Endoscopic ultrasound-guided choledochoduodenostomy vs. transpapillary stenting for distal biliary obstruction.

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided choledochoduodenostomy (EUS-CDS) has gained popularity as an alternative to percutaneous biliary drainage for patients in whom endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography has failed. There are no previous studies comparing EUS-CDS with endoscopic transpapillary stenting (ETS) as first-line treatment for distal malignant obstruction. The aim of this study was to compare the clinical efficacy and safety of EUS-CDS and ETS as first-line treatment in patients with distal malignant biliary obstruction.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A total of 82 patients with distal malignant biliary obstruction underwent initial biliary drainage using self-expandable metal stents at a tertiary care university hospital. ETS was performed between June 2009 and May 2012, and EUS-CDS was performed between May 2012 and March 2014. Clinical success rates, adverse event rates, and reintervention rates were retrospectively evaluated for EUS-CDS and ETS.

RESULTS

A total of 26 patients underwent EUS-CDS and 56 underwent ETS. Clinical success rates were equivalent between the groups (EUS-CDS 96.2 %, ETS 98.2 %; P = 0.54). The mean procedure time was significantly shorter with EUS-CDS than with ETS (19.7 vs. 30.2 minutes; P < 0.01). The rate of overall adverse events was not significantly different between the groups (EUS-CDS 26.9 %, ETS 35.7 %; P = 0.46). Post-procedural pancreatitis was only observed in the ETS group (0 % vs. 16.1 %; P = 0.03). The reintervention rate at 1 year was 16.6 % and 13.6 % for EUS-CDS and ETS, respectively (P = 0.50).

CONCLUSIONS

EUS-CDS performed by expert endoscopists was associated with a short procedure time and no risk of pancreatitis, and would therefore be feasible as a first-line treatment for patients with distal malignant biliary obstruction.