Endoscopic ultrasound/ultrasonography‐guided biliary drainage (EUS‐BD) is a relatively new modality for biliary drainage after failed or difficult transpapillary biliary cannulation. Despite its clinical utility, EUS‐BD can be complicated by severe adverse events such as bleeding, perforation, and peritonitis. The aim of this paper is to provide practice guidelines for safe performance of EUS‐BD as well as safe introduction of the procedure to non‐expert centers. The guidelines comprised patient–intervention–comparison–outcome‐formatted clinical questions (CQs) and questions (Qs), which are background statements to facilitate understanding of the CQs. A literature search was performed using the PubMed and Cochrane Library databases. Statement, evidence level, and strength of recommendation were created according to the GRADE system. Four committees were organized: guideline creation, expert panelist, evaluation, and external evaluation committees. We developed 13 CQs (methods, device selection, supportive treatment, management of adverse events, education and ethics) and six Qs (definition, indication, outcomes and adverse events) with statements, evidence levels, and strengths of recommendation. The guidelines explain the technical aspects, management of adverse events, and ethics of EUS‐BD and its introduction to non‐expert institutions.

• Biliary stricture
• EUS-guided biliary drainage
• Endoscopic ultrasonography
• Interventional EUS

• EUS
• EUS-CDS
• EUS-FNA
• EUS-HGS
• EUS-guided biliary drainage

• ERCP
• EUS-BD
• EUS-FNA
• EUS-guided biliary drainage
• hepatic hilum

Interventional procedures using endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) have recently been developed. For biliary drainage, EUS-guided trans-luminal drainage has been reported. In this procedure, the transduodenal approach for extrahepatic bile ducts is called EUS-guided choledochoduodenostomy, and the transgastric approach for intrahepatic bile ducts is called EUS-guided hepaticogastrostomy (EUS-HGS). These procedures have several effects, such as internal drainage and avoiding post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis, and they are indicated for an inaccessible ampulla of Vater due to duodenal obstruction or surgical anatomy. EUS-HGS has particularly wide indications and clinical impact as an alternative biliary drainage method. In this procedure, it is necessary to dilate the fistula, and several devices and approaches have been reported. Stent selection is also important. In previous reports, the overall technical success rate was 82% (221/270), the clinical success rate was 97% (218/225), and the overall adverse event rate for EUS-HGS was 23% (62/270). Adverse events of EUS-biliary drainage are still high compared with ERCP or PTCD. EUS-HGS should continue to be performed by experienced endoscopists who can use various strategies when adverse events occur.

• Endoscopic ultrasound
• Endoscopic ultrasound-guided hepaticogastrostomy
• Endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage
• Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography

• Cholestasis/diagnostic imaging
• Cholestasis/etiology
• Cholestasis/therapy
• Drainage/adverse effects
• Drainage/instrumentation
• Drainage/methods
• Endosonography
• Gastrostomy/adverse effects
• Gastrostomy/instrumentation
• Gastrostomy/methods
• Humans
• Stents
• Treatment Outcome
• Ultrasonography, Interventional