Multicenter study on endoscopic ultrasound-guided expandable biliary metal stent placement: choice of access route, direction of stent insertion, and drainage route

Endoscopic ultrasound guided biliary drainage: a multicenter retrospective experience of a technique slowly gaining acceptance in Egypt

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage is an alternative to failed endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. Unfortunately, this procedure remains relatively less explored in Egypt due to its high cost, lack of adequate training, and the perception of increased risk. This study is the first multicenter Egyptian experience of an endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage in patients with malignant biliary obstruction.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed 15 patients (10 men and five women) with malignant biliary obstruction who from October 2013 to May 2019, following a failed or inaccessible endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, underwent an endoscopic ultrasound-guided choledochoduodenostomy, endoscopic ultrasound-guided hepaticogastrostomy, or endoscopic ultrasound-guided rendezvous. Their mean age was 57.4 years and mean bilirubin was 18.2 mg/dL. The outcome parameters included technical and clinical success. Technical success was defined as the successful placement of a stent in the biliary system, while clinical success was defined as a greater than 50% decrease in the bilirubin levels 2 weeks after the procedure. Patients were monitored for complications during and after the procedure.

RESULTS

In total, 15 patients underwent endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage (eight underwent endoscopic ultrasound-guided choledochoduodenostomy, five underwent endoscopic ultrasound-guided hepaticogastrostomy, and two underwent endoscopic ultrasound-guided rendezvous). The technical and clinical success rates were 100% (15/15 patients) and 93.3% (14/15 patients), respectively. The complication rate was 26.6% (4/15 patients). All complications were mild and self-limited, and included fever, mild biliary peritonitis, pneumoperitoneum, and a slight migration of one plastic stent during insertion.

CONCLUSION

Although slowly gaining acceptance in Egypt, endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage is an effective and safe procedure in patients with a malignant biliary obstruction after a failed or inaccessible endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography.

Prospective multicenter study of primary EUS-guided choledochoduodenostomy using a covered metal stent

Background and Objectives:

EUS-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) is increasingly reported as a salvage technique after failed endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, but it is still controversial whether EUS-BD can replace transpapillary biliary stenting. Therefore, we conducted this multicenter, prospective study of EUS-guided choledochoduodenostomy (EUS-CDS) using a covered metallic stent (CMS) as primary biliary drainage for unresectable distal malignant biliary obstruction (MBO).

Methods:

Patients with unresectable distal MBO without any prior drainage are enrolled. Primary endpoint is a technical success and secondary endpoints are adverse events, functional success, and recurrent biliary obstruction (RBO) of EUS-CDS. Clinical outcomes were compared between EUS-CDS and transpapillary stenting as a control.

Results:

A total of 34 patients were enrolled in 10 Japanese institutions. The cause of MBO was pancreatic cancer in 28 patients. Median tumor size and common bile duct diameter were 31 and 13 mm, respectively. Technical success rate was 97% with a median procedure time of 25 min and functional success rate was 100%. The rate of RBO was 29% and the causes of RBO were nontumor related: Migration in 18%, sludge/food impaction in 9%, and stent impaction to the duodenal wall in 3%. Other adverse events were abdominal pain in 6% and cholecystitis in 9%. A median cumulative time to RBO was 11.3 months. The rate of RBO and cumulative time to RBO of EUS-CDS were comparable to those of transpapillary stenting (36% and 9.1 months, respectively).

Conclusion:

EUS-CDS using a CMS as primary biliary drainage was technically feasible and its safety appeared comparable to transpapillary stenting.

Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Biliary Drainage for Unresectable Hilar Malignant Biliary Obstruction

Endoscopic transpapillary biliary drainage is the current standard of care for unresectable hilar malignant biliary obstruction (MBO) and bilateral metal stent placement is shown to have longer patency. However, technical and clinical failure is possible and percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD) is sometimes necessary. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) is increasingly being reported as an alternative rescue procedure to PTBD. EUS-BD has a potential advantage of not traversing the biliary stricture and internal drainage can be completed in a single session. Some approaches to bilateral biliary drainage for hilar MBO under EUS-guidance include a bridging method, hepaticoduodenostomy, and a combination of EUS-BD and transpapillary biliary drainage. The aim of this review is to summarize data on EUS-BD for hilar MBO and to clarify its advantages over the conventional approaches such as endoscopic transpapillary biliary drainage and PTBD.

Comparison of Endoscopic Ultrasonography Guided Biliary Drainage and Percutaneous Transhepatic Biliary Drainage in the Management of Malignant Obstructive Jaundice After Failed ERCP

AIMS

The aim of this study is to compare the efficacy and safety of endoscopic ultrasonography guided biliary drainage and percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage in the management of malignant obstructive jaundice after failed ERCP.

METHODS

We performed a prospective study on 66 consecutive patients with malignant obstructive jaundice admitted to our hospital between January 2014 and January 2016 [corrected]. Patients were performed endoscopic ultrasonography-guided biliary drainage in 36 cases (group A) and percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage in 30 cases (group B) according to the results of the draw. Data on the following variables were compared between the 2 groups: the technical success rate, the clinical success rate, complications, length of hospital stay, and hospital costs.

RESULTS

There was statistically significant difference in the clinical success rate (88.89% vs. 66.67%; χ=4.84), complications (5.56% vs. 23.33%; χ=4.39), length of hospital stay (11.54±3.73 d vs. 15.68±6.56 d; t=8.17) and hospital costs (23.52±8.44 thousand yuan vs. 32.81±6.06 thousand yuan; t=16.28) (P<0.05) between group A and group B. The technical success rate was higher in groups A than that in group B, although the difference did not reach statistical significance (94.44% vs. 86.67%; χ=1.20; P>0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

In the treatment of malignant obstructive jaundice, endoscopic ultrasonography guided biliary drainage is safer and more effective than percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage when performed by experienced practitioners after failed ERCP. Its more widespread use is recommended.

EUS-Guided Transluminal Interventions

The role of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) has transitioned from a diagnostic to a therapeutic one over the past 40 years. With the advent of curvilinear array echoendoscopes in the 1990s with an accessory channel, multiple tools and devices have been developed and used for a variety of transluminal interventions. EUS provides a viable option and is becoming the procedure of choice for many interventions, including bile and pancreatic duct drainage, guiding angiotherapy, pancreatic fluid collection management, gallbladder drainage, and creating a gastrojejunostomy. Although reports demonstrate the technical success of these interventions, there is tremendous study heterogeneity and a relative lack of controlled randomized trials, which may limit our understanding of their role and utility. Furthermore, adverse events are relatively common and occasionally severe. Despite the limitations, available data strongly indicate the efficacy of EUS interventions when performed by well-trained endosonographers in carefully selected patients and managed in a multidisciplinary setting.

Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Biliary Drainage

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided biliary drainage is an emerging technique that combines the advantages of the endoscopic and percutaneous approaches, without the inconveniences and discomfort of an indwelling external catheter. There has been growing interest and experience in EUS-biliary drainage. Several different EUS-guided techniques have been developed to access the obstructed biliary tree from either the stomach or duodenum, according to the location of the stricture, the anatomy of the patient, and the experience of the endoscopist.

Lumen-Apposing Metal Stents: Which One and Why?

Numerous lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMS) have been designed for transluminal applications, including complex pancreatic fluid collections (PFCs) and difficult biliary access. Limited high-quality data exist directly comparing the various LAMS models, and their use remains largely dependent on availability and operator expertise. LAMS placement has been streamlined by the addition of electrocautery, allowing for single-step or modified "hot" approach, if desired. Therapeutic endoscopists continue to explore the application of this technology in a variety of clinical scenarios, and future innovations will be needed to meet these evolving clinical demands.

Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Rendezvous Technique for Failed Biliary Cannulation in Benign and Resectable Malignant Biliary Disorders

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided rendezvous technique (EUS-RV) has emerged as an effective salvage method for unsuccessful biliary cannulation. However, its application for benign and resectable malignant biliary disorders has not been fully evaluated.

AIMS

To assess the efficacy and safety of EUS-RV for benign and resectable malignant biliary disorders.

METHODS

This was a multicenter prospective study from 12 Japanese referral centers. Patients who underwent EUS-RV after failed biliary cannulation for biliary disorder were candidates for this study. Inclusion criteria were unsuccessful biliary cannulation for therapeutic endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography with benign and potentially resectable malignant biliary obstruction. Exclusion criteria included unresectable malignant biliary obstruction, inaccessible papillae due to surgically altered upper gastrointestinal anatomy or duodenal stricture, and previous sphincterotomy and/or biliary stent placement. The primary outcome was the technical success rate of biliary cannulation; procedure time, adverse events, and clinical outcomes were secondary outcomes.

RESULTS

Twenty patients were prospectively enrolled. The overall technical success rate and median procedure time were 85% and 33 min, respectively. Guidewire manipulation using a 4-Fr tapered tip catheter contributed to the success in advancing the guidewire into the duodenum. Adverse events were identified in 15% patients, including 2 with biliary peritonitis and 1 mild pancreatitis. EUS-RV did not affect surgical maneuvers or complications associated with surgery, or postoperative course.

CONCLUSIONS

EUS-RV may be a safe and feasible salvage method for unsuccessful biliary cannulation for benign or resectable malignant biliary disorders. Use of a 4-Fr tapered tip catheter may improve the overall EUS-RV success rate.

Covered duodenal self-expandable metal stents prolong biliary stent patency in double stenting: The largest series of bilioduodenal obstruction

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Endoscopic biliary and duodenal stenting (DS; double stenting) is widely accepted as a palliation therapy for malignant bilioduodenal obstruction. The aim of the current study was to investigate the patency and adverse events of duodenal and biliary stents in patients with DS.

METHODS

Patients who underwent DS from April 2004 to March 2017 were analyzed retrospectively with regard to clinical outcomes and predictive factors of recurrent biliary and duodenal obstruction (recurrent biliary obstruction [RBO] and recurrent duodenal obstruction [RDO]).

RESULTS

A total of 109 consecutive patients was enrolled. Technical success of DS was achieved in 108 patients (99.1%). Symptoms due to biliary and duodenal obstruction were improved in 89 patients (81.7%). RBO occurred in 25 patients (22.9%) and RDO in 13 (11.9%). The median times to RBO and RDO from DS were 87 and 76 days, respectively. Placement of a duodenal uncovered self-expandable metal stent (U-SEMS) was significantly associated with RBO in the multivariable analysis (P = 0.007). Time to RBO was significantly longer in the duodenal covered self-expandable metal stent group than in the U-SEMS group (P = 0.003). No predictive factors of RDO were detected, and duodenal stent type was not associated with the time to RDO (P = 0.724).

CONCLUSIONS

Double stenting was safe and effective for malignant bilioduodenal obstruction. Duodenal U-SEMS is a risk factor for RBO. The covered self-expandable metal stent is the preferred type of duodenal SEMS in patients with DS (Clinical trial registration number: UMIN000027606).

EUS-guided Choledochoduodenostomy Versus Hepaticogastrostomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) has emerged as an alternative in cases of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) failure. Two types of EUS-BD methods for achieving biliary drainage when ERCP fails are choledochoduodenostomy (CDS) or hepaticogastrostomy (HGS). However, there is no consensus if one approach is better than the other. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate these 2 main EUS-BD methods.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane database, LILACS from inception through April 8, 2017, using the following search terms in various combinations: biliary drainage, biliary stent, transluminal biliary drainage, choledochoduodenostomy, hepaticogastrostomy, endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage. We selected studies comparing CDS and HGS in patients with malignant biliary obstruction with ERCP failure. Pooled odds ratio (OR) were calculated for technical success, clinical success, and adverse events and difference of means calculated for duration of procedure and survival after procedure.

RESULTS

A total of 10 studies with 434 patients were included in the meta-analysis: 208 underwent biliary drainage via HGS and the remaining 226 via CDS. The technical success for CDS and HGS was 94.1% and 93.7%, respectively, pooled OR=0.96 [95% confidence interval (CI)=0.39-2.33, I=0%]. Clinical success was 88.5% in CDS and 84.5% in HGS, pooled OR=0.76 (95% CI=0.42-1.35, I=17%). There was no difference for adverse events OR=0.97 (95% CI=0.60-1.56), I=37%. CDS was about 2 minutes faster with a pooled difference in means of was -2.69 (95% CI=-4.44 to -0.95).

CONCLUSION

EUS-CDS and EUS-HGS have equal efficacy and safety, and are both associated with a very high technical and clinical success. The choice of approach may be selected based on patient anatomy.

EUS-guided biliary drainage: A comprehensive review of the literature

EUS-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) has emerged as a technique for gaining biliary access when ERCP fails. This article gives a comprehensive review on the role and technique of EUS-BD. Moreover, we propose an algorithm guiding the clinician when to consider EUS-BD after failed ERCP or in anticipated difficult cannulations.

The Role of EUS-BD in the Management of Malignant Biliary Obstruction: The Indonesian Perspective

AIMS

To evaluate the success rate and related factors of endoscopic ultrasound guided-biliary drainage (EUS-BD).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We conducted a retrospective study among 24 patients with malignant biliary obstruction who underwent EUS-BD after failed ERCP from January 2015 to December 2016 in a tertiary health center. The bilirubin levels before and after the procedure were used to define the clinical success rate, while the stent deployment was used to define the technical success rate. We placed either transluminal biliary stents or transpapillary biliary stents.

