• Users Online:79
  • Home
  • Print this page
  • Email this page
Home About us Editorial board Search Ahead of print Current issue Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 
Year : 2020  |  Volume : 9  |  Issue : 2  |  Page : 101-109

EUS-guided biliary drainage: A systematic review and meta-analysis

1 Department of Internal Medicine, University of Nevada Las Vegas School of Medicine, Las Vegas, Nevada, USA
2 Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, NE, USA
3 Banner University Medical Center, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA
4 Division of Gastroenterology, University of Nevada Las Vegas School of Medicine, Las Vegas, Nevada, USA
5 Department of Biostatistics, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, NE, USA
6 Huntsman Cancer Center, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Douglas G Adler
Huntsman Cancer Center, School of Medicine, University of Utah, 30 N 1900 E, Room 4R118, Salt Lake City, Utah 84132
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/eus.eus_80_19

Rights and Permissions

ERCP is the current procedure of choice for patients with jaundice caused by biliary obstruction. EUS-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) has emerged as an alternative to ERCP in patients requiring biliary drainage. The aim of the study was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to report the overall efficacy and safety of EUS-BD. We conducted a comprehensive search of several databases including PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and LILACS databases (earliest inception to June 2018) to identify studies that reported EUS-BD in patients. The primary outcome was to look at the technical and clinical success of the procedure. The secondary analysis focused on calculating the pooled rate of re-interventions and all adverse-events, along with the commonly reported adverse-event subtypes. Twenty-three studies reporting on 1437 patients were identified undergoing 1444 procedures. Majority of the patient population were male (53.86%), with an average age of 67.22 years. The pooled technical success rates and clinical success rates were 91.5% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 87.7–94.2, I[2] = 76.5) and 87% (95% CI: 82.3–90.6, I[2] = 72.4), respectively. The total adverse event rates were 17.9% (95% CI: 14.3–22.2, I[2] = 69.1). Subgroup analysis of three major individual adverse events was bile leak: 4.1% (2.7–6.2, I[2] = 46.7), stent migration: 3.9% (2.5–6.2, I[2] = 43.5), and infection: 3.8% (2.8–5.1, I[2] = 0) Substantial heterogeneity was noted in the analysis. EUS-BD has high technical and clinical success rate and hence a very effective procedure. Concerns about publication bias exist. Careful consideration should be given to the adverse events and weighing the risks and benefits of the alternative nonsurgical/surgical approaches.

Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded553    
    Comments [Add]    
    Cited by others 30    

Recommend this journal