EUS-Guided Choledochoduodenostomy Versus Hepaticogastrostomy in Case of Concomitant Gastric Outlet Obstruction Treated by EUS-Guided Gastroenterostomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Authors

Marco Spadaccini, Yen-I Chen, Roberto Leone, Antonella Durante, Maria Margherita Massaro, Giuseppe Vanella, Maria Terrin, Matteo Colombo, Carlo Fabbri, Shannon Melissa Chan, Alessandro Fugazza, Roberto De Sire, Jeremie Albouys, Silvia Carrara, Jeremie Jacques, Daryl Ramai, Andrea Anderloni, Cesare Hassan, Paolo Giorgio Arcidiacono, Anthony Yuen Bun Teoh, Alessandro Repici, BRIDGE study group

Published in

United European gastroenterology journal. Volume 14. Issue 7. Pages e70265.

Abstract

Biliary (BO) and gastric outlet obstruction (GOO) frequently complicate pancreatic cancer, often delaying treatment. While EUS-guided gastroenterostomy (EUS-GE) is preferred over duodenal stenting for GOO, the optimal approach for biliary drainage (BD) between EUS-guided choledochoduodenostomy (EUS-CDS) and hepaticogastrostomy (EUS-HGS) remains undefined. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to identify the preferred BD strategy in patients undergoing EUS-GE for concurrent GOO and BO.
We searched Medline, Scopus, and EMBASE up to February 2026. Studies were eligible if they reported outcomes of EUS-CDS or EUS-HGS in patients with malignant BO and concomitant GOO treated by EUS-GE. Outcomes included technical and clinical success, stent dysfunction, and adverse events (AEs) analyzed using a random-effects model. Results were reported as relative risks (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).
Five studies were included (128 patients; 45.5% female; mean age range 63.0-73.0 years), with 61 undergoing EUS-CDS and 67 undergoing EUS-HGS. Four studies were European, one American, and one prospective. Technical and clinical success rates were similar between groups (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.83-1.11; I² = 0%; EUS-CDS 94.5% vs. EUS-HGS 96.4%), (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.92-1.19; I² = 0%; EUS-CDS 96.5% vs. EUS-HGS 89.1%). Stent dysfunction was significantly higher in EUS-CDS (RR 4.42, 95% CI 1.71-11.43; I² = 0%; EUS-CDS 45.1% vs. EUS-HGS 10.9%), while AEs were comparable (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.24-5.50; I² = 40.8%; EUS-CDS 10.7% vs. EUS-HGS 16.0%).
EUS-CDS and EUS-HGS appear similarly safe and effective for managing malignant BO with concomitant GOO. However, EUS-CDS carries a significantly higher risk of stent dysfunction, potentially delaying critical cancer treatment.

PMID:
42713827
Bibliographic data and abstract were imported from PubMed on 09 Sep 2026.

Read full publication at:
Please sign in to see all details.

Stats

1-terrible, 9-excellent. How would you rate this publication? Sign in in to submit your rating.

Post a comment

You need to be signed in to post comments. You can sign in here.

Comments

There are no comments yet.