RESULTS

Among 24 patients, choledochoduodenostomy technique was conducted in 23 patients (95.8%) and hepaticogastrostomy technique in 1 patient (4.2%). Transluminal stent placement was conducted in 23 patients, while transpapillary stent placement was conducted in 1 patient. The clinical success rate was 78.2% (18) in choledochoduodenostomy route and 100% (1) in hepaticogastrostomy route. EUS-BD was 2.37 times and 2.11 times more likely to be successful in reducing the bilirubin level in patients with tumor of the head of pancreas and periampullary tumor, respectively, but not in cholangiocarcinoma.

CONCLUSIONS

EUS-BD is an effective and efficient procedure to achieve biliary drainage among patients with malignant biliary obstruction after ERCP failure.

Endoscopic Ultrasonography-Guided Techniques for Accessing and Draining the Biliary System and the Pancreatic Duct

When endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) fails to decompress the biliary system or the pancreatic duct, endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS)-guided biliary or pancreatic access and drainage can be used. Data show a high success rate and acceptable adverse event rate for EUS-guided biliary drainage. The outcomes of EUS-guided biliary drainage seem equivalent to percutaneous drainage and ERCP, whereas only retrospective studies are available for pancreatic duct drainage. In this article, revision of the technical and clinical status and the current evidence of interventional EUS-guided biliary and pancreatic duct access and drainage are presented.

Conversion to endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage by temporary nasobiliary drainage placement in patients with prior biliary stenting

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD), first reported as an alternative to percutaneous transhepatic BD in failed endoscopic retrograde cholangiography, is sometimes performed as reintervention for transpapillary stent dysfunction such as in patients with new onset gastric outlet obstruction, but direct conversion to EUS-BD can potentially have a risk of leakage of infected bile. The aim of this study is to evaluate the safety and efficacy of conversion to EUS-BD using a temporary endoscopic nasobiliary drainage (ENBD) tube placement as a reintervention for prior BD.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Sixteen patients with prior BD for malignant biliary obstruction undergoing conversion to EUS-BD using a temporary ENBD tube placement were studied. Technical and clinical success rate and adverse events were evaluated.

RESULTS

The major reason for conversion to EUS-BD was recurrent cholangitis due to duodenobiliary reflux (n = 13). In 14 patients with an indwelling covered metal or plastic stent, the stents were removed before temporary ENBD placement. After a median duration of 6 days, subsequent conversion to EUS-BD using a covered metal stent was performed, which was technically and clinically successful in all 16 patients (14 hepaticogastrostomy and 2 choledochoduodenostomy). Adverse events were observed in 3 patients (19%): one bleeding, one cholecystitis, and one cholangitis. No bile leak, peritonitis, or sepsis was observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Conversion to EUS-BD using temporary ENBD tube placement in patients with prior BD was technically feasible and relatively safe without infectious complications related to bile leakage.

Efficacy and safety of EUS-guided biliary drainage in comparison with percutaneous biliary drainage when ERCP fails: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

EUS-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) is increasingly used as an alternate therapeutic modality to percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD) for biliary obstruction in patients who fail ERCP. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the efficacy and safety of these 2 procedures.

METHODS

We searched several databases from inception to September 4, 2016 to identify comparative studies evaluating the efficacy and safety of EUS-BD and PTBD. Primary outcomes of interest were the differences in technical success and postprocedure adverse events. Secondary outcomes of interest included clinical success, rate of reintervention, length of hospital stay, and cost comparison for these 2 procedures. Odds ratios (ORs) and standard mean difference were calculated for categorical and continuous variables, respectively. These were analyzed using random effects model of meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Nine studies with 483 patients were included in the final analysis. There was no difference in technical success between 2 procedures (OR, 1.78; 95% CI, .69-4.59; I² = 22%) but EUS-BD was associated with better clinical success (OR, .45; 95% CI, .23-.89; I² = 0%), fewer postprocedure adverse events (OR, .23; 95% CI, .12-.47; I² = 57%), and lower rate of reintervention (OR, .13; 95% CI, .07-.24; I² = 0%). There was no difference in length of hospital stay after the procedures, with a pooled standard mean difference of -.48 (95% CI, -1.13 to .16), but EUS-BD was more cost-effective, with a pooled standard mean difference of -.63 (95% CI, -1.06 to -.20). However, the latter 2 analyses were limited by considerable heterogeneity.

CONCLUSIONS

When ERCP fails to achieve biliary drainage, EUS-guided interventions may be preferred over PTBD if adequate advanced endoscopy expertise and logistics are available. EUS-BD is associated with significantly better clinical success, lower rate of postprocedure adverse events, and fewer reinterventions.

Endoscopic ultrasonography-guided biliary and pancreatic duct interventions

Drainage of obstructed bile duct and pancreatic duct under endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) guidance has evolved into viable techniques suitable for patients with failed endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and/or altered surgical anatomy. One of the major advantages of EUS guidance is the possibility of multiple access points depending upon patient and ductal anatomy. Unlike ERCP, an approachable papilla is not a requisite for successful EUS-guided biliary or pancreatic ductal drainage. Moreover, as the access is away from the papilla, there is the possibility of reduced pancreatitis. A variety of procedures have become available for EUS-guided drainage, and it is important to develop standard terminology and procedural details. EUS-specific stents, including lumen-apposing metal stents have recently become available, and are likely to impact the outcomes of these procedures. Available data show a high success rate and acceptable adverse event rate for EUS-guided biliary drainage. Success rate appears to be low for pancreatic duct drainage because of a variety of reasons. Outcomes of EUS-guided biliary drainage appear equivalent to percutaneous drainage and ERCP. EUS-guided gallbladder drainage appears promising for patients requiring gallbladder drainage but unfit for surgery. Further large controlled studies are needed to evaluate the exact role of these procedures.

Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Biliary Drainage Using Self-Expandable Metal Stent for Malignant Biliary Obstruction

Purpose. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) has been increasingly reported worldwide. However, studies concerning EUS-BD from Mainland China are sporadic. This study aims to investigate the feasibility, efficacy, and safety of EUS-BD using SEMS in a single center from Mainland China. Methods. Between November 2011 and August 2015, 24 patients underwent EUS-BD using a standardized algorithm. Results. Three patients underwent rendezvous technique (RV), 4 underwent hepaticogastrostomy (HGS), and 17 underwent choledochoduodenostomy (CDS). The technical and clinical success rates were 95.8% (23/24) and 100% (23/23), respectively. Mean procedure time for the CDS group (35.9 ± 5.0 min) or HGS group (39.3 ± 5.0 min) was significantly shorter than that for the RV group (64.7 ± 9.1 min) (P < 0.05). Complications (13%) included (1) cholangitis and (2) postprocedure hemorrhage. During the follow-up periods (mean 6.4 months), 22 (91.7%) patients died of tumor progression with mean stent patency of 5.8 ± 2.2 months. Stent occlusion occurred in 2 (8.7%) patients. Conclusion. EUS-BD using SEMS is a feasible, effective, and safe alternative for biliary decompression after failed ERCP. EUS-RV may not be the first-line choice for EUS-BD in a medium volume center. Further evaluation and experience of this method are needed.

