ArticleEndoscopic ultrasound
Efficacy of EUS-guided hepaticogastrostomy in prolonging survival of patients with perihilar cholangiocarcinoma.
Article in Endoscopic ultrasound. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Renal Metastasis from Extrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma Mimicking Renal Infarction: A Case Report and Literature Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Article
- Changing the Flow: How EUS-Guided Drainage is Reshaping the Management of Distal Malignant Biliary Obstruction.United European gastroenterology journal · 2026Review
- EUS-HGS with antegrade stenting vs. hepaticogastrostomy alone for malignant biliary drainage: Systematic review and meta-analysis.Endoscopy international open · 2026Review
- Feasibility of Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Hepaticogastrostomy for Malignant Hilar Biliary Obstruction.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2025Article
- Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Hepaticogastrostomy in Malignant Biliary Obstruction: A Comprehensive Review on Technical Tips and Clinical Outcomes.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Comparison of stent patency between EUS-guided hepaticogastrostomy with bridging and endoscopic transpapillary biliary drainage for hilar obstruction.Endoscopy international open · 2024Article
- Is Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Hepaticogastrostomy Safe and Effective after Failed Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography?-A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- Updates in Diagnosis and Endoscopic Management of Cholangiocarcinoma.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Endoscopic Ultrasound Guided Biliary Drainage in Malignant Distal Biliary Obstruction.Cancers · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Objectives: The background of this study was to evaluate the outcomes of perihilar cholangiocarcinoma (pCCA) patients treated with EUS-guided hepaticogastrostomy (EUS-HGS). Methods: All patients with pCCA who underwent EUS-HGS from 2010 to 2020 were analyzed. The primary outcome was clinical success; the secondary outcomes were technical success, adverse events (AEs), stent patency, and oncological outcomes. Cox proportional-hazards regression and Kaplan-Meier curves were analyzed to identify variables related to survival. Results: Thirty-four patients (50% females, 76 years old) were included; 24 (70.6%) presented with distant metastasis. Indications for EUS-HGS were ERCP failure (64.7%), duodenal stricture (23.5%), postsurgical anatomy (5.9%), and dilation limited to the left intrahepatic duct (5.9%). The technical success rate was 97.1%. The clinical success rate was 64.7%. Nine (26.5%) presented AEs, 2 fatal (bleeding and leakage). The overall survival was 91 (31-263) days. On multivariate analysis, EUS-HGS clinical success (Exp[b]: 0.23 [0.09-0.60]; P = 0.003) and chemotherapy (Exp[b]: 0.06 [0.02-0.23]; P < 0.001) were significantly associated with survival. The survival was longer in patients who achieved EUS-HGS clinical success (178[61-393] vs. 15[73-24] days; hazard ratio: 6.3; P < 0.001) and in those starting chemotherapy (324[178-439] vs. 31 [9-48]; hazard ratio: 1.2; P < 0.001). Conclusions: EUS-HGS is effective in pCCA patients despite a not negligible AE rate. Clinical success, potentially leading to jaundice resolution and chemotherapy start, significantly improves survival.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.