.png){kind=icon}
.png){kind=icon}
Return
Diagnostic and therapeutic strategies for biliary strictures: a comparison of ACG, ESGE, and ASGE guidelines
.png){kind=icon}
PRE
AI
E
S
M
A
DOI：10.1080/17474124.2025.2592076.png)
.png){kind=icon}
Original request for help.png){kind=icon}
Share.png){kind=icon}
Save
Abstract
En 中文
The diagnostic management of biliary strictures remains a complex clinical challenge requiring evidence-based guidance. Multiple societies, including the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE), American College of Gastroenterology (ACG), and American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE), have recently published guidelines with both consensus and divergence.
A comparative analysis of the ESGE, ACG, and ASGE guidelines reveals shared principles, such as the role of MRI/MRCP in initial evaluation (moderate quality evidence), limited utility of tumor markers alone (low to very low quality evidence), and preference for metal stents in palliation (moderate quality evidence). Key differences arise in tissue acquisition for perihilar strictures, with ACG/ASGE discouraging EUS-guided sampling in surgical candidates (low-quality evidence), while ESGE conditionally supports its use in non-resectable cases candidates (low-quality evidence). The ASGE provides conditional recommendations on bilateral stenting for malignant hilar obstruction, not emphasized in other guidelines.
Although founded on similar evidence, guideline variations reflect differing risk tolerance and resource considerations. Clinicians must recognize these nuances to tailor management. Future research should clarify EUS seeding risk, evaluate cost-effectiveness, and inform harmonized guideline updates.
Keywords:
Biliary stricture
guideline comparison
endoscopic ultrasound
ERCP
stenting
Journal
IF:
2.5
Papers:
1.7K
Citations:
3.7K
Organization
Cited Papers