Table 5.

Summary of studies using EUS - biliary drainage versus percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage

Authors	Study Design	Patients (n)	Pathology	Intervention	Technical Success rate, % (n)	Clinical Success rate, % (n)	Adverse Events, % (n)
Artifon et al. (2012)[48]	Prospective, single center	25	MDBO	EUS-CDS versus PTBD	100 (13/13) versus 100 (12/12)	100 (13/13) versus 100 (12/12)	15.3 (2/13) versus 25 (3/12), P=0.44
Bapaye et al. (2013)[49]	Retrospective, single center	50	50 MDBO	EUS BD (CDS/HGS) versus PTBD	92 (23/25) versus 46 (12/26), P<0.05	92 (23/25) versus 46 (12/26), P<0.05	20 (5/25) versus 46 (12/26), P<0.05
Khashab et al. (2015)[50]	Retrospective, Single Center	73	MDBO	EUS CDS versus PTBD	86.4 (19/22) versus 100 (51/51), P=0.007	100 (19/19) versus 86.4 (47/51), P=0.40	18.2 (4/22) versus 39.2 (36/51), P<0.001
Sharaiha et al. (2016)[51]	Retrospective, Single Center	60	50 MDBO	EUS-BD (CDS/HGS) versus PTBD	91.6 (43/47) versus 93.3 (12/13), P=1.000	62.2 (29/47) versus 25 (3/13), P=0.03	6.6 (3/47) versus 53.8 (7/13), P=0.001
Lee et al. (2016)[52]	Prospective, Multicenter	66	MDBO	EUS CDS versus PTBD	94.1 (32/34) versus 96.9 (31/32), P=0.008	87.5 (28/32) versus 87.1 (27/31), P=1.00	8.8 (3/34) versus 31.2 (10/32) , P=0.022
Sportes et al. (2017)[53]	Retrospective, Single Center	51	MDBO	EUS-HGS versus PTBD	100 (31/31) versus 100 (20/20), P=1.00	86 (25/31) versus 83 (15/20), P=0.88	16 (5/31) versus 10 (2/20)
Kongkam et al. (2020)[47]	Prospective, Multi-center	36	MHBO	EUS-BD (CERES) versus PTBD	84.2 (16/19) versus 100 (17/17), P=0.23	78.9 (15/19) versus 76.5 (13/17), P=1.00	23.6 (5/19) versus 35.3 (6/17), P=0.56

BD: Biliary drainage; CERES: Combined ERCP and EUS-BD; PTBD: Percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage; CDS: Choledochoduodenostomy; HGS: Hepaticogastrostomy; MHBO: Malignant hilar biliary obstruction; MBO: Malignant biliary obstruction