Background: No studies have compared balloon-assisted endoscope-guided endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (BAE-ERCP) and endoscopic ultrasonography-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) for emergent treatment of acute cholangitis (AC) in patients with upper gastrointestinal surgically altered anatomy (SAA). Methods: This study retrospectively evaluated consecutive patients who underwent emergent BAE-ERCP or EUS-BD for AC with SAA between January 2020 and March 2024. Technical success, clinical success, procedure time, and adverse events (AEs) were compared between the two groups. Results: This study included 23 patients in the BAE-ERCP group and 14 patients in the EUS-BD group. Technical success and clinical success rates did not significantly differ between the two groups (88% vs. 100%, P = 0.51 and 95% vs. 93%, P = 0.66). Similarly, the rate of AEs was comparable between the two groups (4% vs. 14%, P = 0.54). The median procedure time was significantly shorter in the EUS-BD group than in the BAE-ERCP group (32.5 [interquartile range; IQR, 28.8–52.5] minutes vs. 70.0 [IQR, 60.0–90.0] minutes, P < 0.01). In cases with grade 2 or 3 cholangitis, the rates of technical success, clinical success, and AEs did not significantly differ between the two groups. However, the median procedure time was significantly shorter in the EUS-BD group than in the BAE-ERCP group (32.5 [IQR, 28.8–52.5] minutes vs. 70 [IQR, 56.3–90.0] minutes, P < 0.01). Conclusion While both BAE-ERCP and EUS-BD can be performed safely and effectively in patients with AC and SAA, the procedure time is significantly shorter with EUS-BD than with BAE-ERCP.

Background: No studies have compared balloon-assisted endoscope-guided endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (BAE-ERCP) and endoscopic ultrasonography-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) for emergent treatment of acute cholangitis (AC) in patients with upper gastrointestinal surgically altered anatomy (SAA). Methods: This study retrospectively evaluated consecutive patients who underwent emergent BAE-ERCP or EUS-BD for AC with SAA between January 2020 and March 2024. Technical success, clinical success, procedure time, and adverse events (AEs) were compared between the two groups. Results: This study included 23 patients in the BAE-ERCP group and 14 patients in the EUS-BD group. Technical success and clinical success rates did not significantly differ between the two groups (88% vs. 100%, P = 0.51 and 95% vs. 93%, P = 0.66). Similarly, the rate of AEs was comparable between the two groups (4% vs. 14%, P = 0.54). The median procedure time was significantly shorter in the EUS-BD group than in the BAE-ERCP group (32.5 [interquartile range; IQR, 28.8–52.5] minutes vs. 70.0 [IQR, 60.0–90.0] minutes, P < 0.01). In cases with grade 2 or 3 cholangitis, the rates of technical success, clinical success, and AEs did not significantly differ between the two groups. However, the median procedure time was significantly shorter in the EUS-BD group than in the BAE-ERCP group (32.5 [IQR, 28.8–52.5] minutes vs. 70 [IQR, 56.3–90.0] minutes, P < 0.01). Conclusion While both BAE-ERCP and EUS-BD can be performed safely and effectively in patients with AC and SAA, the procedure time is significantly shorter with EUS-BD than with BAE-ERCP.

Background: No studies have compared balloon-assisted endoscope-guided endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (BAE-ERCP) and endoscopic ultrasonography-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) for emergent treatment of acute cholangitis (AC) in patients with upper gastrointestinal surgically altered anatomy (SAA). Methods: This study retrospectively evaluated consecutive patients who underwent emergent BAE-ERCP or EUS-BD for AC with SAA between January 2020 and March 2024. Technical success, clinical success, procedure time, and adverse events (AEs) were compared between the two groups. Results: This study included 23 patients in the BAE-ERCP group and 14 patients in the EUS-BD group. Technical success and clinical success rates did not significantly differ between the two groups (88% vs. 100%, P = 0.51 and 95% vs. 93%, P = 0.66). Similarly, the rate of AEs was comparable between the two groups (4% vs. 14%, P = 0.54). The median procedure time was significantly shorter in the EUS-BD group than in the BAE-ERCP group (32.5 [interquartile range; IQR, 28.8–52.5] minutes vs. 70.0 [IQR, 60.0–90.0] minutes, P < 0.01). In cases with grade 2 or 3 cholangitis, the rates of technical success, clinical success, and AEs did not significantly differ between the two groups. However, the median procedure time was significantly shorter in the EUS-BD group than in the BAE-ERCP group (32.5 [IQR, 28.8–52.5] minutes vs. 70 [IQR, 56.3–90.0] minutes, P < 0.01). Conclusion While both BAE-ERCP and EUS-BD can be performed safely and effectively in patients with AC and SAA, the procedure time is significantly shorter with EUS-BD than with BAE-ERCP.