International Journal of Gastrointestinal Intervention

Table. 2. Table 2

Summary of Recent Publications Comparing the Outcomes between EUS-GBD and PT-GBD

Author	Year	No. of patients	Technical success		Clinical success		Adverse event		Repeat intervention

			EUS-GBD	PT-GBD	EUS-GBD	PT-GBD	EUS-GBD	PT-GBD	EUS-GBD	PT-GBD
Jang et al29	2012	59	96.7 (P = 0.001)	96.6 (P = 0.001)	96.7 (P = 0.0001)	93.1 (P = 0.0001)	6.7 (P = 0.492)	3.4 (P = 0.492)	NA	NA
Kedia et al6	2015	73	100 (P = 0.58)	97.6 (P = 0.58)	86.7 (P = 0.08)	97.6 (P = 0.08)	13.3 (P = 0.013)	39.5 (P = 0.013)	NA	NA
Teoh et al5	2017	118	96.6 (P = 0.15)	100 (P = 0.15)	89.8 (P = 0.30)	94.9 (P = 0.30)	32.2 (P < 0.001)	74.6 (P < 0.001)	1.7 (P = 0.13)	27.1 (P = 0.13)
Irani et al25	2017	90	97.8 (P = 0.98)	100 (P = 0.98)	95.6 (P = 0.12)	91.1 (P = 0.12)	17.8 (P = 0.07)	31.1 (P = 0.07)	24.4 (P = 0.001)	24.9 (P = 0.001)
Tyberg et al21	2018	155	95.2 (P = 0.179)	99.1 (P = 0.179)	95.2 (P = 0.157)	85.8 (P = 0.157)	16.7 (P = 0.613)	18.6 (P = 0.613)	24 (P = 0.037)	10 (P = 0.0)
Teoh et al7	2020	80	97.4 (P = 0.494)	100 (P = 0.494)	92.3 (P = 1)	92.5 (P = 1)	25.6 (P < 0.001)	77.5 (P < 0.001)	2.6 (P = 0.002)	50 (P = 0.002)

Values are presented as percentage (%).

EUS-GBD, endoscopic ultrasonography-guided gallbladder drainage; PT-GBD, percutaneous transhepatic gallbladder drainage; NA, not assessed.

Int J Gastrointest Interv 2020;9:148~153 https://doi.org/10.18528/ijgii200046