Endoscopic treatment for distal malignant biliary obstruction

Distal malignant biliary obstruction (MBO) leads to obstructive jaundice as a result of when the bile excretion from the liver is disturbed and induces hepatic failure and sepsis, which when complicated with cholangitis, it becomes necessary to perform drainage for the MBO. For biliary drainage, we can perform a surgical bypass operation, percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD), endoscopic biliary drainage (EBD) via duodenal papilla, or endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD), which is a transgastrointestinal biliary drainage. Although currently we usually perform EBD for distal MBO to begin with, the choice is different for biliary drainage in patients in whom EBD has failed in a preoperative case or an unresectable case. In other words, we choose PTBD for preoperative cases, and PTBD or EUS-BD according to the ability of the institution for their procedures when EBD has failed. It is desirable not to choose a plastic stent (PS) but a self-expandable metallic stent (SEMS), in particular for the unresectable cases of pancreatic cancer it is desirable not to choose an uncovered SEMS but a covered SEMS in EBD. Nevertheless, further examinations are expected to decide which, a covered or uncovered SEMS, we should choose in unresectable biliary tract cancer (BTC) and whether we should select PS, SEMS or ENBD in preoperative cases.

A Multidisciplinary Approach to Pancreas Cancer in 2016: A Review

In this article, we review our multidisciplinary approach for patients with pancreatic cancer. Specifically, we review the epidemiology, diagnosis and staging, biliary drainage techniques, selection of patients for surgery, chemotherapy, radiation therapy, and discuss other palliative interventions. The areas of active research investigation and where our knowledge is limited are emphasized.

Percutaneous low-pressure bone stenting to control cement deposition in extensive lytic lesions

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate low-pressure bone stenting combined with cementoplasty in extensive lytic lesions.

METHODS

A single-centre study involving four consecutive patients (four women) with extensive lytic tumours was performed. The average age was 65 years. Surgical treatment was not indicated or not wished for by the patients. Institutional review board approval and informed consent were obtained. Percutaneous consolidation was performed by an interventional radiologist under fluoroscopy guidance. Follow-up was assessed using the visual analogue scale (VAS).

RESULTS

Under general (n = 2) or local (n = 2) anaesthesia, five 11-gauge bone biopsy needles were advanced in four lesions. Five auto-expandable uncovered stents (10-14 mm diameter and 40-60 mm long) were inserted. In all cases, bone cement was successfully placed into the tumours. The volume of cement that was injected through the cannulas into the stents was 5-10 mL. Using VAS, pain decreased from more than 9/10 preoperatively to less than 2/10 after the procedure for all patients (p < 0.05). No complications occurred during the follow-up (8-19 months).

CONCLUSION

This study suggests that cementoplasty combined with low-pressure bone stenting could allow effective bone stabilization resulting in pain relief.

KEY POINTS

• Low-pressure bone stenting is possible. • This technique improves cement injection control. • The procedure allows effective bone stabilization resulting in pain relief.

Therapeutic Interventional Endoscopic Ultrasound Based on Rare Cases in Indonesia: A Single-Center Experience in Unselected Patients

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) is still not widely available and has a barrier in most Southeast Asian countries due to lack of training program, high cost, and hospital investment. In this study, we would like to show the impact of therapeutic interventional EUS procedures in gastroenterology practice in Indonesia, which represents the biggest Southeast Asian country.

METHODS

Patients who underwent interventional EUS procedure in Medistra Hospital were prospectively recruited within 1 year.

RESULTS

Of 147 patients who underwent EUS procedures, 39 patients underwent fine needle aspiration. Most of the cases suffered from pancreatic cancer (47.5%) followed by ampullary cancer (20%), gastric subepithelial mass (10%), and other conditions. There were 4 rare cases that underwent therapeutic interventional EUS procedures. Patients with large mesenteric cyst attached to the gastric wall and large left liver lobe cyst with gastric compression who were previously suspected with gastrointestinal stromal tumor were successfully managed by cyst aspiration. One patient with a large pseudocyst due to chronic pancreatitis was successfully managed by plastic stent placement. Another patient with duodenal duplication cyst causing duodenal obstruction was managed by inserting a plastic stent through the cyst. No complications were observed during and after the therapeutic EUS procedures.

CONCLUSIONS

Innovation in interventional EUS has a high impact in gastroenterology practice as well as in a developing country like Indonesia, which represents the biggest Southeast Asian country. Further developments are needed regarding the cost, investment, and especially the necessary training curriculum to make this technology available in tertiary referral centers.

Clinical utility of endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage as a rescue of re-intervention procedure for high-grade hilar stricture

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Re-intervention after stent placement for malignant hepatic hilum obstruction (HBO) is challenging. endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) has been developed as an alternative method for failed endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). In this retrospective study, the clinical utility of EUS-BD as a rescue drainage technique for HBO patients who failed re-intervention under ERCP guidance was evaluated.

METHODS

Between April 2012 and August 2015, patients with HBO were enrolled. Patients' characteristics, kinds of metallic stents, configuration of stent placement, overall survival, stent patency, and results of re-intervention were reviewed, along with the re-intervention technical success rate.

RESULTS

The biliary stricture type was Bismuth type IV in 59% (23/39) and types IIIa and b in 20.5% (8/39) each. Biliary metallic stent placement was bilateral in 38.5% (15/39), and unilateral in 61.5% (24/39). Primary stent dysfunction was observed in 71.8% (28/39) of cases. Planned re-intervention under ERCP guidance was attempted in 26 patients. The technical success rate was 62% (16/26). For the 10 patients who failed re-intervention under ERCP guidance, EUS-BD was planned. The technical success rate was 100% (10/10). The procedure time was 25.8 min. Adverse events were not seen in any patients. Stent patency after re-intervention was not significantly different between ERCP (165 days) guidance and EUS-BD (152 days) guidance (P = 0.463) CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, EUS-BD as a re-intervention method for metallic stent obstruction was safe and feasible. If ERCP was failed, EUS-BD may be one of option as re-intervention method for high-grade hilar stricture.

