Mode
Text Size
Log in / Sign up

EUS-HGAS provides longer time to recurrent biliary obstruction than EUS-HGS in malignant biliary obstructionNew data shows specific stent placement lasts longer for bile blockages

AI-generated summary of the cited source, checked by automated accuracy review. How we work

Key Takeaway
Note that EUS-HGAS provides a significantly longer time to recurrent biliary obstruction than EUS-HGS in MBO.

This meta-analysis of individual patient data evaluated 451 patients with malignant biliary obstruction (MBO) who had failed endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. The study compared EUS-guided hepaticogastrostomy (EUS-HGS) against EUS-guided hepaticogastrostomy with antegrade stent placement (EUS-HGAS).

The analysis found that patients undergoing EUS-HGAS had a significantly longer time to recurrent biliary obstruction (TRBO) compared to those receiving EUS-HGS (HR = 0.15, 95% CI: 0.03, 0.83; P = 0.03). Additionally, reintervention rates were significantly higher in the EUS-HGS group (RR = 3.00, 95% CI: 1.69-5.34; P = 0.0002). No significant differences were observed between the two techniques regarding technical success, clinical success, procedure duration, or overall adverse events.

Safety profiles differed in specific complications: EUS-HGS was associated with a lower risk of pancreatitis (RR 0.14, 95% CI 0.03-0.60; P=0.008) but a higher risk of bile leakage (RR 5.58, 95% CI 1.03-30.09; P=0.05). The authors noted that source data for TRBO were reconstructed from Kaplan Meier curves. Clinicians may consider EUS-HGAS to potentially provide longer durability and lower reintervention rates while maintaining similar technical success.

When a tumor blocks the bile duct, it creates a dangerous and painful condition called malignant biliary obstruction. For many patients, standard procedures like ERCP fail to keep the passage open. Doctors then turn to endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) techniques to create new pathways for bile flow.

A large study of 451 patients compared two specific EUS methods. One method, known as EUS-HGS, creates a path between the liver and stomach. The other, EUS-HGAS, adds an extra step by placing an antegrade stent. While both methods were successful in terms of technical success and procedure time, the results showed a major difference in how long they lasted.

The study found that patients who received the additional stent (EUS-HGAS) had significantly longer times before their biliary obstruction returned. They also required fewer repeat procedures compared to those who only received EUS-HGS. While EUS-HGS carried a lower risk of pancreatitis, it was linked to a higher risk of bile leakage. These findings suggest that adding an extra stent may offer more lasting relief for patients facing these difficult blockages.

What this means for you:
Adding an antegrade stent during EUS procedures can significantly delay the return of blocked bile flow in cancer patients.

Common questions

How long does the treatment last before the blockage returns?

Patients who received the EUS-HGAS method (which includes an extra stent) had a significantly longer time before their biliary obstruction returned compared to those who only received EUS-HGS. The data showed a mean of 651 days for the EUS-HGAS group versus 227 days for the EUS-HGS group.

Are there different risks between these two procedures?

Both methods had similar overall rates of adverse events, such as bleeding or infection. However, the EUS-HGS method was linked to a lower risk of pancreatitis, while the EUS-HGAS method was associated with a higher risk of bile leakage.

Is one procedure faster or more successful than the other?

The study found no significant differences between the two methods regarding technical success, clinical success, or the total time it took to perform the procedure. Both methods were equally effective at completing the initial task.

Study Details

Study typeMeta analysis
Sample sizen = 451
EvidenceLevel 1
PublishedJul 2026
View Original Abstract ↓
BACKGROUND: In patients with malignant biliary obstruction (MBO) where endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) fails, endoscopic ultrasound-guided hepaticogastrostomy (EUS-HGS) is an important rescue option. This study compared the safety and efficacy of EUS-HGS alone versus EUS-HGS with antegrade stenting (EUS-HGAS). METHODS: PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched for studies comparing EUS-HGS and EUS-HGAS in MBO. Primary outcomes included reintervention rates, and time to recurrent biliary obstruction (TRBO). Secondary outcomes were technical success, clinical success, procedure duration, and adverse events. Individual patient data for TRBO were reconstructed from Kaplan Meier curves and analyzed using restricted mean survival time. RESULTS: Five observational studies including 451 patients were analyzed (250 EUS-HGS, 201 EUS-HGAS). Reintervention rates were significantly higher in the EUS-HGS group compared with the EUS-HGAS group (RR = 3.00; 95% CI: 1.69-5.34; P = 0.0002). No significant differences were observed between the two groups in terms of technical success, clinical success, procedure duration, overall adverse events, cholangitis, or bleeding. TRBO was significantly longer with EUS-HGAS (mean 651 vs. 227 days; HR = 0.15; 95% CI: 0.03,0.83; P = 0.03), indicating improved stent patency. EUS-HGS was associated with a lower risk of pancreatitis (RR 0.14; 95% CI 0.03-0.60; P=0.008) but a higher risk of bile leakage (RR 5.58; 95% CI 1.03-30.09; P=0.05). CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis suggests that EUS-HGAS may provide longer time to recurrent biliary obstruction and lower reintervention rates compared with EUS-HGS, while maintaining similar technical and clinical success and procedure time. Overall adverse events were comparable, although bile leakage was more frequent with EUS-HGS and acute pancreatitis with EUS-HGAS. These findings may indicate a potential advantage of EUS-HGAS in terms of stent durability, warranting further studies for confirmation.
Free Newsletter

Clinical research that matters. Delivered to your inbox.

Join thousands of clinicians and researchers. No spam, unsubscribe anytime.