Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided vs Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography-Guided Biliary Drainage as Primary Approach to Malignant Distal Biliary Obstruction: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

INTRODUCTION: Endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) is an alternative to endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP)-guided transpapillary drainage in malignant distal biliary obstruction (MDBO). This meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) aims to compare the outcomes of these 2 approaches. METHODS: Electronic databases from January 2005 through December 2023 were searched for RCTs comparing outcomes of EUS-BD and ERCP for treating MDBO. Pooled proportions, risk ratio (RR), and odds ratio were calculated using random-effects models. RESULTS: Five RCTs comprising 519 patients were included in the final analysis. The pooled RR for overall technical success with EUS-BD compared with ERCP was 1.05 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.96-1.16, P = 0.246, I2 = 61%) and for clinical success was 0.99 (95% CI = 0.95-1.04, P = 0.850, I2 = 0%). The pooled rate of procedure-related pancreatitis was 7.20% (95% CI = 3.60-13.80, I2 = 34%) in the ERCP group compared with zero in the EUS-BD group. The pooled RR for stent dysfunction with EUS-BD compared with ERCP was 0.48 (95% CI = 0.28-0.83, P = 0.008, I2 = 7%). The weighted mean procedure time was 13.43 (SD = 10.12) minutes for EUS-BD compared with 21.06 (SD = 6.64) minutes for ERCP. The mean stent patency was 194.11 (SD = 52.12) days in the EUS-BD group and 187 (SD = 60.70) days in the ERCP group. DISCUSSION: EUS-BD is an efficient and safe alternative to ERCP in MDBO. An almost nonexistent risk of procedure-related pancreatitis, lower procedure time, and ease of use make this an attractive primary approach to biliary decompression in centers with expertise.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided lumen-apposing metal stent with or without coaxial plastic stent for pancreatic fluid collections: a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing safety and efficacy.

Background: Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMS) are preferred for draining symptomatic large pancreatic fluid collections (PFCs). A concurrent coaxial double-pigtail plastic stent (DPPS) is proposed to reduce adverse events associated with LAMS. We aimed to perform a comparative outcome analysis of LAMS with or without DPPS for PFCs. Methods: Electronic databases from January 2005 through July 2023 were searched for studies comparing the use of LAMS with or without DPPS for PFCs. Pooled proportions were calculated using fixed (inverse variance) and random-effects (DerSimonian-Laird) models. Results: After reviewing 1780 studies, we extracted data from 6 studies comprising 348 patients. The weighted odds of overall technical success, using LAMS plus DPPS compared to LAMS alone, were 0.53 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.15-1.83), and the odds of clinical success were 1.10 (95%CI 0.59-2.05). The weighted odds of total adverse events with LAMS compared to LAMS plus DPPS were 2.21 (95%CI 1.37-3.59). Analysis of individual adverse events showed that the odds of stent occlusion when LAMS alone was used compared to LAMS plus DPPS was 2.36 (95%CI 1.12-4.98). The odds of bleeding were 1.84 (95%CI 0.77-4.38), and the odds of stent migration 0.95 (95%CI 0.40-2.23). Conclusions: EUS-guided LAMS placement is the current standard of care for managing symptomatic large PFCs. Concurrent use of coaxial DPPS can mitigate the overall adverse events observed with LAMS, while maintaining similar technical and clinical success.