Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40209763›Full record

Trial reportEndoscopy2025

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided choledochoduodenostomy results in fewer complications than percutaneous drainage following failed ERCP in malignant distal biliary obstruction.

Mike J P de Jong, Foke van Delft, Erwin-Jan M van Geenen, Auke Bogte, Robert C Verdonk, Niels G Venneman, Jan Maarten Vrolijk, Jan-Willem A Straathof, Rogier P Voermans, Rina A Bijlsma and 10 more

Abstract readMulticenter StudyComparative StudyClinical Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Endoscopy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Role of Endoscopy in Malignant Biliary Obstruction.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026
    Review
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

20 authors.

Mike J P de JongGastroenterology and Hepatology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, Netherlands.ORCID 0009-0007-7738-7206
Foke van DelftGastroenterology and Hepatology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, Netherlands.
Erwin-Jan M van GeenenGastroenterology and Hepatology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, Netherlands.
Auke BogteGastroenterology and Hepatology, UMC Utrecht, Utrecht, Netherlands.
Robert C VerdonkGastroenterology and Hepatology, St Antonius Hospital, Nieuwegein, Netherlands.
Niels G VennemanGastroenterology and Hepatology, Medisch Spectrum Twente, Enschede, Netherlands.
Jan Maarten VrolijkGastroenterology and Hepatology, Rijnstate Hospital, Arnhem, Netherlands.
Jan-Willem A StraathofGastroenterology and Hepatology, Maxima Medical Centre, Veldhoven, Netherlands.
Rogier P VoermansGastroenterology and Hepatology, Amsterdam University Medical Centres, Amsterdam, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-9969-019X
Rina A BijlsmaGastroenterology and Hepatology, Martini Hospital, Groningen, Netherlands.
Sjoerd D KuikenGastroenterology and Hepatology, Onze Lieve Vrouwe Gasthuis, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Rutger QuispelGastroenterology and Hepatology, Reinier de Graaf Gasthuis, Delft, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-6109-9310
Muhammed HadithiGastroenterology and Hepatology, Maasstad Hospital, Rotterdam, Netherlands.
Kirill BasiliyaGastroenterology and Hepatology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-4190-380X
Frank P VleggaarGastroenterology and Hepatology, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht, Netherlands.
Tanya M BisselingGastroenterology and Hepatology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, Netherlands.
Thomas R de WijkersloothGastrointestinal Oncology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Marco J BrunoGastroenterology and Hepatology, Erasmus MC University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, Netherlands.
Roy L J van WanrooijGastroenterology and Hepatology, Amsterdam UMC Locatie VUmc, Amsterdam, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-0477-4532
Peter D SiersemaGastroenterology and Hepatology, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD) and endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD), including choledochoduodenostomy (EUS-CDS), are alternative methods for biliary drainage in patients with distal malignant biliary obstruction (MBO) after failed endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). Data on long-term outcomes, adverse events (AEs), and quality of life (QoL) after EUS-CDS and PTBD are limited. Therefore, we created a registry to evaluate the outcomes of both drainage procedures. Methods: Patients with distal MBO who underwent EUS-CDS or PTBD after unsuccessful ERCP were included in this multicenter investigator-initiated prospective registry over an 18-month inclusion period. Primary end points were procedure-related AEs and mortality within 90 days post-procedure. Secondary end points included technical and clinical success, reinterventions, hospital stay, and QoL. Results: 55 patients were included, with 12 patients undergoing PTBD (technical success 100%) and 43 patients EUS-CDS (technical success 97.7%). Prior to ERCP, 7/12 patients in the PTBD group and 12/43 patients in the EUS-CDS group opted for best supportive care. The 90-day mortality rate was 66.7% in the PTBD group and 20.9% in the EUS-CDS group (P = 0.005). Furthermore, 11/12 patients (91.7%) in the PTBD group and 19/43 (44.2%) in the EUS-CDS group developed one or more AEs (P = 0.004). The median post-procedural hospital stay was 4 days (interquartile range [IQR] 2–6) in the PTBD group vs. 1 day (IQR 1–2) in the EUS-CDS group (P = 0.001). Conclusion: When both modalities were available and technically feasible, gastroenterologists preferred EUS-CDS over PTBD. EUS-CDS seems to be associated with lower mortality and AE rates, shorter hospital admission, and fewer reinterventions, but a randomized controlled trial should confirm these observations.

Indexed as

CholedochostomyCholestasisDrainageEndosonographyPostoperative ComplicationsAgedAged, 80 and overBile Duct NeoplasmsCholangiopancreatography, Endoscopic RetrogradeFemaleHumansLength of StayMaleMiddle AgedProspective StudiesQuality of Life

Identifiers

PMID40209763
PMCPMC12417859

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.