Skip to main content
. 2021 Apr 21;1(1):e8. doi: 10.1002/deo2.8

TABLE 2.

Randomized controlled trials comparing EUS‐CDS and ERCP for primary drainage

Author/year Method Number of patients, n Technical success rate, % (n) Clinical success rate, % (n) Procedure time, min Adverse event rate, % Stent patency (mean, days)
Paik a /2018 19

ERCP

EUS‐CDS

64

33

90.2 (55/61)

90.6 (29/32)

94.5 (52/55)

87.5 (28/32)

11 (median)

5 b (median)

19.7

6.3

165

208

Bang/2018 20

ERCP

EUS‐CDS

34

33

94.1 (32/34)

90.9 (30/33)

91.2 (31/34)

97.0 (32/33)

21 (median)

25 (median)

14.7

21.2

170

182

Park/2018 26

ERCP

EUS‐CDS

14

14

100 (14/14)

92.8 (13/14)

92.8 (13/14)

100 (13/13)

31 (mean)

43 (mean)

0

0

403

379

Abbreviations: BD, biliary drainage; ERCP, endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography; EUS‐CDS, endoscopic ultrasound‐guided choledochoduodenostomy; ND; not described.

a

Among EUS‐BD, hepaticogastrostomy (HGS) patients are excluded.

b

Including EUS‐HGS cases.