Endoscopic ultrasound-guided drainage of the biliary system: Techniques, indications and future perspectives

Table 2 Studies comparing endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage and percutaneous transhepatic cholangiography

Author, Yr	Type of study	Type malignant obstruction	Number patients	Technical Succes rate	Clinical Succes rate	Complications, EUS vs PTC
Téllez-Ávila et al[60], 2018	(1) Retrospective; and (2) Failed ERCP	(1) Malignant 56.4%; and (2) Distal	(1) Total: 62; (2) EUS: 30; and (3) PTC: 32	(1) EUS: 90%; and (2) PTC: 78.1%	(1) EUS: 96%; and (2) PTC: 63%	Overall: 6% vs 28.1%
Sportes et al[57], 2017	(1) Retrospective, multicenter; and (2) Failed ERCP or altered anatomy	(1) Unresectable; and (2) Distal	(1) Total: 51; (2) EUS: 31; and (3) PTC: 20	(1) EUS: 100%; and (2) PTC: 100%	(1) EUS: 86%; and (2) PTC: 83%	(1) Overall: 16% vs 10%; and (2) Reintervention: 6.5% vs 105%
Lee et al[58], 2016	(1) Randomized, multicenter; and (2) Inaccessible papilla	(1) Unresectable; and (2) Distal	(1) Total: 66; (2) EUS: 34; and (3) PTC: 32	(1) EUS: 94.1%; and (2) PTC: 96.9%	(1) EUS: 87.5%; and (2) PTC: 87.1%	(1) Overall: 8.8% vs 31.2%; and (2) Reintervention: 25% vs 54.8%
Torres-Ruiz, 2016; Abstract	Failed ERCP	Distal and proximal	(1) Total: 66; (2) EUS: 35; and (3) PTC: 31	(1) EUS: 81%; and (2) PTC: 90.3%	(1) EUS: 90%; and (2) PTC: 68.7%	(1) Early: 10.8% vs 9%; (2) Late: 16.6% vs 54%; and (3) Reintervention: 8.5% vs 45.1%
Sharaiha et al[56], 2016	(1) Retrospective, single center; and (2) Failed ERCP	Malignant: 83.3%	(1) Total: 60; (2) EUS: 47; and (3) PTC: 13	(1) EUS: 93.3%; and (2) PTC: 91.6%	(1) EUS: 62.2%; and (2) PTC: 25%	(1) Late: 6.6% vs 53.8%; and (2) Reintervention: 6.6% vs 53.8%
Bill et al[59], 2015	(1) Retrospective, single center; and (2) Failed ERCP	Distal	(1) Total: 50; (2) EUS: 25; and (3) PTC: 25	(1) EUS: 76%; and (2) PTC: 100%	(1) EUS: 96%; and (2) PTC: 80%	(1) Early: 16% vs 12%; (2) Late: 12% vs 5%; and (3) Reintervention: 15.8% vs 60%
Giovannini, 2015; Abstract	(1) Randomized, multicenter; and (2) Failed ERCP or impossible	Malignant: 90.2%	(1) Total: 41; (2) EUS: 20; and (3) PTC: 21	(1) EUS: 95%; and (2) PTC: 100%	(1) EUS: 95%; and (2) PTC: 85%	Overall: 35% vs 60%
Khashab et al[45], 2015	(1) Retrospective, multicenter; and (2) Failed ERCP	Distal	(1) Total: 73; (2) EUS: 22; and (3) PTC: 51	(1) EUS: 86.4%; and (2) PTC: 100%	(1) EUS: 86.4%; and (2) PTC: 92.2%	(1) Overall: 18.2% vs 39.2%; and (2) Reintervention: 15.7% vs 80.4%
Bapaye et al[55], 2013	(1) Retrospective, single center; and (2) Inaccessible papil	Unresectable	(1) Total: 51; (2) EUS: 25; and (3) PTC: 26	(1) EUS: 92%; and (2) PTC: 46%	(1) EUS: 92%; and (2) PTC: 46%	Overall: 20% vs 46%
Artifon et al[54], 2012	(1) Prospective, randomized; and (2) Failed ERCP	Unresectable	(1) Total: 25; (2) EUS: 13; and (3) PTC: 12	(1) CDS: 100%; and (2) PTC: 100%	(1) CDS: 100%; and (2) PTC: 100%	Overall: 15.3% vs 25%

EH: Extrahepatic; IH: Intrahepatic; AG: Antegrade; CDS: Choledochoduodenostomy; HGS: Hepaticogastrostomy; RV: Rendezvous; GG: Gastro-gallbladder; HES: Hepaticoesophageostomy; SEMS: Self-expandable metal stent.