Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Our journals
    • Clinical Medicine
    • Future Healthcare Journal
  • Subject collections
  • About the RCP
  • Contact us

Clinical Medicine Journal

  • ClinMed Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Ahead of print
    • Archive
  • Author guidance
    • Instructions for authors
    • Submit online
  • About ClinMed
    • Scope
    • Editorial board
    • Policies
    • Information for reviewers
    • Advertising

User menu

  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
RCP Journals
Home
  • Log in
  • Home
  • Our journals
    • Clinical Medicine
    • Future Healthcare Journal
  • Subject collections
  • About the RCP
  • Contact us
Advanced

Clinical Medicine Journal

clinmedicine Logo
  • ClinMed Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Ahead of print
    • Archive
  • Author guidance
    • Instructions for authors
    • Submit online
  • About ClinMed
    • Scope
    • Editorial board
    • Policies
    • Information for reviewers
    • Advertising

Systematic review of endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage versus percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage

Zeinab Hassan and Eyad Gadour
Download PDF
DOI: https://doi.org/10.7861/clinmed.22-4-s14
Clin Med July 2022
Zeinab Hassan
AStockport NHS Foundation Trust, Stockport, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Eyad Gadour
BUniversity Hospitals of Morecambe Bay NHS Foundation Trust, Kendal, UK
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
Loading

Introduction

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) is a novel technique that allows biliary drainage by echoendoscopy and fluoroscopy using a stent from the biliary tree to the gastrointestinal tract. Percutaneous transhepatic cholangiography biliary drainage (PTBD) is a diagnostic and therapeutic procedure that involves inserting a needle into the biliary tree, followed by the immediate insertion of a catheter. This study examined the technical aspects and outcomes of these different approaches to biliary drainage.

Materials and methods

We compared the technical aspects and outcomes of two different approaches to biliary drainage: EUS-BD and PTBD. Different databases (including PubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, the Cochrane library, Scopus and Google Scholar) were searched according to the PRISMA guidelines to obtain studies comparing PTBD and EUS-BD.

Results

Among the six studies that fulfilled the inclusion criteria, PTBD patients underwent significantly more reinterventions (4.9 vs 1.3), experienced more post-procedure pain (4.1 vs 1.9) and experienced more late adverse events (53.8% vs 6.6%) than EUS-BD patients (Table 1).1–6 The EUS-BD group had a higher success rate of biliary drainage (92% vs 46%; p>0.05) and a lower rate of adverse events (20% vs 46%; p=0.05) than PTBD group. There was a significant reduction in total bilirubin in both groups (from 16.4 μmol/L to 3.3 μmol/L for EUS-BD and 17.2 μmol/L to 3.8 μmol/L for PTBD; p=0.002) at the 7-day follow-up. There were no significant differences observed for complication rates between PTBD and EUS-BD (3.3 vs 3.8, respectively). PTBD was associated with a higher adverse event rate than EUS-BD in all procedures, including reinterventions (80.4% vs 15.7%, respectively) and a higher index procedure (39.2% vs 18.2%, respectively).

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1.

Rates of clinical and technical success in the included studies

Conclusion

The findings of this systematic review revealed that EUS-BD is linked with a higher rate of effective biliary drainage and a more manageable procedure-related adverse event profile than PTBD. EUS-BD could become a first-line biliary drainage treatment instead of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography if the outcomes of clinical studies are positive and technologies are simplified. Prospective, randomised controlled studies are required to clarify these issues.

  • © Royal College of Physicians 2022. All rights reserved.

References

  1. ↵
    1. Artifon EL
    , Aparicio D, Paione JB, et al. Biliary drainage in patients with unresectable, malignant obstruction where ERCP fails: endoscopic ultrasonography-guided choledochoduodenostomy vs percutaneous drainage. J Clin Gastroenterol 2012;46:768–74.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. ↵
    1. Bapaye A
    , Dubale N, Aher A. Comparison of endosonography-guided vs. percutaneous biliary stenting when papilla is inaccessible for ERCP. United European Gastroenterol J 2013;1:285–93.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. ↵
    1. Khashab MA
    , Valeshabad AK, Afghani E, et al. A comparative evaluation of EUS-guided biliary drainage and percutaneous drainage in patients with distal malignant biliary obstruction and failed ERCP. Dig Dis Sci 2015;60:557–65.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. ↵
    1. Giovannini M
    . Learning in therapeutic EUS. Endosc Ultrasound 2021;10:317–8.
    OpenUrl
  5. ↵
    1. Jung Y
    , Lee J, Cho JY, et al. Comparison of efficacy and safety between endoscopic submucosal dissection and transanal endoscopic microsurgery for the treatment of rectal tumor. Saudi J Gastroenterol 2018;24:115–21.
    OpenUrl
  6. ↵
    1. Sharaiha RZ
    , Kumta NA, Desai AP, et al. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage vs percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage: predictors of successful outcome in patients who fail endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. Surg Endosc 2016;30:5500–5.
    OpenUrl
Back to top
Previous articleNext article

Article Tools

Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Citation Tools
Systematic review of endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage versus percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage
Zeinab Hassan, Eyad Gadour
Clinical Medicine Jul 2022, 22 (Suppl 4) 14; DOI: 10.7861/clinmed.22-4-s14

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Systematic review of endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage versus percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage
Zeinab Hassan, Eyad Gadour
Clinical Medicine Jul 2022, 22 (Suppl 4) 14; DOI: 10.7861/clinmed.22-4-s14
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Introduction
    • Materials and methods
    • Results
    • Conclusion
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • A rare case report of granulomatosis with polyangiitis presenting with thrombus of the ascending aorta
  • Pancreatic cancer with multiple liver metastasis complicating multi-organ infarcts from marantic endocarditis and Trousseau's syndrome
  • Age-adjusted versus cut-off for D-dimer to exclude pulmonary embolism audit
Show more Clinical

Similar Articles

FAQs

  • Difficulty logging in.

There is currently no login required to access the journals. Please go to the home page and simply click on the edition that you wish to read. If you are still unable to access the content you require, please let us know through the 'Contact us' page.

  • Can't find the CME questionnaire.

The read-only self-assessment questionnaire (SAQ) can be found after the CME section in each edition of Clinical Medicine. RCP members and fellows (using their login details for the main RCP website) are able to access the full SAQ with answers and are awarded 2 CPD points upon successful (8/10) completion from:  https://cme.rcplondon.ac.uk

Navigate this Journal

  • Journal Home
  • Current Issue
  • Ahead of Print
  • Archive

Related Links

  • ClinMed - Home
  • FHJ - Home
clinmedicine Footer Logo
  • Home
  • Journals
  • Contact us
  • Advertise
HighWire Press, Inc.

Follow Us:

  • Follow HighWire Origins on Twitter
  • Visit HighWire Origins on Facebook

Copyright © 2021 by the Royal College of Physicians