Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided pseudocyst drainage as a one-step procedure using a novel multiple-wire insertion technique (with video). Surg Endosc. 2012;26:3320-3323. [PMID: 22538697 DOI: 10.1007/s00464-012-2297-1]

Use of a double-lumen cytology brush catheter to allow double-guidewire technique for endoscopic interventions

Background and Aims

Serial stent placement may be necessary during endoscopic interventions, but the passage of a guidewire alongside an initial stent can be challenging, time-consuming, and sometimes unsuccessful. We describe a modification of a cytology brush catheter to allow simultaneous placement of 2 guidewires to facilitate serial stent placement and demonstrate its application in different scenarios.

Methods

This is a retrospective series of 3 patients with different conditions (acute cholecystitis, pancreas pseudocyst, and severe biliary stricture) in whom placement of a second guidewire facilitated serial stent placement. A step-by-step demonstration of the technique is provided.

Results

Serial stent placement was successful in all patients without adverse events.

Conclusions

A modified cytology brush catheter can be used to deliver 2 guidewires simultaneously during ERCP and EUS procedures. This technique may improve procedural efficiency, maintain a safety track, and augment therapy in certain situations.

Systematic Review of Endoscopic Cyst Gastrostomy

Since the original description of pancreatic fluid collections (PFC) in 1761 by Morgagni, their diagnosis, description, and management have continued to evolve. The mainstay of therapy for symptomatic PFCs has been the creation of a communication between a PFC and the stomach, to enable drainage. Surgical creation of these drainage conduits had been the gold standard of therapy; however, there has been a paradigm shift in recent years with an increasing role of endoscopic drainage. The techniques of endoscopic drainage have evolved from blind fluid aspiration to include endoscopic necrosectomy and the placement of lumen-apposing metal stents.

Future Directions for Endoscopic Ultrasound: Where Are We Heading?

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) plays an important role as a diagnostic and therapeutic modality in gastroenterology. New developments have emerged, especially in the last decade, and are being introduced to endoscopists. The ability to readily visualize and access organs in the gastrointestinal tract has allowed endoscopists to perform new interventional procedures. EUS procedures have taken the place of conventional approaches for the treatment of various gastrointestinal diseases, including pancreatic cystic lesions. This article focuses on the advances and future of diagnostic and therapeutic EUS.

Endoscopic Management of Pancreatic Fluid Collections

Pancreatic fluid collections (PFCs) may develop due to inflammation secondary to acute and/or chronic pancreatitis, trauma, surgery, or obstruction from solid or cystic neoplasms. PFCs can be drained percutaneously, surgically, or endoscopically with endoscopic ultrasound-guided cyst gastrostomy and/or transpapillary drainage through endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. There has been a paradigm shift in the endoscopic management of PFCs in the past few years with newer techniques including utilization of self-expanding metal stents and multiport devices. This review is a comprehensive update on the classification of PFC, indications for drainage, optimal approach, and techniques.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided drainage of pancreatic pseudocysts

Pancreatic pseudocysts are fluid collections in the peripancreatic tissues associated with acute or chronic pancreatitis. Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided drainage has become an established indication, having better results as compared to percutaneous drainage, nonguided endoscopic drainage, or surgical drainage. The aim of this review is to assess critically the current literature concerning EUS-guided pseudocyst drainage and to review the place of the procedure in the clinical decision management algorithms of these patients.

Endoscopic ultrasound guided interventional procedures

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) has emerged as an important diagnostic and therapeutic modality in the field of gastrointestinal endoscopy. EUS provides access to many organs and lesions which are in proximity to the gastrointestinal tract and thus giving an opportunity to target them for therapeutic and diagnostic purposes. This modality also provides a real time opportunity to target the required area while avoiding adjacent vascular and other structures. Therapeutic EUS has found role in management of pancreatic fluid collections, biliary and pancreatic duct drainage in cases of failed endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, drainage of gallbladder, celiac plexus neurolysis/blockage, drainage of mediastinal and intra-abdominal abscesses and collections and in targeted cancer chemotherapy and radiotherapy. Infact, therapeutic EUS has emerged as the therapy of choice for management of pancreatic pseudocysts and recent innovations like fully covered removable metallic stents have improved results in patients with organised necrosis. Similarly, EUS guided drainage of biliary tract and pancreatic duct helps drainage of these systems in patients with failed cannulation, inaccessible papilla as with duodenal/gastric obstruction or surgically altered anatomy. EUS guided gall bladder drainage is a useful emergent procedure in patients with acute cholecystitis who are not fit for surgery. EUS guided celiac plexus neurolysis and blockage is more effective and less morbid vis-à-vis the percutaneous technique. The field of interventional EUS is rapidly advancing and many more interventions are being continuously added. This review focuses on the current status of evidence vis-à-vis the established indications of therapeutic EUS.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided treatments: are we getting evidence based--a systematic review