Efficacy and safety in case of technical success of endoscopic ultrasound-guided transhepatic antegrade biliary drainage: A report of a monocentric study

Background and Objectives:

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided biliary drainage techniques are alternative procedures in cases of obstructive jaundice with altered anatomy or failed ERCP. Complications related to EUS-guided antegrade drainage (EUS-AD) are still present in up to 10% of cases, and combination of procedures is sometimes suggested to avoid adverse events. The purpose of our study is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of EUS-AD with transhepatic access in case of technical success.

Methods:

We retrospectively reviewed patients who underwent EUS-AD in a single, tertiary care center.

Results:

Twenty patients were included (mean age 68), malignant stenosis in 95%. The reasons for EUS-AD were failed ERCP in 13/20, duodenal stenosis in 4/20, and altered anatomy after surgery in 3/20. A cystostome 6 Fr was always used to create the hepaticogastric tract, without puncture site closure. Self-expandable metallic stent (SEMS) was transpapillary in 95%. Drainage was completed in intraoperative stage by a EUS-hepaticogastrostomy (EUS-HGS) in 1/20 and by percutaneous drainage of the right liver (percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage) in one out of 20. Overall clinical success was 17/20 (85%). One out of 20 presented a persistent obstructive cholangitis treated by another SEMS through ERCP. Two out of 20 patients died of infectious complications with incomplete drainage, in case of advanced neoplastic disease. One of these two patients was treated by EUS-AD and EUS-HGS at the same time. None of the 20 patients developed bilioma or bile leakage.

Conclusion:

EUS-AD by transhepatic way is clinically effective and safe. Closure of the gastric puncture site is not mandatory and complementary methods for biliary decompression should be combined in case of incomplete drainage and not to prevent potential adverse events.

Endoscopic management of combined malignant biliary and gastric outlet obstruction

Patients with periampullary cancer or gastric cancer often develop malignant biliary obstruction (MBO) and gastric outlet obstruction (GOO), and combined MBO and GOO is not rare in these patients. Combined MBO and GOO is classified by its location and sequence, and treatment strategy can be affected by this classification. Historically, palliative surgery, hepaticojejunostomy and gastrojejunostomy were carried out, but the current standard treatment is combined transpapillary stent and duodenal stent placement. Although a high technical success rate is reported, the procedure can be technically difficult and duodenobiliary reflux with subsequent cholangitis is common after double stenting. Recent development of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided procedures enables the management of MBO as well as GOO under EUS guidance. EUS-guided biliary drainage is now increasingly reported as an alternative to percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage in failed endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), and GOO is one of the major reasons for failed ERCP. In addition to EUS-guided biliary drainage, the feasibility of EUS-guided double-balloon-occluded gastrojejunostomy bypass for MBO was recently reported, and EUS-guided double stenting can potentially become the treatment of choice in the future. However, as each procedure has its advantages and disadvantages, treatment strategy should be selected based on the type of obstruction and the prognosis and performance status of the patient.

Use of partially covered and uncovered metallic prosthesis for endoscopic ultrasound-guided hepaticogastrostomy: Results of a retrospective monocentric study

Background and Objectives:

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided hepaticogastrostomy (EUS-HGS) represents an option to treat obstructive jaundice when endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) fails. The success rate of this procedure has been shown to be very high. Up to now, plastic and self-expandable metallic stents (SEMSs) have been employed, each of them presenting some limitations. The aims of this study were to evaluate the technical and functional success rates of EUS-HGS using a dedicated biliary SEMS with a half-covered part (Giobor^® stent).

Methods:

We retrospectively reviewed data of patients, who underwent EUS-HGS at our center, with at least 6 months of follow-up. Demographic, clinical, and laboratory data were extracted from the patient's charts and electronic records. Technical success rate was defined as the successful passage of the Giobor stent across the stomach, along with the flow of contrast medium and/or bile through the stent. Functional success rate was considered achieved when the decrease of bilirubin value of at least 25% within the 1^st week was obtained. The rate of early and late complications was assessed.

Results:

A total of 41 patients were included (21F/20M, [mean age 66, range 45–85]). Technical success rate was obtained in 37 (90.2%) of patients. Functional success rate, analyzable in 29 patients, occurred in 65%. Between the 37 patients in whom HGS was technically feasible, 13 patients (31.7%) presented an early complication, mostly infective. At 6-month follow-up, 10/37 patients (27.0%) required a new biliary drainage (BD) and 11/37 (29.7%) died because of their disease.

Conclusions:

EUS-HGS using Giobor^® stent is technically feasible, clinical effective, safe, and may be an alternative to percutaneous transhepatic BD in case of ERCP failure for biliary decompression.

EUS-guided biliary drainage after failed ERCP: a novel algorithm individualized based on patient anatomy

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

EUS-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) has been offered for more than a decade as an alternative to percutaneous biliary drainage. Multiple approaches have been described. We propose an algorithm for biliary drainage based on patient anatomy. We aim to assess its validity and safety to guide EUS-BD drainage.

METHODS

All patients with biliary obstruction who underwent EUS-BD after failed ERCP from July 2011 through November 2015 underwent the drainage procedure according to the novel algorithm and were enrolled in a dedicated prospective registry. Patients with a dilated intrahepatic biliary tree (IHBT) on cross-sectional imaging received an intrahepatic (IH) approach with anterograde biliary stent placement or hepaticogastrostomy stent placement if anterograde placement was not feasible. Patients with a nondilated IHBT on cross-sectional imaging underwent an extrahepatic (EH) approach with a rendezvous (RDV) technique or a transenteric stent placement if the RDV technique was not feasible. If IH drainage was attempted but unsuccessful, conversion to an EH approach was performed.

RESULTS

Fifty-two patients (mean age, 68 ± 12 years; 52% men) were included in the registry. Technical success was achieved in 50 patients (96%). Twenty-seven of 52 patients (52%) underwent IH anterograde stent placement, 8 of 52 (15%) underwent hepaticogastrostomy, 11 of 52 (21%) underwent EH drainage with the RDV technique, and 6 of 52 (12%) underwent EH drainage with transenteric stent placement. Adverse events were observed in 5 patients (10%) and included a liver abscess requiring percutaneous drainage (n = 1) and bleeding (n = 4) with 1 postprocedural death secondary to bleeding.

CONCLUSIONS

EUS-BD obstruction after failed conventional ERCP is successful and safe when this novel algorithm is used. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT01438385.).

Endoscopic ultrasound and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: Can they be successfully combined?

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) have much in common, including their main indications (biliopancreatic disorders), powerful therapeutic capacities and a steep learning curve. Over the years they have evolved from novel diagnostic procedures to interventional therapeutic techniques, but along different paths (different scopes or devices and endoscopists specializing exclusively in one or the other technique). However, EUS has gradually developed into a therapeutic technique that requires skills in the use of ERCP devices and stents, leading some ERCP specialists to explore the therapeutic potential of EUS. The corresponding literature, which has grown exponentially, includes recent experiments on combining the two techniques, which have gradually come to be used in routine care in a number of centers, with positive technical, clinical and financial outcomes. We review EUS and ERCP as individual or combined procedures for managing biliopancreatic disorders.

