Choledochoduodenostomy Versus Hepaticogastrostomy in Endoscopic Ultrasound-guided Drainage for Malignant Biliary Obstruction: A Meta-analysis and Systematic Review

Abstract

Objectives: This study aimed to estimate the safety and efficacy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided choledochoduodenostomy (EUSCDS) and endoscopic ultrasound-guided hepaticogastrostomy (EUS-HGS) for malignant biliary obstruction. Methods: We conducted a literature search using PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov. Studies that compared EUS-CDS and EUSHGS were included in this study. Results: Thirteen studies were eligible for inclusion. The technical [odds ratio (OR): 0.95; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.51-1.74) and clinical (OR: 1.13; 95%CI: 0.66-1.94) success rates of EUS-CDS were comparable to those of EUS-HGS. However, EUS-CDS had less reintervention (OR: 0.31; 95%CI: 0.16-0.63) and stent obstruction (OR: 0.48; 95%CI: 0.21-0.94) than EUS-HGS. Both groups had similar adverse events (OR: 1.00; 95%CI: 0.70-1.43) and overall survival (hazard ratio: 1.07; 95%CI: 0.58-1.97). Conclusions: EUS-CDS and EUS-HGS have comparable technical and clinical success rates, adverse events, and overall survival. However, EUS-CDS has less reintervention and stent obstruction.