BACKGROUND/ PURPOSE: Unresectable distal malignant biliary obstruction (DMBO) in patients with surgically altered anatomy is traditionally managed with percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD) and stenting because the anatomical features complicate the endoscopic approach to the biliary orifice. EUS-guided approaches recently emerged as alternative treatments; however, limited data comparing the procedures are available. The aim of this study was to compare EUS-antegrade biliary stenting (ABS) with PTBD for DMBO in patients with surgically altered anatomy. METHODS: The medical records of patients who underwent EUS-ABS or PTBD for the management of DMBO and had a history of upper intestinal surgery at two tertiary centers between 2007 and 2019 were retrospectively evaluated. The study outcomes were technical, clinical, and internalization success rates and adverse event rates. RESULTS: Of the 64 enrolled patients, 35 underwent EUS-ABS and 29 had PTBD. Basic characteristics including age, sex, performance status, primary malignancy, and reconstruction method did not differ significantly between groups. The technical, clinical, and internalization success rates in the EUS-ABS and PTBD groups were 97.1% vs 96.6% (P = 1.00), 97.1% vs 93.1% (P = .586), and 97.1% vs 75.9% (P = .01), respectively. The adverse event rate was 11.4% vs 27.6% (P = .119). No significant long-term difference was seen in time to recurrent biliary obstruction and survival. Multivariate analysis confirmed EUS-ABS was not an independent risk factor for survival. CONCLUSIONS: Similar to PTBD, EUS-ABS can effectively and safely manage DMBO in patients with surgically altered anatomy. Further well-designed trials are warranted to confirm these findings.
BACKGROUND/ PURPOSE: Unresectable distal malignant biliary obstruction (DMBO) in patients with surgically altered anatomy is traditionally managed with percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD) and stenting because the anatomical features complicate the endoscopic approach to the biliary orifice. EUS-guided approaches recently emerged as alternative treatments; however, limited data comparing the procedures are available. The aim of this study was to compare EUS-antegrade biliary stenting (ABS) with PTBD for DMBO in patients with surgically altered anatomy. METHODS: The medical records of patients who underwent EUS-ABS or PTBD for the management of DMBO and had a history of upper intestinal surgery at two tertiary centers between 2007 and 2019 were retrospectively evaluated. The study outcomes were technical, clinical, and internalization success rates and adverse event rates. RESULTS: Of the 64 enrolled patients, 35 underwent EUS-ABS and 29 had PTBD. Basic characteristics including age, sex, performance status, primary malignancy, and reconstruction method did not differ significantly between groups. The technical, clinical, and internalization success rates in the EUS-ABS and PTBD groups were 97.1% vs 96.6% (P = 1.00), 97.1% vs 93.1% (P = .586), and 97.1% vs 75.9% (P = .01), respectively. The adverse event rate was 11.4% vs 27.6% (P = .119). No significant long-term difference was seen in time to recurrent biliary obstruction and survival. Multivariate analysis confirmed EUS-ABS was not an independent risk factor for survival. CONCLUSIONS: Similar to PTBD, EUS-ABS can effectively and safely manage DMBO in patients with surgically altered anatomy. Further well-designed trials are warranted to confirm these findings.