Abstract
Background Primary decompression in patients with malignant biliary obstruction can be achieved
via endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) with transpapillary stenting,
or, more recently, via transmural endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD).
It is unclear whether either approach is superior in terms of clinical success or
adverse events in the primary setting.
Methods A comprehensive systematic electronic search was performed for studies comparing
EUS-BD and ERCP as the primary approach with respect to clinical success and any other
outcome(s). Pooled relative risks (RRs) and weighted mean differences were obtained
as appropriate using DerSimonian and Laird random effects models. Sensitivity analyses
were also performed.
Results 5 out of 776 studies with a total of 396 patients were included. Overall clinical
success was not significantly different between EUS-BD and ERCP (RR 0.98, 95 % confidence
interval [CI] 0.93 to 1.03). There was no significant difference in overall adverse
events (RR 0.84, 95 %CI 0.35 to 2.01), though results suggested that EUS-BD may be
associated with a reduced risk of pancreatitis (RR 0.22, 95 %CI 0.05 to 1.02). There
were no significant differences between EUS-BD and ERCP in terms of procedure time
or the risk of stent occlusion.
Conclusions EUS-BD had similar clinical success rates and occlusion rates to ERCP in the primary
decompression of malignant biliary obstruction from meta-analysis including a modest
number of patients. EUS-BD may be a practical alternative to the ERCP-guided approach
in such patients, but further well-designed prospective studies with larger numbers
of patients are required to more clearly delineate potential differences in adverse
events and cost.