Is Endoscopic Balloon Dilation Still Associated With Higher Rates of Pancreatitis?: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

• Published in: Pancreas Vol. 49; no. 2; p. 158
• Main Authors: Matsubayashi, Carolina Ogawa, Ribeiro, Igor Braga, de Moura, Diogo Turiani Hourneaux, Brunaldi, Vitor Ottoboni, Bernardo, Wanderley Marques, Hathorn, Kelly E, de Moura, Eduardo Guimarães Hourneaux
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States 01.02.2020
• Subjects: Balloon Enteroscopy - adverse effects; Cholangiopancreatography, Endoscopic Retrograde - adverse effects; Cholangitis - diagnosis; Cholangitis - etiology; Dilatation - adverse effects; Hemorrhage - diagnosis; Hemorrhage - etiology; Humans; Pancreatitis - diagnosis; Pancreatitis - etiology; Postoperative Complications - diagnosis; Postoperative Complications - etiology; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic - methods; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic - statistics & numerical data; Sphincterotomy, Endoscopic - adverse effects
• ISSN: 1536-4828
• DOI: 10.1097/MPA.0000000000001489

The objective of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of endoscopic papillary balloon dilation (EPBD), endoscopic sphincterotomy (ES), and the combination of large balloon dilation and ES (ES + EPLBD) in the treatment of common bile duct stones, with a special focus on postendoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP). Individualized search strategies were developed in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) which evaluated at least one of the following outcomes: PEP, complete stone removal in the first ERCP, need for mechanical lithotripsy, recurrence of common bile duct stones, bleeding, and cholangitis. Twenty-five RCTs were selected for analysis. Pancreatitis rates were higher for EPBD than for ES (P = 0.003), as were severe pancreatitis rates (P = 0.04). However, in the 10-mm or greater balloon subgroup analysis, this difference was not shown (P = 0.82). Rates of PEP were higher in the subgroup of non-Asian subjects (P = 0.02), and the results were not robust when RCTs that used endoscopic nasobiliary drainage were omitted. The incidence of pancreatitis was comparable between EPLBD and ES + EPLBD. All 3 approaches were equally efficacious. Nevertheless, the results should be interpreted with caution, because pancreatitis is a multifactorial pathology, and RCTs can have limited generalizability.