Percutaneous transhepatic cholangiography vs endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage: A systematic review

Table 1 Baseline characteristics of the studies

Ref.	Artifon et al[23]	Bapaye et al[24]	Khashab et al[25]	Giovannini[26]	Jung et al[27]	Sharaiha et al[28]
Type of study (country)	Single-center, prospective, randomized, controlled trial(Brazil)	Single-center, retrospective, comparative study (India)	Single-center, retrospective, comparative, cohort study (United States)	Multicenter, randomized, phase II trial (France)	Multicenter, prospective, randomized, controlled trial (South Korea)	Single-center, retrospective, cohort review (United States)
Age [mean (SD)/median ± SD], yr	63.4 (11.1) vs 71.0 (11.9)	59.9 ± 13.3 vs 62.4 ± 10.2	64.9 ± 12.5 vs 66.9 ± 12.5	N/A	66.5 vs 68.4	68.7 ± 13.9 vs 58.8 ± 13.6
Males/females	2.25 vs 2.0	1.08 vs 1.6	1.2 vs 1.31	0.91 vs 9	3.25 vs 3	12 vs 1.47
Comorbidity/quality index (mean)	58.3 vs 57.8 (QoL sF 36)	N/A	N/A	N/A	40.7 vs 40.5 (global health status/QoL)	5.9 vs 6.4 (Charleston comorbidity index)
Total bilirubin (mean), mg/dL	16.4 vs 17.2	7.11 ± 7.6 vs 9.41 ± 12.4	15.8 ± 11.3 vs 14.5 ± 8.8	N/A	10.4 vs 11.8	N/A
Mean diameter of bile duct	13.7 vs 11.9	N/A	N/A	N/A	11.22 vs 12.6	N/A
Etiology of obstruction
Adenocarcinoma of the pancreatic	10 vs 6	15 vs 18	43	N/A	12 vs 12	22
Advanced lymphoma/liposarcoma	0 vs 1	0	1	N/A	0	0
Cholangiocarcinoma	1 vs 1	2 vs 2	12	N/A	7 vs 14	9
Duodenal carcinoma	0	0	1	N/A	3 vs 0	5
Gall bladder cancer	0	0	0	N/A	5 vs 5	0
Gastric carcinoma	0 vs 1	0	1	N/A	3 vs 2	4
Metastasis	0 vs 3	0	12	N/A	3 vs 1	7
Plasmacytoma	1 vs 0	0	0	N/A	0	0
Total malignancy		0	37	N/A
Reason for ERCP failure
Altered anatomy	1	9	0	N/A	12 vs 10	N/A
Duodenal/stomach invasion	8	32	0	N/A	22 vs 22	N/A
Indwelling duodenal stent	0	16	0	N/A	0	N/A
Unable to cannulate	16	42	0	N/A	0	N/A

N/A: Not applicable; QoL sF: Quality of life Short Form Survey (SF-36); ERCP: Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography.

Table 2 Rates of clinical and technical success in the included studies

Ref.	Technical success		Clinical success
	EUS-guided Choledochoduodenostomy	Percutaneous transhepatic biliarydrainage	EUS-guided Choledochoduodenostomy	Percutaneous transhepatic biliarydrainage
Artifon et al[23]	13/13	12/12	13/13	12/12
Bapaye et al[24]	23/25	26/26	23/25	26/26
Khashab et al[25]	19/22	51/51	19/19	47/51
Giovannini[26]	19/20	17/17	18/19	17/17
Jung et al[27]	32/34	31/32	28/32	27/31
Sharaiha et al[28]	43/47	12/13	27/43	3/12

Table 3 Quality of identified studies

Ref.	Criteria									Overall appraisal
	C1	C2	C3	C4	C5	C6	C7	C8	C9
Artifon et al[23]	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Unclear	Yes	Included
Bapaye et al[24]	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Included
Khashab et al[25]	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Included
Giovannini[26]	Unclear	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Included
Jung et al[27]	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Unclear	Yes	Included
Sharaiha et al[28]	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Unclear	Yes	Yes	Yes	Included

C1: Did the study sample represent the target population? C2: Were participants in the study appropriately recruited? C3: Was the sample size adequate? C4: Were the study subjects and study setting described in detail? C5: Did the data analysis cover a sufficient portion of the identified population? C6: Were objective and standard criteria used to measure the condition of interest? C7: Was the condition reliably measured? C8: Was the statistical analysis appropriate? C9: Were all important confounding factors/subgroups/differences identified and taken into account?