Endoscopic ultrasound-rendezvous versus percutaneous-endoscopic rendezvous endoscopic retrograde...

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) or percutaneous-assisted antegrade guidewire insertion can be used to achieve biliary access when standard endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) fails. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate and compare the effectiveness and safety of EUS-assisted rendezvous (EUS-RV) and percutaneous rendezvous (PERC-RV) ERCP.

We searched multiple databases from inception to September 2022 to identify studies reporting on EUS-RV and PERC-RV in failed ERCP. A random-effects model was used to summarize the pooled rates of technical success and adverse events with 95% confidence interval (CI).

In total, 524 patients (19 studies) and 591 patients (12 studies) were managed by EUS-RV and PERC-RV, respectively. The pooled technical successes were 88.7% (95% CI 84.6-92.8%, I²  = 70.5%) for EUS-RV and 94.1% (95% CI 91.1-97.1%, I²  = 59.2%) for PERC-RV (P = 0.088). The technical success rates of EUS-RV and PERC-RV were comparable in subgroups of benign diseases (89.2% vs. 95.8%, P = 0.068), malignant diseases (90.3% vs. 95.5%, P = 0.193), and normal anatomy (90.7% vs. 95.9%, P = 0.240). However, patients with surgically altered anatomy had poorer technical success after EUS-RV than after PERC-RV (58.7% vs. 93.1%, P = 0.036). The pooled rates of overall adverse events were 9.8% for EUS-RV and 13.4% for PERC-RV (P = 0.686).

Both EUS-RV and PERC-RV have exhibited high technical success rates. When standard ERCP fails, EUS-RV and PERC-RV are comparably effective rescue techniques if adequate expertise and facilities are feasible. However, in patients with surgically altered anatomy, PERC-RV might be the preferred choice over EUS-RV because of its higher technical success rate.