Percutaneous transhepatic or endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage in malignant distal bile duct obstruction using a self-expanding metal stent: Study protocol for a prospective European multicenter trial (PUMa trial)
Open Access
- 27 October 2022
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Public Library of Science (PLoS) in PLOS ONE
- Vol. 17 (10) , e0275029
Abstract
Background: Endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) was associated with better clinical success and a lower rate of adverse events (AEs) than fluoroscopy-guided percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD) in recent single center studies with mainly retrospective design and small case numbers (< 50). The aim of this prospective European multicenter study is to compare both drainage procedures using ultrasound-guidance and primary metal stent implantation in patients with malignant distal bile duct obstruction (PUMa Trial). Methods: The study is designed as a non-randomized, controlled, parallel group, non-inferiority trial. Each of the 16 study centers performs the procedure with the best local expertise (PTBD or EUS-BD). In PTBD, bile duct access is performed by ultrasound guidance. EUS-BD is performed as an endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided hepaticogastrostomy (EUS-HGS), EUS-guided choledochoduodenostomy (EUS-CDS) or EUS-guided antegrade stenting (EUS-AGS). Insertion of a metal stent is intended in both procedures in the first session. Primary end point is technical success. Secondary end points are clinical success, duration pf procedure, AEs graded by severity, length of hospital stay, re-intervention rate and survival within 6 months. The target case number is 212 patients (12 calculated dropouts included). Discussion: This study might help to clarify whether PTBD is non-inferior to EUS-BD concerning technical success, and whether one of both interventions is superior in terms of efficacy and safety in one or more secondary endpoints. Randomization is not provided as both procedures are rarely used after failed endoscopic biliary drainage and study centers usually prefer one of both procedures that they can perform best. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT03546049 (22.05.2018).Keywords
This publication has 22 references indexed in Scilit:
- Assessment of efficacy and safety of EUS-guided biliary drainage: a systematic reviewGastrointestinal Endoscopy, 2016
- Peripheral portal vein-oriented non-dilated bile duct puncture for percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainageWorld Journal of Gastroenterology, 2015
- A Comparative Evaluation of EUS-Guided Biliary Drainage and Percutaneous Drainage in Patients with Distal Malignant Biliary Obstruction and Failed ERCPDigestive Diseases and Sciences, 2014
- Comparison of endosonography‐guided vs. percutaneous biliary stenting when papilla is inaccessible for ERCPUnited European Gastroenterology Journal, 2013
- Biliary Drainage in Patients With Unresectable, Malignant Obstruction Where ERCP FailsJournal of Clinical Gastroenterology, 2012
- The Society for Gastrointestinal Intervention. Are We, as an Organization of Disparate Disciplines, Cooperative or Competitive?Gut and Liver, 2010
- A lexicon for endoscopic adverse events: report of an ASGE workshopGastrointestinal Endoscopy, 2010
- Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials. The CONSORT statementJAMA, 1996
- Why we need observational studies to evaluate the effectiveness of health careBMJ, 1996
- RANDOMISED TRIAL OF ENDOSCOPIC VERSUS PERCUTANEOUS STENT INSERTION IN MALIGNANT OBSTRUCTIVE JAUNDICEThe Lancet, 1987