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

Table 3 Studies comparing primary endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreaticography

First Author, Yr	Type of study	Type malignant obstruction	Number patients	Technical Success rate	ClinicalSucess rate	Adverse events; EUS vs ERCP
Paik et al[5], 2018	Prospective randomized multicenter	Unresectable; Distal	Total: 125; CDS: 32; HGS: 32; ERCP: 61	EUS: 93.8%; CDS: 90.6%; HGS: 96.9%; ERCP: 90.2%	EUS: 90.0%; ERCP: 94.5%	Overall: 6.3% vs 19.7%; Pancreatitis: 0% vs 14.8%; Reintervention: 15.6% vs 42.6%; Stent patency: 85.1% vs 48.9%
Bang et al[6], 2018	Prospective randomized single center	Pancreatic cancer; Distal	Total: 67; CDS: 33; ERCP: 34	CDS: 90.9%; ERCP: 94.1%	CDS: 97%; ERCP: 91.2%	Overall: 21.2% vs 14.7%; Reintervention: 3.0% vs 2.9%
Park et al[7], 2018	Prospective randomized single center	Unresectable; Extrahepatic; Distal	Total: 30; CDS: 15; ERCP: 15	CDS: 92.8%; ERCP: 100%	CDS: 100%; ERCP: 92.8%	Overall: 0% vs 0%; Stent dysfunction: 15.4% vs 30.8%
Kawakubo et al[63], 2016	Retrospective single center	Distal	Total: 82; CDS: 26; ERCP: 56	CDS: 96.2%; ERCP: 98.2%		Overall: 26.9% vs 35.7%; Pancreatitis: 0% vs 16.1%; Reintervention (1 yr): 16.6% vs 13.6%

CDS: Choledochoduodenostomy; HGS: Hepaticogastrostomy; SEMS: Self-expandable metal stent.