EUS-Guided Antegrade Biliary Stenting Using a Novel Fully Covered Metal Stent (with Video)

Comparison between Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Antegrade and Transluminal Stent Implantation in Distal Malignant Biliary Obstruction after Failed ERCP

Background

Distal malignant biliary obstruction (DMBO) can result in obstructive jaundice. Endoscopic ultrasound- (EUS-) guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) has been an alternative for DMBO after failed ERCP.

Aim

To compare the efficacy and safety between antegrade and transluminal approaches in patients with unresectable DMBO when ERCP failed.

Methods

Patients with DMBO leading to obstructive jaundice after failed ERCP were enrolled in this study. We retrospectively evaluated the safety and efficacy between EUS-guided transluminal stenting (TLS group) and antegrade stenting (AGS group).

Results

82 patients were enrolled, of which 45 patients were in TLS group and 37 in AGS group. There were no statistical differences in the malignancy type, baseline common bile duct diameter, total bilirubin level, reason for EUS-BD, and history of biliary drainage between TLS and AGS groups. The technical success rate was statistically higher in TLS group than in AGS group (97.8 vs. 81.1%, P = 0.031). There were no statistical differences in clinical success rate, procedure-related adverse events, stent migration rate, stent dysfunction rate, reintervention rate, and overall patient survival time between TLS and AGS groups. The median time to stent dysfunction or patient death in TLS and AGS groups was 53 and 81 days, respectively (P = 0.017).

Conclusions

Although AGS had a lower technical success rate than TLS, it was superior to TLS in stent patency in patients with DMBO.

Adverse events with EUS-guided biliary drainage: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Multiple meta-analyses have evaluated the technical and clinical success of EUS-guided biliary drainage (BD), but meta-analyses concerning adverse events (AEs) are limited. The present meta-analysis analyzed AEs associated with various types of EUS-BD.

METHODS

A literature search of MEDLINE, Embase, and Scopus was conducted from 2005 to September 2022 for studies analyzing the outcome of EUS-BD. The primary outcomes were incidence of overall AEs, major AEs, procedure-related mortality, and reintervention. The event rates were pooled using a random-effects model.

RESULTS

One hundred fifty-five studies (7887 patients) were included in the final analysis. The pooled clinical success rates and incidence of AEs with EUS-BD were 95% (95% confidence interval [CI], 94.1-95.9) and 13.7% (95% CI, 12.3-15.0), respectively. Among early AEs, bile leak was the most common followed by cholangitis with pooled incidences of 2.2% (95% CI, 1.8-2.7) and 1.0% (95% CI, .8-1.3), respectively. The pooled incidences of major AEs and procedure-related mortality with EUS-BD were .6% (95% CI, .3-.9) and .1% (95% CI, .0-.4), respectively. The pooled incidences of delayed migration and stent occlusion were 1.7% (95% CI, 1.1-2.3) and 11.0% (95% CI, 9.3-12.8), respectively. The pooled event rate for reintervention (for stent migration or occlusion) after EUS-BD was 16.2% (95% CI, 14.0-18.3; I2 = 77.5%).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite a high clinical success rate, EUS-BD may be associated with AEs in one-seventh of the cases. However, major AEs and mortality incidence remain less than 1%, which is reassuring.

Endoscopic ultrasound‑guided biliary drainage in patients with surgically altered anatomy: a systematic review and Meta‑analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography is technically challenging to perform in patients with surgically altered anatomy (SAA). For these patients, endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) is one of the good indications. The aim of our systematic review and meta-analysis was to identify and evaluate evidence of the efficacy and safety of EUS-BD in patients with SAA.

METHODS

A systematic review of the PubMed was conducted through to December 2021 to identify studies performing EUS-BD in patients with SAA. The primary outcome was the pooled technical success proportion in patients with SAA. The pooled clinical success and adverse event proportions in patients with SAA were also analyzed.

RESULTS

The search identified 1195 possible records, with 18 studies meeting our criteria for analysis, reporting data for 409 patients with SAA who underwent EUS-BD. The pooled technical success, clinical success and adverse event proportions in patients with SAA were 97.8% (95% confidence interval [CI], 95.8-99.7%), 94.9% (95% CI, 91.8-98.1%), and 12.8% (95% CI, 7.4-18.1%), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

EUS-BD is effective for patients with SAA. However, adverse events should be considered when performing EUS-BD in these patients.

Current status of endoscopic ultrasound-guided antegrade intervention for biliary diseases in patients with surgically altered anatomy

Endoscopic management of biliary diseases in patients with surgically altered anatomy can be challenging because the altered anatomy makes it difficult to insert an endoscope into the biliary orifice. Even if insertion is feasible, the worse maneuverability of the endoscope and the restriction in available devices and techniques could complicate the procedure. Recently, endoscopic ultrasound-guided antegrade intervention (EUS-AG) has been reported as a useful management method for biliary diseases, especially in patients with surgically altered anatomy. In EUS-AG, the biliary disease is managed in an antegrade fashion through a temporal fistula created under EUS guidance between the intrahepatic biliary duct and upper intestine. In this article, we reviewed the current status of EUS-AG for each biliary diseases, malignant biliary obstruction, bile duct stones, and benign biliary stricture in patients with surgically altered anatomy.

Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Antegrade Radiofrequency Ablation and Metal Stenting With Hepaticoenterostomy for Malignant Biliary Obstruction: A Prospective Preliminary Study

Endobiliary radiofrequency ablation (RFA) for malignant biliary obstruction is a promising option for improving biliary stent patency, but its efficacy and safety with endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided biliary drainage are uncertain. We examined the feasibility of EUS-guided hepaticoenterostomy with antegrade stenting (EUS-HEAS) and RFA in patients with unresectable malignant biliary obstruction.

Initial experience of endoscopic ultrasound-guided antegrade covered stent placement with long duodenal extension for malignant distal biliary obstruction (with video)

Background/Purpose

This study aimed to evaluate the feasibility of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)‐guided antegrade covered stent placement with long duodenal extension (EASL) for malignant distal biliary obstruction (MDBO) with duodenal obstruction (DO) or surgically altered anatomy (SAA) after failed endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP).

Methods

Outcomes were technical and clinical success, reintervention rate, adverse events, stent patency, and overall survival. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) and competing‐risk analysis were performed to compare with conventional EUS‐BD.

Results

Twenty‐five patients (DO, n = 18; SAA, n = 7) were included. The technical and clinical success rates were 96% and 84%, respectively. Reintervention occurred in two patients (8.3%). Adverse events occurred in six patients (24%; two cholangitis, 16%; four mild postprocedural pancreatitis [24% (n = 4/17) in patients with non‐pancreatic cancers]). The median patency was 9.4 months, and the overall survival was 2.73 months. After IPTW adjustment, the median patency in the EASL (n = 25) and conventional EUS‐BD (n = 29) were 10.1 and 6.5 months, respectively (P = .018).

Conclusions

EASL has acceptable clinical outcomes with a low reintervention rate but higher rate of postprocedural pancreatitis in patients with non‐pancreatic cancers. Randomized trials comparing EASL and conventional EUS‐BD for MDBO with pancreatic cancers and DO/SAA after failed ERCP are needed to validate our findings.