The continued need to develop less invasive alternatives to surgical and radiologic interventions has driven the development of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided treatments. These include EUS-guided drainage of pancreatic fluid collections, EUS-guided necrosectomy, EUS-guided cholangiography and biliary drainage, EUS-guided pancreatography and pancreatic duct drainage, EUS-guided gallbladder drainage, EUS-guided drainage of abdominal and pelvic fluid collections, EUS-guided celiac plexus block and celiac plexus neurolysis, EUS-guided pancreatic cyst ablation, EUS-guided vascular interventions, EUS-guided delivery of antitumoral agents and EUS-guided fiducial placement and brachytherapy. However these procedures are technically challenging and require expertise in both EUS and interventional endoscopy, such as endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography and gastrointestinal stenting. We undertook a systematic review to record the entire body of literature accumulated over the past 2 decades on EUS-guided interventions with the objective of performing a critical appraisal of published articles, based on the classification of studies according to levels of evidence, in order to assess the scientific progress made in this field.

A comparative evaluation of outcomes of endoscopic versus percutaneous drainage for symptomatic pancreatic pseudocysts

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic drainage (ED) and percutaneous drainage (PD) have largely replaced surgical drainage as the initial approach for symptomatic pseudocysts. However, there are few studies comparing ED and PD.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the outcomes of ED and PD for symptomatic pseudocysts.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

SETTING

Academic center.

PATIENTS

Adult patients with symptomatic pseudocysts within ≤ 1 cm of the gastric or duodenal wall who underwent ED or PD between 1993 and 2011. Patients with walled-off pancreatic necrosis were excluded.

INTERVENTION

ED or PD.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Rates of technical success, procedural adverse events, clinical success, reinterventions, and failure. Other outcomes included the length of hospital stay and number of follow-up abdominal imaging studies.

RESULTS

There were 81 patients, 41 who underwent ED and 40 who underwent PD, with no differences in age, sex, and comorbidity between the 2 groups. There were no differences in the rates of technical success (90.2% vs 97.5%; P = .36), adverse events (14.6% vs 15%; P = .96), and clinical success (70.7% vs 72.5%; P = .86) between ED and PD, respectively. Patients who underwent PD had higher rates of reintervention (42.5% vs 9.8%; P = .001), longer length of hospital stay (14.8 ± 14.4 vs 6.5 ± 6.7 days; P = .001), and median number [quartiles] of follow-up abdominal imaging studies (6 [3.25, 10] vs 4 [2.5, 6]; P = .02) compared with patients who underwent ED.

LIMITATIONS

Single center, retrospective study.

CONCLUSION

ED and PD have similar clinical success rates for symptomatic pseudocysts. However, PD is associated with significantly higher rates of reintervention, longer length of hospital stay, and increased number of follow-up abdominal imaging studies.

Interventional endoscopic ultrasonography: an overview of safety and complications

BACKGROUND

In recent years, endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS)-guided techniques have been developed as alternatives to surgical, radiologic, or conventional endoscopic approaches for the treatment or palliation of several digestive diseases. The use of EUS guidance allows the therapeutic area to be targeting more precisely, with a possible clinical benefit and less morbidity. Nevertheless, the risks persist and must be taken into consideration. This review gives an overview of the complications observed with the most established procedures of therapeutic EUS.

METHODS

The PubMed and Embase databases were used to search English language articles on interventional EUS. The studies considered for inclusion were those reporting on complications of EUS-guided celiac plexus block (EUS-CPB), EUS-guided celiac plexus neurolysis (EUS-CPN), drainage of fluid pancreatic and pelvic collections, and EUS-guided biliary and pancreatic drainage (EUS-BD and EUS-PD). Variations in methodology and design in most studies made a thorough statistical analysis difficult. Instead, a frequency analysis of complications and a critical discussion were performed.

RESULTS

Although EUS-guided celiac plexus injection causes mainly mild and transient complications, growing experience shows that EUS-CPN is not as benign a procedure as previously thought. Most of the major complications have been observed in patients with chronic pancreatitis. The findings show that EUS-guided drainage of fluid collections is a safe procedure. Complications occur more often after the drainage of pancreatic abscesses and necrosis. Although the heterogeneity of studies dealing with pancreatobiliary drainage makes the evaluation of risks after these procedures difficult, complications after EUS-BD and EUS-PD are relatively frequent and can be severe. The technical complexity and the lack of specifically designed devices may account for their complication rates.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinicians can consider EUS-guided celiac injection and EUS-guided drainage of fluid collections to be safe alternatives to surgical and radiologic interventions. Well-designed prospective trials are needed to assess the risks of EUS-BD and EUS-PD accurately before they are broadly advocated after a failed endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP).