Clinical value of preferred endoscopic ultrasound-guided antegrade surgery in the treatment of extrahepatic bile duct malignant obstruction

Primary drainage of distal malignant biliary obstruction: A comparative network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The effectiveness of various primary upfront drainage techniques for distal malignant biliary obstructions (dMBO) is not well-established.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the technical and clinical success rates and adverse event (AE) rates of various primary drainage techniques.

METHODS

We systematically reviewed RCTs comparing the technical and clinical success and AE rates of EUS-choledochoduodenostomy (CDS) with lumen-apposing metal stent (LAMS), EUS-CDS with self-expandable metal stents (SEMS), EUS-hepaticogastrostomy (HGS), ERCP, and PTBD performed upfront.

RESULTS

Six RCTs involving 583 patients were analyzed. EUS-CDS with LAMS showed significantly higher technical success compared to EUS-CDS with SEMS (RR 1.21, 95 % CI 1.07-1.37) and ERCP (RR 1.17, 95 % CI 1.07-1.28). EUS-CDS with LAMS had the highest rank in technical success (SUCRA = 0.86). The clinical success rate was also higher with EUS-CDS with LAMS than with ERCP (RR 1.12, 1.01-1.25). PTBD was the worst ranked procedure for safety (SUCRA score = 0.18), while EUS-CDS with LAMS was the top procedure for procedural time (SUCRA score = 0.83).

CONCLUSION

EUS-CDS with LAMS has the highest technical and clinical success rates and is significantly superior to ERCP as the upfront technique for dMBO treatment. PTBD should be abandoned as first-line treatment due to the poor safety profile.

Comparative Effectiveness of ERCP and EUS-Guided Techniques for "Primary Biliary Drainage" in Malignant Distal Biliary Obstruction: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) is a viable alternative in cases with failed ERCP transpapillary drainage (ERCP-TPD). This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of EUS-BD and ERCP-TPD for primary biliary drainage in patients with distal malignant biliary obstruction (DMBO).

METHODS

We searched Embase, PubMed, and Medline databases for studies comparing EUS-BD and ERCP-TPD in DMBO, from inception until September 2023. The primary endpoint was clinical success and secondary endpoints included technical success, procedure duration, and adverse events.

RESULTS

Eight studies (815 patients, 56.1% male) were included in this analysis. Indications for biliary drainage were pancreatic carcinoma (75.1%), followed by cholangiocarcinoma (10.1%). Clinical success was comparable between EUS-BD and ERCP-TPD groups (OR 1.34; 95% CI, 0.75-2.40; P=0.32). Technical success was similar between the 2 groups (OR 2.09; 95% CI, 0.83-5.25; P=0.12). There was a trend toward fewer adverse events in the EUS-BD group (OR 0.65; 95% CI, 0.40-1.07; P=0.09), with significantly lower odds of post-procedure pancreatitis (OR 0.17; 95% CI, 0.06-0.50; P=0.001).

CONCLUSION

EUS-BD is comparable to ERCP for primary biliary drainage in DMBO patients with shorter procedural time and a significantly reduced risk of post-procedure pancreatitis.

EUS- versus ERCP-guided biliary drainage for malignant biliary obstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Increasing evidence supports EUS-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) as a potential alternative to ERCP-guided biliary drainage (ERCP-BD) in the primary treatment of malignant biliary obstruction (MBO). This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of both techniques as the initial approach for MBO.

METHODS

We systematically searched in MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane databases for randomized controlled trials comparing both techniques and reporting at least one of the outcomes of interest. The pooled estimates were calculated using the random-effects model, and I2 statistics were used to evaluate heterogeneity.

RESULTS

We included 6 randomized controlled trials (577 patients). There were no significant differences between both groups in terms of stent patency (mean difference [MD], 8.18 days; 95% confidence interval [CI], -22.55 to 38.91), procedure time (MD, -6.31 minutes; 95% CI, -12.68 to 0.06), and survival (MD, 4.59 days; 95% CI, -34.23 to 43.40). Technical success (risk ratio [RR], 1.04; 95% CI, 0.96-1.13), clinical success (RR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.96-1.08), overall adverse events (RR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.24-1.43), and cholangitis (RR, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.39-3.61) were also similar between groups. However, the hospital stay was significantly shorter (MD, -1.03 days; 95% CI, -1.53 to -0.53), and the risk of reintervention (RR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.37-0.88), postprocedure pancreatitis (RR, 0.15; 95% CI, 0.03-0.66), and tumor ingrowth/overgrowth (RR, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.11-0.70) were significantly lower with EUS-BD.

CONCLUSIONS

EUS-BD and ERCP-BD had similar efficacy and safety as the initial approach for MBO. However, EUS-BD had a significantly lower risk of reintervention, postprocedure pancreatitis, tumor ingrowth/overgrowth, and reduced hospital stay.

Adverse events with EUS-guided biliary drainage: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Multiple meta-analyses have evaluated the technical and clinical success of EUS-guided biliary drainage (BD), but meta-analyses concerning adverse events (AEs) are limited. The present meta-analysis analyzed AEs associated with various types of EUS-BD.

METHODS

A literature search of MEDLINE, Embase, and Scopus was conducted from 2005 to September 2022 for studies analyzing the outcome of EUS-BD. The primary outcomes were incidence of overall AEs, major AEs, procedure-related mortality, and reintervention. The event rates were pooled using a random-effects model.

RESULTS

One hundred fifty-five studies (7887 patients) were included in the final analysis. The pooled clinical success rates and incidence of AEs with EUS-BD were 95% (95% confidence interval [CI], 94.1-95.9) and 13.7% (95% CI, 12.3-15.0), respectively. Among early AEs, bile leak was the most common followed by cholangitis with pooled incidences of 2.2% (95% CI, 1.8-2.7) and 1.0% (95% CI, .8-1.3), respectively. The pooled incidences of major AEs and procedure-related mortality with EUS-BD were .6% (95% CI, .3-.9) and .1% (95% CI, .0-.4), respectively. The pooled incidences of delayed migration and stent occlusion were 1.7% (95% CI, 1.1-2.3) and 11.0% (95% CI, 9.3-12.8), respectively. The pooled event rate for reintervention (for stent migration or occlusion) after EUS-BD was 16.2% (95% CI, 14.0-18.3; I2 = 77.5%).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite a high clinical success rate, EUS-BD may be associated with AEs in one-seventh of the cases. However, major AEs and mortality incidence remain less than 1%, which is reassuring.