Endoscopic Ultrasound Guided Rendezvous Drainage of Biliary Obstruction Using a New Flexible 19-Gauge Fine Needle Aspiration Needle

Background and Aim. A successful endoscopic ultrasound guided rendezvous (EUS-RV) biliary drainage is dependent on accurate puncture of the bile duct and precise guide wire manipulation across the ampulla of Vater. We aim to study the feasibility of using a flexible 19-gauge fine aspiration needle in the performance of EUS-RV biliary drainage. Method. This is a retrospective case series of EUS-RV biliary drainage procedures at a single center. Patients who failed ERCP during the same session for benign or malignant biliary obstruction underwent EUS-RV using a flexible, nitinol covered, 19-gauge needle for biliary access and guide wire manipulation. Result. 24 patients underwent EUS-RV biliary drainage via extrahepatic access while 1 attempt was via intrahepatic access. The technical success rate was 80%, including 83.3% of cases via extrahepatic access. There was no significant difference in success rate of inpatient and outpatient procedures, benign or malignant indications, or type of guide wire used. Adverse events included mild pancreatitis (3 patients) and cholangitis (1 patient). Conclusion. A flexible 19-gauge needle for biliary access can be safe and effective when used to perform EUS-RV biliary drainage. Direct comparison between the nitinol needle and conventional metal needles in the performance of EUS guided biliary drainage is needed.

Temporary duodenal stenting as a bridge to ERCP for inaccessible papilla due to duodenal obstruction: a retrospective study

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS

Duodenal obstruction may prevent performance of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). Percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD) or Endoscopic ultrasonograhy-guided biliary access (EUS-BD) are alternative treatments but are associated with a higher morbidity and mortality rate. The aim of the study is to report overall technical success rate and clinical outcome with deployment of temporary fully or partially covered self-expanding duodenal stent (pc/fcSEMS) as a bridge to ERCP in case of inaccessible papilla due to duodenal strictures.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This retrospective study included 66 consecutive patients presenting with a duodenal stricture impeding the ability to perform an ERCP. Provisional duodenal stenting was performed as a bridge to ERCP. A second endoscopic session was performed to remove the provisional stent and to perform an ERCP. Afterward, a permanent duodenal stent was delivered if necessary.

RESULTS

Sixty-six duodenal stents (17 pcSEMS and 49 fcSEMS) were delivered with a median indwelling time of 3.15 (1 - 7) days. Two migrations occurred in the pcSEMS group, 1 of which required lower endoscopy for retrieval. No other procedure-related complications were observed. At second endoscopy a successful ERCP was performed in 56 patients (85 %); 10 patients (15 %) with endoscopic failure underwent PTBD or EUS-BD. Forty patients needed permanent duodenal stenting.

CONCLUSIONS

Provisional removable covered duodenal stenting as a bridge to ERCP for duodenal obstruction is safe procedure and in most cases allows successful performance of therapeutic ERCP. This technique could be a sound option as a step up approach before referring such cases for more complex techniques such as EUS-BD or PTBD.

Assessment of efficacy and safety of EUS-guided biliary drainage: a systematic review

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

EUS-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) has emerged as an alternative procedure after failed ERCP. However, limited data on the efficacy and safety of EUS-BD are available. Therefore, a systematic review was conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of EUS-BD and to evaluate transduodenal (TD) and transgastric (TG) approaches.

METHODS

PubMed and EMBASE were searched to identify relevant studies published in the English language for inclusion in this systematic review and meta-analysis. Data from eligible studies were combined to calculate the cumulative technical success rate (TSR), functional success rate (FSR), and adverse-event rate of EUS-BD and the pooled odds ratio of TSR, FSR, and adverse-event rate of the TD approach when compared with the TG approach.

RESULTS

Forty-two studies with 1192 patients were included in this study, and the cumulative TSR, FSR, and adverse-event rate were 94.71%, 91.66%, and 23.32%, respectively. The common adverse events associated with EUS-BD were bleeding (4.03%), bile leakage (4.03%), pneumoperitoneum (3.02%), stent migration (2.68%), cholangitis (2.43%), abdominal pain (1.51%), and peritonitis (1.26%). Ten studies were included in the meta-analysis for comparative evaluation of TD and TG approaches for EUS-BD. Compared with the TG approach, the pooled odds ratio of the TSR, FSR, and adverse-event rate of the TD approach were 1.36 (95% CI, .66-2.81; P > .05), .84 (95% CI, .50-1.42; P > .05), and .61 (95% CI, .36-1.03; P > .05), respectively, which indicated no significant difference in the TSR, FSR, and adverse-event rate between the 2 groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Although it is associated with significant morbidity, EUS-BD is an effective alternative procedure for relieving biliary obstruction. There was no significant difference between the TD and TG approaches for EUS-BD.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage versus percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage: predictors of successful outcome in patients who fail endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography

BACKGROUND

Patients with failed endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) are conventionally offered percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD). While PTBD is effective, it is associated with catheter-related complications, pain, and poor quality of life. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) is a minimally invasive endoscopic option increasingly offered as an alternative to PTBD. We compare outcomes of EUS-BD and PTBD in patients with biliary obstruction at a single tertiary care center.

METHODS

A retrospective review was performed in patients with biliary obstruction who underwent EUS-BD or PTBD after failed ERCP from June 2010 through December 2014 at a single tertiary care center. Patient demographics, procedural data, and clinical outcomes were documented for each group. The aim was to compare efficacy and safety of EUS-BD and PTBD and evaluate predictors of success.

RESULTS

A total of 60 patients were included (mean age 67.5 years, 65 % male). Forty-seven underwent EUS-BD, and thirteen underwent PTBD. Technical success rates of PTBD and EUS-BD were similar (91.6 vs. 93.3 %, p = 1.0). PTBD patients underwent significantly more re-interventions than EUS-BD patients (mean 4.9 versus 1.3, p < 0.0001), had more late (>24-h) adverse events (53.8 % vs. 6.6 %, p = 0.001) and experienced more pain (4.1 vs. 1.9, p = 0.016) post-procedure. In univariate analysis, clinical success was lower in the PTBD group (25 vs. 62.2 %, p = 0.03). In multivariable logistic regression analysis, EUS-BD was the sole predictor of clinical success and long-term resolution (OR 21.8, p = 0.009).

