Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2024 Dec;56(12):955-963.
doi: 10.1055/a-2340-0697. Epub 2024 Jun 6.

Endoscopic ultrasound- versus ERCP-guided primary drainage of inoperable malignant distal biliary obstruction: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Endoscopic ultrasound- versus ERCP-guided primary drainage of inoperable malignant distal biliary obstruction: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Tawfik Khoury et al. Endoscopy. 2024 Dec.

Abstract

Background: We assessed efficacy and safety of endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) vs. endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) as first-line intervention in malignant distal biliary obstruction (MDBO).

Methods: PubMed/Medline, Embase, and Cochrane databases were searched until 01 /12 /2023 for randomized controlled trials of EUS-BD vs. ERCP for primary biliary drainage in patients with inoperable MDBO. The primary outcome was technical success. Secondary outcomes were clinical success, adverse events, mean procedure time, 1-year stent patency, and overall survival. Relative risk (RR) with 95 %CI were calculated using a random effects model.

Results: Five studies (519 patients) were included. RR (95 %CI) for EUS-BD was 1.06 (0.96 to 1.17; P = 0.27) for pooled technical success and 1.02 (0.97 to 1.08; P = 0.45) for clinical success. 1-year stent patency was similar between the groups (RR 1.15, 0.94 to 1.42; P = 0.17), with lower reintervention with EUS-BD (RR 0.58, 0.37 to 0.9; P = 0.01). The RR was 0.85 (0.49 to 1.46; P = 0.55) for adverse events and 0.97 (0.10 to 0.17; P = 0.98) for severe adverse events. On subgroup analysis, EUS-guided placement of lumen-apposing metal stent (LAMS) outperformed ERCP in terms of technical success (RR 1.17, 1.01 to 1.35; P = 0.03). Procedure time was lower with EUS-BD (standardized mean difference -2.36 minutes [-2.68 to -2.05; P < 0.001]).

Conclusions: EUS-BD showed a statistically significant lower reintervention rate than ERCP, but with similar technical success, stent patency, clinical success, and safety. Technical success of EUS-BD with LAMS was better than ERCP.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

B. Napoléon has delivered a teaching session for Taewoong and is a consultant for Boston Scientific. A. Lisotti, P. Fusaroli, and F. Fumex are consultants for Boston Scientific. A.Y.B. Teoh is a consultant for Boston Scientific, Cook, Taewoong, Microtech, and MI Tech Medical. T. Khoury, W. Sbeit, G. Marasco, L.H. Eusebi, S.M. Chan, A. Shahin, M. Basheer, R. Gincul, S. Leblanc, and J. Jacques declare that they have no conflict of interest.