Efficacy and safety of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) vs percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD) for cholangiocarcinoma biliary obstruction: An updated systematic review and meta analysis.

557 Background: Perioperative and/or palliative biliary drainage for the management of cholangiocarcinoma biliary obstruction has been part of the backbone of the multidisciplinary approach that this condition requires. For both intrahepatic and perihilar cholangiocarcinoma, ERCP and PTBD are the two main techniques available. There has yet to be consensus favoring one approach over the other. Methods: Following the PRISMA guidelines, a systematic review and meta-analysis were performed to determine if there was a difference in efficacy and safety of ERCP compared to PTBD for Cholangiocarcinoma Biliary Obstruction. Primary outcomes were successful biliary drainage, mean number of needed procedures, length of stay and overall adverse events rate. Data were analyzed using R version 4.2.2. The risk of bias was assessed by the Robins-I and RoB 2 tool. The quality of evidence was graded using the GRADE scale and Newcastle-Ottawa guidelines. Results: Three randomized clinical trials and two observational studies described the successful biliary drainage rate of ERCP vs PTBD for cholangiocarcinoma associated biliary obstruction, totaling 340 patients. Meta-analysis test for overall effect, showed no statistical difference between groups (RR = 0.88; 95% CI = [0.69; 1.13]; p = 0.23; Fig. 1). Similarly, in terms of the mean number of needed procedures per patient, a total of three randomized clinical trials and two observational studies, totaling 340 patients were included, no statistically significant difference was found (SMD = 0.64; 95% CI = [- 9.36; 10.63]; p = 0.57; Fig. 2). Likewise, one randomized clinical trial and two observational studies showed no statistically significant difference on the length of stay (days) mean between groups (SMD = 0.06; 95% CI = [- 1.57; 1.68]; p = 0.73; Fig. 3). Although, the three clinical trials and three observational studies showed a mild decreased adverse event and death (within 3 months) rate in the ERCP group, after undergoing statistical analysis, meta-analysis test for overall effect, showed no statistical difference (RR = 0.99; 95% CI = [0.55; 1.77]; p = 0.97; Fig. 4 and RR = 0.61; 95% CI = [0.10; 3.87]; p = 0.22; Fig. 5, respectively). The risk of bias was low with moderate-to-high quality of evidence amongst the included studies. Conclusions: Our updated systematic review and meta-analysis demonstrated no statistically significant difference in the successful biliary drainage rate, mean number of needed procedures, length of stay, death within 3 months and adverse event rate between ERCP vs PTBD for management of cholangiocarcinoma biliary obstruction. Further randomized studies are needed to confirm these findings.