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

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.