BACKGROUND AND AIMS:

EUS-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) has emerged as an alternative procedure after failed ERCP. However, limited data on the efficacy and safety of EUS-BD are available. Therefore, a systematic review was conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of EUS-BD and to evaluate transduodenal (TD) and transgastric (TG) approaches.

METHODS:

PubMed and EMBASE were searched to identify relevant studies published in the English language for inclusion in this systematic review and meta-analysis. Data from eligible studies were combined to calculate the cumulative technical success rate (TSR), functional success rate (FSR), and adverse-event rate of EUS-BD and the pooled odds ratio of TSR, FSR, and adverse-event rate of the TD approach when compared with the TG approach.

RESULTS:

Forty-two studies with 1192 patients were included in this study, and the cumulative TSR, FSR, and adverse-event rate were 94.71%, 91.66%, and 23.32%, respectively. The common adverse events associated with EUS-BD were bleeding (4.03%), bile leakage (4.03%), pneumoperitoneum (3.02%), stent migration (2.68%), cholangitis (2.43%), abdominal pain (1.51%), and peritonitis (1.26%). Ten studies were included in the meta-analysis for comparative evaluation of TD and TG approaches for EUS-BD. Compared with the TG approach, the pooled odds ratio of the TSR, FSR, and adverse-event rate of the TD approach were 1.36 (95% CI, .66-2.81; P > .05), .84 (95% CI, .50-1.42; P > .05), and .61 (95% CI, .36-1.03; P > .05), respectively, which indicated no significant difference in the TSR, FSR, and adverse-event rate between the 2 groups.

CONCLUSIONS:

Although it is associated with significant morbidity, EUS-BD is an effective alternative procedure for relieving biliary obstruction. There was no significant difference between the TD and TG approaches for EUS-BD.