vs 8 [IQR, 5.5-20] days, P < .001) were significantly shorter in the EUS-GE group. Overall (2.7% vs 27.0%, P = .007) and severe (.0% vs 16.2%, P = .025) adverse events were identified more frequently in the L-GE group. Conclusions: For patients with GOO, EUS-GE and L-GE showed almost identical technical and clinical success. However, reduced time to oral intake, shorter median hospital stay, and lower rate of adverse events suggest that the EUS-guided approach might be preferable.

Laparoscopic versus EUS-guided gastroenterostomy for gastric outlet obstruction: an international multicenter propensity score–matched comparison (with video) / Bronswijk, M.; Vanella, G.; van Malenstein, H.; Laleman, W.; Jaekers, J.; Topal, B.; Daams, F.; Besselink, M. G.; Arcidiacono, P. G.; Voermans, R. P.; Fockens, P.; Larghi, A.; van Wanrooij, R. L. J.; Van der Merwe, S. W.. - In: GASTROINTESTINAL ENDOSCOPY. - ISSN 0016-5107. - 94:3(2021), pp. 526-536. [10.1016/j.gie.2021.04.006]

Laparoscopic versus EUS-guided gastroenterostomy for gastric outlet obstruction: an international multicenter propensity score–matched comparison (with video)

Vanella G.
Secondo
;
Arcidiacono P. G.
Penultimo
;
2021-01-01

Abstract

Background and Aims: In the management of gastric outlet obstruction (GOO), EUS-guided gastroenterostomy (EUS-GE) seems to be safe and more effective than enteral stent placement. However, comparisons with laparoscopic GE (L-GE) are scarce. Our aim was to perform a propensity score–matched comparison between EUS-GE and L-GE. Methods: An international, multicenter, retrospective analysis was performed of consecutive EUS-GE and L-GE procedures in 3 academic centers (January 2015 to May 2020) using propensity score matching to minimize selection bias. A standard maximum propensity score difference of .1 was applied, also considering underlying disease and oncologic staging. Results: Overall, 77 patients were treated with EUS-GE and 48 patients with L-GE. By means of propensity score matching, 37 patients were allocated to both groups, resulting in 74 (1:1) matched patients. Technical success was achieved in 35 of 37 EUS-GE–treated patients (94.6%) versus 100% in the L-GE group (P = .493). Clinical success, defined as eating without vomiting or GOO Scoring System ≥2, was achieved in 97.1% and 89.2%, respectively (P = .358). Median time to oral intake (1 [interquartile range {IQR}, 3-1.0] vs 3 [IQR, 1.0-5.0] days, P < .001) and median hospital stay (4 [IQR, 2-8] vs 8 [IQR, 5.5-20] days, P < .001) were significantly shorter in the EUS-GE group. Overall (2.7% vs 27.0%, P = .007) and severe (.0% vs 16.2%, P = .025) adverse events were identified more frequently in the L-GE group. Conclusions: For patients with GOO, EUS-GE and L-GE showed almost identical technical and clinical success. However, reduced time to oral intake, shorter median hospital stay, and lower rate of adverse events suggest that the EUS-guided approach might be preferable.
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
1-s2.0-S0016510721012438-main.pdf

solo gestori archivio

Tipologia: PDF editoriale (versione pubblicata dall'editore)
Licenza: Copyright dell'editore
Dimensione 1.13 MB
Formato Adobe PDF
1.13 MB Adobe PDF   Visualizza/Apri   Richiedi una copia

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11768/146926
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 59
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 53
social impact