Background and aim: Covered self-expandable metal stents (EMS) were recently developed to overcome tumour ingrowth in conventional EMS. However, supporting evidence for the efficacy of covered EMS is lacking. Patients and methods: We enrolled 112 patients with unresectable distal biliary malignancies. They were randomly assigned to polyurethane covered (n = 57) or original diamond stent (n = 55). Results: Stent occlusion occurred in eight patients (14%) after a mean of 304 days in the covered group, and in 21 patients (38%) after a mean of 166 days in the uncovered group. The incidence of covered EMS occlusion was significantly lower than that of uncovered EMS (p = 0.0032). The cumulative stent patency of covered stents was significantly higher than that of uncovered stents (p = 0.0066). No tumour ingrowth occurred in the covered group while it was observed in 15 patients in the uncovered group. In subgroup analysis, the cumulative patency of the covered EMS was significantly higher in pancreatic cancer (p = 0.0363) and metastatic lymph nodes (p = 0.0354). There was no significant difference in survival between the two groups. Acute cholecystitis was observed in two of the covered group and in none of the uncovered group. Mild pancreatitis occurred in five of the covered group and in one of the uncovered group. Conclusions: Covered diamond stents successfully prevented tumour ingrowth and were significantly superior to uncovered stents for the treatment of patients with distal malignant biliary obstruction. However, careful attention must be paid to complications specific to covered self-expandable metal stents, such as acute cholecystitis and pancreatitis.

Background: Methods: Results: Conclusions:

Endoscopic ultrasound/ultrasonography‐guided biliary drainage (EUS‐BD) is a relatively new modality for biliary drainage after failed or difficult transpapillary biliary cannulation. Despite its clinical utility, EUS‐BD can be complicated by severe adverse events such as bleeding, perforation, and peritonitis. The aim of this paper is to provide practice guidelines for safe performance of EUS‐BD as well as safe introduction of the procedure to non‐expert centers. The guidelines comprised patient–intervention–comparison–outcome‐formatted clinical questions (CQs) and questions (Qs), which are background statements to facilitate understanding of the CQs. A literature search was performed using the PubMed and Cochrane Library databases. Statement, evidence level, and strength of recommendation were created according to the GRADE system. Four committees were organized: guideline creation, expert panelist, evaluation, and external evaluation committees. We developed 13 CQs (methods, device selection, supportive treatment, management of adverse events, education and ethics) and six Qs (definition, indication, outcomes and adverse events) with statements, evidence levels, and strengths of recommendation. The guidelines explain the technical aspects, management of adverse events, and ethics of EUS‐BD and its introduction to non‐expert institutions.