CONCLUSION

Despite similar technical success rates compared to PTBD, EUS-BD results in a lower need for re-intervention, decreased rate of late adverse events, and lower pain scores, and is the sole predictor for clinical success and long-term resolution. EUS-BD should be the treatment of choice after a failed ERCP.

Endoscopic ultrasonography-guided rendezvous technique

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) requires deep biliary cannulation. When deep biliary cannulation is failed, the endoscopic ultrasonography rendezvous technique (EUS-RV) is a useful salvage method. From the previous 15 articles that included 382 EUS-RV cases, the overall success rate of EUS-RV is 81 % with a complication rate of 10 %. In EUS-RV, the bile duct is punctured under EUS guidance and a guidewire is advanced into the duodenum via the papilla. The EUS scope is then switched to a duodenoscope and inserted into the bile duct over the guidewire exiting the papilla, or the guidewire is grasped with forceps and passed through the working channel; the catheter can then be inserted through the papilla over the wire. There are three puncture routes for EUS-RV: transgastric puncture of the intrahepatic bile duct (IHBD), transduodenal puncture of the extrahepatic bile duct (EHBD) via the proximal duodenum (D1), and transduodenal puncture of the EHBD via the second portion of the duodenum (D2). The puncture route for each patient should be selected based on the patient condition. GW selection for EUS-RV is critical, a hydrophilic GW is useful for this procedure. Although EUS-RV is now performed relatively routinely in a few high-volume centers, procedure standardization and the development of exclusive devices for EUS-RV are still underway. The development of exclusive devices for EUS-RV and prospective comparative studies with other salvage methods are needed to truly evaluate the procedure's usefulness and safety.

Prospective international multicenter study on endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage for patients with malignant distal biliary obstruction after failed endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) has emerged as an alternative to traditional radiologic and surgical drainage procedures after failed endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). However, prospective multicenter data are lacking. The aims of this study were to prospectively assess the short- and long-term efficacy and safety of EUS-BD in patients with malignant distal biliary obstruction.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Consecutive patients at 12 tertiary centers (5 US, 5 European, 1 Asian, 1 South American) with malignant distal biliary obstruction and failed ERCP underwent EUS-BD. Technical success was defined as successful stent placement in the desired position. Clinical success was defined as a reduction in bilirubin by 50 % at 2 weeks or to below 3 mg/dL at 4 weeks. Adverse events were prospectively tracked and graded according to the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) lexicon's severity grading system. Overall survival and duration of stent patency were calculated using Kaplan-Meier analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 96 patients (mean age 66 years, female 45 %, pancreatic cancer 55 %) underwent EUS-BD. Stent placement (technical success) was achieved in 92 (95.8 %) patients (metallic stent 84, plastic stent 8). Mean procedure time was 40 minutes. Clinical success was achieved in 86 (89.5 %) patients. A total of 10 (10.5 %) adverse events occurred: pneumoperitoneum (n = 2), sheared wire (n = 1), bleeding (n = 1), bile leak (n = 3), cholangitis (n = 2), and unintentional perforation (n = 1); 4 graded as mild, 4 moderate, 1 severe, and 1 fatal (due to perforation). A total of 38 (44 %) patients died of disease progression during the study period. The median patient survival was 167 days (95 %CI 112 - 221) days. The 6-month stent patency rate was 95 % (95 %CI 94.94 - 95.06 %) and the 1-year stent patency was 86 % (95 %CI 85.74 - 86.26 %).

CONCLUSION

This study on EUS-BD demonstrates excellent efficacy and safety of EUS-BD when performed by experts.

STUDY REGISTRATION

NCT01889953.

Past, Present, and Future of Gastrointestinal Stents: New Endoscopic Ultrasonography-Guided Metal Stents and Future Developments

Innovations in stent technology and technological advances in endoscopic ultrasonography have led to rapid expansion of their use in the field of gastrointestinal diseases. In particular, endoscopic ultrasonography-guided metal stent insertion has been used for the management of pancreatic fluid collection, bile duct drainage, gallbladder decompression, and gastric bypass. Endoscopic ultrasonography-guided drainage of intra-abdominal fluid collections using a plastic or metal stent is well established. Because of the various limitations—such as stent migration, injury and bleeding in the lumen—recently developed, fully covered self-expanding metal stents or lumen-apposing metal stents have been introduced for those fluids management. This article reviews the recent literature on newly developed endoscopic ultrasonography-guided metal stents and the efficacy thereof.

Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Biliary Drainage: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Variable success and adverse event rates have been reported for endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) utilizing either extrahepatic or intrahepatic approach. We aimed to conduct a proportion meta-analysis to evaluate the cumulative efficacy and safety of EUS-BD and to compare the two approaches and transluminal methods of EUS-BD.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, ISI Web of Science, and Scopus from January 2001 through January 5, 2015, to identify studies reporting technical success and adverse events of EUS-BD. A sample size of more than 20 patients was a further criterion. Weighted pooled rate (WPR) for technical success and post-procedure complications was calculated for overall studies and predefined subgroups. Pooled odds ratios were calculated for technical success and adverse events for two approaches and transluminal methods of EUS-BD for distal common bile duct (CBD) strictures.

RESULTS

The WPR with 95% confidence interval (CI) for technical success and post-procedure adverse events was 90% (86, 93%) and 17% (13, 22%), respectively, with considerable heterogeneity (I(2) = 77%). For high-quality studies, the WPR for technical success was 94% (91, 96 %), I(2) = 0% and WPR for post-procedure adverse event was 16% (12, 19%), I(2) = 39%. In meta-regression model, distal CBD stricture and transpapillary drainage were associated with higher technical success and intrahepatic access route was associated with higher adverse event rate. There was no difference in technical success using either approach OR 1.27 (0.52, 3.13), I(2) = 0% or transluminal method OR 1.32 (0.51, 3.38), I(2) = 0%. However, the extrahepatic approach appeared significantly safer as compared to the intrahepatic approach OR 0.35 (0.19, 0.67), I(2) = 27%. Likewise, choledochoduodenostomy was found to have less adverse events as compared to hepaticogastrostomy, OR 0.40 (0.18, 0.87), I (2) = 0%.

CONCLUSION

In cases of failure of traditional ERC to achieve biliary drainage, EUS-BD appears to be an emerging therapeutic modality with a cumulative success rate of 90% and cumulative adverse events rate of 17%. Randomized controlled trials are required to further evaluate the efficacy and safety of the procedure along with the comparison to traditional modalities like percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage.

International multicenter comparative trial of transluminal EUS-guided biliary drainage via hepatogastrostomy vs. choledochoduodenostomy approaches

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) can be performed entirely transgastrically (hepatogastrostomy/EUS-HG) or transduodenally (choledochoduodenostomy/EUS-CDS). It is unknown how both techniques compare. The aims of this study were to compare efficacy and safety of both techniques and identify predictors of adverse events.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Consecutive jaundiced patients with distal malignant biliary obstruction who underwent EUS-BD at multiple international centers were included. Technical/clinical success, adverse events, stent complications, and survival were assessed.

