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 support endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) as a potential alternative to endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography-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 searched MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) 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 six RCTs (577 patients). There were no significant differences between groups in stent patency (MD 8.18 days; 95% CI -22.55, 38.91), procedure time (MD -6.31 minutes; 95% CI -12.68, 0.06), and survival (MD 4.59 days; 95% CI -34.23, 43.40). Technical success (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, hospital stay was significantly shorter (MD -1.03 days; 95% CI -1.53, -0.53), and risk of reintervention (RR 0.57; 95% CI 0.37, 0.88), post-procedure pancreatitis (RR 0.15; 95% CI 0.03, 0.66), and tumor in/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, post-procedure pancreatitis, tumor in/overgrowth, and reduced hospital stay. Increasing evidence support endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) as a potential alternative to endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography-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. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) 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. We included six RCTs (577 patients). There were no significant differences between groups in stent patency (MD 8.18 days; 95% CI -22.55, 38.91), procedure time (MD -6.31 minutes; 95% CI -12.68, 0.06), and survival (MD 4.59 days; 95% CI -34.23, 43.40). Technical success (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, hospital stay was significantly shorter (MD -1.03 days; 95% CI -1.53, -0.53), and risk of reintervention (RR 0.57; 95% CI 0.37, 0.88), post-procedure pancreatitis (RR 0.15; 95% CI 0.03, 0.66), and tumor in/overgrowth (RR 0.28; 95% CI 0.11, 0.70) were significantly lower with EUS-BD. 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, post-procedure pancreatitis, tumor in/overgrowth, and reduced hospital stay.