Table 4.
Summary of studies of EUS-biliary drainage versus ERCP
| Author | Study design | Patients (n) | Pathology | Intervention | Overall technical success rate, %(n) | Overallbclinical success rate, %(n) | Overall adverse events, %(n) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dhir et al. (2015)[38] | Retrospective, single centre | 208 | MDBO | EUS BD (CDS/AS) versus ERCP | 93.4 (97/104) versus 94.2 (98/104), P=0.246 | 89.4 (93/104) versus 91.3 (95/104), P=1.00 | 8.7 (9/104) versus 8.7 (9/104), P=1.00 |
| Paik et al. (2018)[39] | Prospective, Multicentre | 125 | MDBO | EUS BD (HGS/CDS) versus ERCP | 93.8 (60/64) versus 90.2 (55/61) | 90 (54/60) versus 94.5 (52/55) | 6.3 (4/64) versus 19.7 (12/61), P=0.03 |
| Nakai et al. (2019)[40] | Prospective, Multicentre with retrospective control group | 34 | MDBO | EUS-CDS versus ERCP | 97 (33/34) | 100 (34/34) | 15 (5/34) versus 24 (6/25), P=0.50 |
| Park et al. (2018)[41] | Prospective, single centre | 30 | MBO | EUS-BD versus ERCP | 92.8 (13/14) versus 100 (14/14), P=1.00 | 100 (13/13) versus 92.8 (13/14), P=1.00 | 0 versus 0 |
BD: Biliary drainage; CDS: Choledochoduodenostomy; HGS: Hepaticogastrostomy; MHBO: Malignant hilar biliary obstruction; MBO: Malignant biliary obstruction