EUS-GBD shows comparable technical and clinical success to EUS-CDS for malignant distal biliary obstructionEUS-GBD and EUS-CDS Show Similar Success for Biliary Obstruction

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: When ERCP is not feasible or fails in the palliation of malignant distal biliary obstruction (MDBO), EUS-guided choledochoduodenostomy (EUS-CDS) and EUS-guided gallbladder drainage (EUS-GBD) are viable alternatives. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing the safety and efficacy of the 2 techniques for the palliation of MDBO. METHODS: Multiple databases were searched through November 2025 for studies that reported outcomes of EUS-CDS and EUS-GDB in patients with MDBO. A meta-analysis was performed to determine pooled proportions and relative risk (RR) with 95% CIs. We compared the rates of technical and clinical success, overall adverse events (AEs), and lumen-apposing metal stent dysfunction. A random-effects model was used for our meta-analysis, and heterogeneity was assessed using the I (%) statistics. RESULTS: Five studies (352 patients; EUS-CDS: 193 and EUS-GBD: 159) were included. Technical success was 93.3% (95% CI, 70.6-98.8) for EUS-CDS and 95.9% (95% CI, 90.0-98.4) for EUS-GBD (RR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.94-1.10; P = .6). Clinical success was 90.1% (95% CI, 84.7-93.7) versus 86.6% (95% CI, 80.3-91.0) (RR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.90-1.05; P = .4). There were no significant differences in overall AEs (19.7% vs 17.6%; RR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.58-1.48; P = .8), severe AEs (11.0% vs 8.3%; RR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.33-1.44; P = .3), or stent dysfunction (15.0% vs 14.5%; RR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.35-2.58; P = .9). CONCLUSIONS: EUS-GBD appears comparable to EUS-CDS in terms of technical and clinical success, AEs, and stent dysfunction. Further prospective studies are warranted to corroborate our findings.