Efficacy and safety of lumen apposing metal stents or self-expandable metal stents for endoscopic ultrasound-guided choledocho-duodenostomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided biliary drainage is becoming an option for palliation of malignant biliary obstruction. Lumen apposing metal stents (LAMS) are replacing self-expandable metal stents (SEMS). Aim of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of LAMS or SEMS for EUS-guided choledocho-duodenostomy. METHODS A meta-analysis was performed using PRISMA protocols. Electronic databases were searched for studies on EUS-guided choledocho-duodenostomy. The primary outcome was the clinical success. Technical success, re-intervention and adverse events were secondary outcomes. We used the random effects model with the DerSimonian-Laird estimation and the results were depicted using the forest plots. Furthermore, we performed analysis of the outcomes with the data stratified by selected variables. RESULTS Overall, 31 studies (820 patients) were included. The pooled rates of clinical and technical success were 93.6% (95% CI [95%CI] 88.6-96.5%) and 94.8% (95%CI 90.2-97.3%), for LAMS , and 91.7% (95%CI 88.1-94.2) and 92.7 % (95%CI 89.9-94.9%) for SEMS, respectively. The pooled rates of adverse events were 17.1% (95%CI 12.5-22.8%) for LAMS compared to 18.3% (95% CI 14.3-23.0%) for SEMS. The pooled rates of re-intervention were 10.9% (95% CI 7.7-15.3%) for LAMS compared to 13.9% (95% CI 9.6-19.7%) for SEMS. Subgroup analyses confirmed these results. CONCLUSIONS This meta-analysis shows that LAMS and SEMS are comparable in terms of efficacy for EUS-guided choledocho-duodenostomy. The use of LAMS was associated with similar clinical and technical success, post-procedure adverse events and re-intervention rate when compared with SEMS placement. These last two points require further investigation.