Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Over the last two decades, EUS-guided hepaticogastrostomy (EUS-HGS) has emerged as a therapeutic alternative for patients with biliary obstruction and failed ERCP. Percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD) as the gold standard is associated with relevant morbidity and need for re-intervention. The aim of our work was to evaluate in a phase II study the safety and efficacy profile of EUS-HGS. A PTBD arm was considered a control group. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We conducted a prospective, randomized, noncomparative phase II study in three French tertiary centers involving patients with benign or malignant obstructive jaundice after failure of ERCP. Patients were randomized to either PTBD or EUS-HGS. RESULTS: Fifty-six patients (mean age 64 years) have been included between 2011 and 2015. Twenty-one underwent PTBD and thirty-five were drained using EUS-HGS. An interim analysis after the inclusion of 41 patients revealed an unexpected high 30-day morbidity rate for PTBD (13 out of 21 patients), justifying to stop randomization and inclusion in this control arm in 2013. The primary objective was reached with 10 out of the 35 EUS-HGS patients (28.6%) having observed complications (90%-level bilateral exact binomial confidence interval [CI] [16.4%-43.6%], left-sided exact binomial test to the objectified 50% unacceptable rate P = 0.0083). Both methods achieved comparable technical success rate (TSR) and clinical success rate (CSR) (TSR: PTBD 100% vs. EUS-HGS 94.3%, P = 0.28; CSR: PTBD 66.7% vs. EUS-HGS 80%, P = 0.35). Long-term follow-up showed EUS-HGS patients being at lower risk for re-intervention (relative risk = 0.47, 95% CI [0.27-0.83]). CONCLUSION: In cases of ERCP failure, EUS-HGS is a valuable alternative for biliary drainage with a high TSR and CSR. PTBD is associated with an unacceptable 30-day morbidity rate, whereas EUS-HGS seems to have a decent safety profile, suggesting that it may be the treatment of choice in appropriately selected patients.