EUS-guided Biliary Drainage vs. ERCP Assisted Transpapillary Drainage for Malignant Biliary Obstruction: a Randomized Clinical Trial
EUS-guided Biliary Drainage vs. ERCP Assisted Transpapillary Drainage for Malignant Biliary Obstruction: a Randomized Clinical Trial
Purpose of the study: To compare efficacy, stent patency, re-intervention rate, cost, quality of life, survival time, and adverse events between EUS-guide biliary drainage (EUS-BD) and ERCP assisted trans-papillary drainage for malignant biliary obstruction.
Subjects of the study: Patients who have malignant biliary obstruction.
Methods of the study:
Statistical methods: SPSS 23.0 statistical software was used. The measurement data was expressed as x± s, and t-test or non-parametric test was used. Chi-square test was used for count data.
ERCP is a well-established procedure for the management of malignant biliary obstruction. However, even in expert hands, ERCP fails in 3%-5% of cases, especially in patients with surgically altered anatomy or difficult biliary cannulation. In these cases, more invasive options are usually considered, which including percutaneous trans-hepatic biliary drainage and surgical intervention, but they all have been associated with a higher risk of complications and prolonged hospital stay. EUS-guide biliary drainage using a metal stent, particularly a lumen-apposing metal stent, is a promising technique for biliary decompression in patients with failed ERCP. There has been growing global experience with EUS-BD in recent years, and data from expert centers support the feasibility and efficacy of EUS-BD. However, few researches compared the efficacy and complication rates between EUS-BD and ERCP for malignant biliary obstruction. The investigators herein aim to conduct a randomized controlled clinical trial to compare the efficacy and complication rates between EUS-BD and ERCP for malignant biliary obstruction.
Inclusion Criteria:
Exclusion Criteria: