MedTrace Logo

EUS-guided Biliary Drainage Versus Percutanenous Transhepatic Biliary Darinage for Malignant Biliary Obstruction After Failed ERCP

NCT02103413 · Status: COMPLETED · Phase: NA · Type: INTERVENTIONAL · Enrollment: 66

Last updated 2015-08-07

No results posted yet for this study

Summary

Although ERCP is almost always successful in patients with malignant biliary obstruction, selective biliary cannulation fails in some cases and conventional ERCP may not be possible in patients with tumor invasion of the duodenum or major papilla, surgically altered anatomy (e.g., Roux-en-Y anastomosis), or complex hilar biliary strictures. In such cases, percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD) is an useful alternative. However, PTBD had various complications and the presence of an external drainage catheter would also have a cosmetic problem related to the external drainage and an adverse impact on quality of life (QOL) of terminally ill patients.

Since endoscopic ultrasound-guided bile duct puncture was described in 1996, sporadic case reports of EUS-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) suggested that it was a feasible and effective alternative in patients with failed conventional ERCP stenting. The potential benefits of EUS-BD include one-stage procedure in ERCP unit, and internal drainage for avoiding long-term external drainage in cases where external PTBD drainage catheters cannot be internalized, thus significantly improving the QOL of terminally ill patients, and possibly lower morbidity than PTBD or surgery.

Up to date, only a few case series of EUS-BD with small numbers of patients have been published, and known the feasibility and safety in terms of the incidence of procedure-related clinical outcomes.10-21 There has been no comparative study between the outcomes of PTBD and EUS-BD focusing on the QOL, cost-effectiveness, and complications.

The researchers investigated the technical success of EUS-BD and PTBD in patients with malignant biliary obstruction after failed conventional ERCP as a prospective randomized comparative study in multicenters. Secondary endpoints were the cost-effectiveness and complications rates between EUS-BD and PTBD.

Conditions

  • Cholestasis, Extrahepatic

Interventions

DEVICE

EUS-BD

When the ERCP was unsuccessful, we tried one-step EUS-BDS using a linear-array echoendoscope (GF-UCT 240-AL 10 or AL 5, Olympus Medical Systems, Tokyo, Japan) at the same ERCP unit on the same session. EUS-BDS was performed by EUS-guided choledocoduodeostomy (EUS-CD) or EUS-guided hepaticogastrostomy (EUS-HG) at the discretion of involved endosonographers. Based on our modified protocol from two our proposed protocols, EUS-BD with transmural stenting was only considered.

DEVICE

PTBD

PTBD was performed in selected patients with an 8.5F catheter inserted under fluoroscopic or ultrasound guidance by experienced interventional radiologists or endoscopists.

Sponsors & Collaborators

  • Asan Medical Center

    lead OTHER

Principal Investigators

  • Do Hyun Park, MD, PhD · Asan Medical Center

Study Design

Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
SINGLE
Model
PARALLEL

Eligibility

Min Age
18 Years
Sex
ALL
Healthy Volunteers
No

Timeline & Regulatory

Start
2014-10-31
Primary Completion
2015-03-31
Completion
2015-06-30

Countries

  • South Korea

Study Locations

More Related Trials

Read the full study record

This page highlights key information. For complete eligibility criteria, study locations, investigator contacts, and the full protocol, visit the original record on ClinicalTrials.gov.

View NCT02103413 on ClinicalTrials.gov