RESULTS

A total of 121 patients underwent EUS-BD (CDS 60, HG 61). Technical success was achieved in 112 (92.56 %) patients (EUS-CDS 93.3 %, EUS-HG 91.8 %, P = 0.75). Clinical success was attained in 85.5 % of patients who underwent EUS-CDS group as compared to 82.1 % of patients who underwent EUS-HG (P = 0.64). Adverse events occurred more commonly in the EUS-HG group (19.67 % vs. 13.3 %, P = 0.37). Both plastic stenting (OR 4.95, 95 %CI 1.41 - 17.38, P = 0.01) and use of non-coaxial electrocautery (OR 3.95, 95 %CI 1.16 - 13.40, P = 0.03) were independently associated with adverse events. Length of hospital stay was significantly shorter in the CDS group (5.6 days vs. 12.7 days, P < 0.001). Mean follow-up duration was 151 ± 159 days. The 1-year stent patency probability was greater in the EUS-CDS group [0.98 (95 %CI 0.76 - 0.96) vs 0.60 (95 %CI 0.35 - 0.78)] but overall patency was not significantly different. There was no difference in median survival times between the groups (P = 0.36) CONCLUSIONS: Both EUS-CDS and EUS-HG are effective and safe techniques for the treatment of distal biliary obstruction after failed ERCP. However, CDS is associated with shorter hospital stay, improved stent patency, and fewer procedure- and stent-related complications. Metallic stents should be placed whenever feasible and non-coaxial electrocautery should be avoided when possible as plastic stenting and non-coaxial electrocautery were independently associated with occurrence of adverse events.

Endoscopic ultrasonography-guided biliary drainage: Who, when, which, and how?

Both endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS)-guided choledochoduodenostomy (EUS-CDS) and EUS-guided hepaticogastrostomy (EUS-HGS) are relatively well established as alternatives to percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD). Both EUS-CDS and EUS-HGS have high technical and clinical success rates (more than 90%) in high-volume centers. Complications for both procedures remain high at 10%-30%. Procedures performed by endoscopists who have done fewer than 20 cases sometimes result in severe or fatal complications. When learning EUS-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD), we recommend a mentor’s supervision during at least the first 20 cases. For inoperable malignant lower biliary obstruction, a skillful endoscopist should perform EUS-BD before EUS-guided rendezvous technique (EUS-RV) and PTBD. We should be select EUS-BD for patients having altered anatomy from malignant tumors before balloon-enteroscope-assisted endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, EUS-RV, and PTBD. If both EUS-CDS and EUS-HGS are available, we should select EUS-CDS, according to published data. EUS-BD will potentially become a first-line biliary drainage procedure in the near future.

Type of Combined Endoscopic Biliary and Gastroduodenal Stenting Is Significant for Biliary Route Maintenance

Objective Some patients with malignant gastric outlet obstruction require combined biliary and gastroduodenal stenting (double stenting). However, biliary stent dysfunction can often disturb biliary route maintenance, thus making the optimal biliary stenting for these patients unclear. The present study was designed to assess the factors associated with the long-term maintenance of biliary drainage routes. Methods The clinical features and long-term outcomes were assessed in patients who underwent double stenting. Patients The outcomes were reviewed in 43 consecutive patients who successfully underwent endoscopic double stenting with metallic stents. Results An univariate analysis of all patients with biliary stent dysfunction showed the separate type of double stenting (two stents placed in a non-crossed position) to be the only predictive factor related to successful biliary re-intervention for stent dysfunction (odds ratio 73.67, p=0.001). A comparison of the clinical features in patients who underwent separate and cross (two stents placed in a crossed position) stenting showed the functional success rate to be higher for the separate (93.3%) than for the cross (61.5%) stent type, with the median times to biliary stent dysfunction differing significantly (330 vs. 298 days, respectively; p=0.048). The success rates of re-intervention in patients with separate and cross type stents were 88.9% and 0.0%, respectively (p=0.001), and the initial biliary route maintenance rates were 96.7% and 53.8%, respectively (p=0.002). Conclusion The separate type of double stenting may enhance successful biliary re-intervention for stent dysfunction and also maintain the initial drainage route longer. The biliary drainage outcomes should therefore be considered when choosing the type of double stenting.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided antegrade stenting in an occluded biliary self-expandable metal stent

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) is an attractive option for patients who cannot undergo conventional endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and do not want surgery or percutaneous drainage procedures. We present the use of EUS-antegrade (EUS-AG) insertion of a self-expandable metal stent (SEMS) in a patient with a common hepatic duct cholangiocarcinoma, as well as a huge gastric lipoma, after recurrent biliary obstruction of a prior SEMS inserted via ERCP in the same session as a duodenal stent insertion for gastric outlet obstruction.

Biliary drainage: role of EUS guidance

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

EUS-guided biliary drainage is a technique being increasingly used when ERCP fails, and it has been the focus of multiple studies and investment in recent years. However, the proportion of cases for which it is really indicated has not been established. The aim of this study is to determine how often EUS-guided biliary drainage is needed in a tertiary-care level therapeutic endoscopy unit.

METHODS

This is a prospective cohort study at a single tertiary-care center with a high volume of therapeutic endoscopy. A thousand consecutive ERCPs performed from November 1, 2013 to September 12, 2014 were screened, and those with previous biliary intervention were excluded (n = 476). EUS-guided biliary drainage was performed in suitable patients with failed ERCP and malignant biliary obstruction. The main outcome measures were the rates of ERCP failure and EUS-guided biliary drainage.

RESULTS

A total of 524 native papilla ERCPs were performed (41.2% male; median age 60 years, range 6-97 years; 9.4% outside failed ERCP; 1.9% surgically altered anatomy). The ampulla was reached in 518 (98.9%) and not reached in 6 (1.1%) because of surgically altered anatomy (n = 2), malignant duodenal stenosis (n = 3), or both (n = 1). The overall ERCP failure rate was 1.7% (9/524). Cannulation was successful in 99.4% (515/518) and unsuccessful in 0.6% (3/518) of cases in which the ampulla was reached. EUS-guided biliary drainage was indicated in 0.6% (3/524) of all referred native papilla ERCPs, or 33% (3/9) of those patients with failed ERCP; EUS-biliary drainage was successful in all cases.

CONCLUSIONS

In a tertiary-care center, use of advanced ERCP techniques results in a high technical success rate. EUS-guided biliary drainage was required in only 0.6% of native papilla ERCPs, and although a number of excellent indications exist, it should not replace good ERCP technique.