Comparison of trans-gastric vs trans-enteric (trans-duodenal or trans-jejunal) endoscopic ultrasound guided gallbladder drainage using lumen apposing metal stents

Table 1 Comparison of rate of adverse events, clinical success and technical success between the approaches according to puncture site (transduodenal/transjejunal vs transgastric)

	n of studies	Pooled odds ratio (TG vs TD/TJ) or AE (%)	95%CI	P value
Method 1: Including studies with patients in both arms only
Adverse events	6	1.58	0.46-5.45	0.47
Clinical success	3	0.30	0.06-1.48	0.14
Technical success	3	0.30	0.05-1.89	0.20
Method 2: Including all studies
Adverse events	9 vs 15	27.5% vs 15.2%	(17.1%-41.1%) vs (9.5%-23.6%)	0.07
Clinical success	6 vs 13	83.3% vs 91.7%	(71.0%-91.0%) vs (82.4%-96.3%)	0.16
Technical success	9 vs 15	91.3% vs 95.6%	(83.6%-95.6%) vs 90.7%-97.7%)	0.22

TG vs TD/TJ: Transduodenal/transjejunal vs transgastric; AE: Adverse event; 95%CI: 95% confidence interval.

Table 2 Comparison of the parameters between cautery-enhanced and non-cautery enhanced approaches for endoscopic ultrasound guided gallbladder drainage

	n of studies (cautery-enhanced vs non- cautery enhanced)	Pooled odds ratio (cautery-enhanced vs non-cautery enhanced) or AEs (%)	95%CI	P value
Method 1: Including studies with patients in both arms only
Adverse events	2	0.55	0.19-1.64	0.28
Clinical success	2	1.81	0.50-6.61	0.37
Method 2: Including all studies
Adverse events	9 vs 3	14.0% vs 37.8%	(9.1%-21.0%) vs (26.5%- 50.6%)	0
Clinical success	11 vs 3	89.9% vs 93.4%	(86.1%-92.7%) vs (72.8%-90.3%)	0.12
Technical success	11 vs 3	94.4% vs 93.8%	26.5%-50.6%	0.82

AE: Adverse event; 95%CI: 95% confidence interval.