EUS-guided intrahepatic biliary drainage: a large retrospective series and subgroup comparison between percutaneous drainage in hilar stenoses or postsurgical anatomy

Controversies in Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Biliary Drainage

In this 14th document in a series of papers entitled "Controversies in Endoscopic Ultrasound" we discuss various aspects of EUS-guided biliary drainage that are debated in the literature and in practice. Endoscopic retrograde cholangiography is still the reference technique for therapeutic biliary access, but EUS-guided techniques for biliary access and drainage have developed into safe and highly effective alternative options. However, EUS-guided biliary drainage techniques are technically demanding procedures for which few training models are currently available. Different access routes require modifications to the basic technique and specific instruments. In experienced hands, percutaneous transhepatic cholangiodrainage is also a good alternative. Therefore, in this paper, we compare arguments for different options of biliary drainage and different technical modifications.

Managing dysfunctions and reinterventions in endoscopic ultrasound-guided choledochoduodenostomy with lumen apposing metal stents: Illustrated technical review (with videos)

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided choledochoduodenostomy (EUS-CDS) with lumen apposing metal stent is emerging both as a rescue strategy and a primary treatment for distal malignant biliary obstruction. The large-scale diffusion of the procedure and improved overall survival of patients with pancreatobiliary neoplasms is resulting in a growing population of long-term EUS-CDS lumen apposing metal stent carriers. Recent studies have reported a need for reintervention during follow-up as high as 55%, and the Leuven-Amsterdam-Milan Study Group classification has been developed, identifying five mechanisms of stent dysfunction and 11 possible rescue strategies aimed at restoring biliary drainage. This illustrated technical review aims to further dissect the recent classification through a comprehensive analysis of nine illustrative cases, offering insights into the pathophysiology underlying dysfunction and clinical reasoning behind rescue interventions, as well as technical considerations and practical tips and tricks. By exploring mechanisms of dysfunction, this review also assists clinicians in selecting the ideal candidates for EUS-CDS while identifying patients deemed high risk for dysfunction or clinical failure.

Same-session endoscopic diagnosis and symptom palliation in pancreato-biliary malignancies: Clinical impact of rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE)

Background and study aims Besides increasing adequacy, rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE) during endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) or endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) may impact choices and timing of subsequent therapeutic procedures, yet has been unexplored. Patients and methods This was a retrospective evaluation of a prospectively maintained database of a tertiary, academic centre with availability of ROSE and hybrid EUS-ERCP suites. All consecutive patients referred for pathological confirmation of suspected malignancy and jaundice or gastric outlet obstruction (GOO) between Jan-2020 and Sep-2022 were included. Results Of 541 patients with underlying malignancy, 323 (59.7%) required same-session pathological diagnosis (male: 54.8%; age 70 [interquartile range 63-78]; pancreatic cancer: 76.8%, biliary tract adenocarcinoma 16.1%). ROSE adequacy was 96.6%, higher for EUS versus ERCP. Among 302 patients with jaundice, ERCP-guided stenting was successful in 83.1%, but final drainage was completed in 97.4% thanks to 43 EUS-guided biliary drainage procedures. Twenty-one patients with GOO were treated with 15 EUS-gastroenterostomies and six duodenal stents. All 58 therapeutic EUS procedures occurred after adequate ROSE. With ERCP-guided placement of stents, the use of plastic stents was significantly higher among patients with inadequate ROSE (10/11; 90.9%) versus adequate sampling (14/240; 5.8%) P <0.0001; OR 161; 95%CI 19-1352). Median hospital stay for diagnosis and palliation was 3 days (range, 2-7) and median time to chemotherapy was 33 days (range, 24-47). Conclusions Nearly two-thirds of oncological candidates for endoscopic palliation require contemporary pathological diagnosis. ROSE adequacy allows, since the index procedure, state-of-the-art therapeutics standardly restricted to pathologically confirmed malignancies (e.g. uncovered SEMS or therapeutic EUS), potentially reducing hospitalization and time to oncological treatments.

Risk factors of early adverse events associated with endoscopic ultrasound-guided hepaticogastrostomy using self-expandable metal stent

Background and study aims This retrospective study aimed to investigate risk factors for early adverse events (AEs) associated with endoscopic ultrasonography-guided hepaticogastrostomy (EUS-HGS) using self-expandable metal stents (SEMS). Patients and methods The clinical success rate, technical success rate, and early AEs were assessed at two hospitals from 2010 to 2022. The analysis focused on risk factors associated with cholangitis, peritonitis, and SEMS migration. Results Technical success was achieved in all cases (94/94), and clinical success was 96.8% (91/94). Post-procedural acute cholangitis occurred in 12.8%of cases (12/94). However, no statistically significant risk factors were identified for cholangitis or biliary tract infection. Peritonitis occurred in only 2.1% of cases (2/94). Univariate analysis, using a 1.5 cm cut-off for the distance between the liver and gastrointestinal tract, revealed significant risk factors: braided-type SEMS, bile duct diameter (especially >4 mm), 6 mm diameter SEMS, and tract dilation ( P= 0.001, P= 0.020, P =0.023, and P =0.046, respectively). Adjusting the cut-offs to 2 cm underscored braided-type SEMS and tract dilation as risk factors ( P =0.002 and P =0.046, respectively). With 2.5-cm cut-offs, only braided-type SEMS remained significant ( P =0.018). Mortality within 14 and 30 days following EUS-HGS was 5.3% (5/94) and 16.0% (15/94), respectively. Conclusions EUS-HGS using SEMS demonstrated high technical and clinical success rates. Laser-cut SEMS may be superior in preventing early AEs.

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 Versus Percutaneous Transhepatic Biliary Drainage After Failed ERCP: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) may fail to achieve biliary drainage in 5% to 10% of cases. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) and percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD) are alternative therapeutic options in such cases. The present meta-analysis aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of EUS-BD and PTBD for biliary decompression after failed ERCP.

METHODS

A comprehensive search of literature from inception to September 2022 was done of 3 databases for studies comparing EUS-BD and PTBD for biliary drainage after failed ERCP. Odds ratios (ORs) with 95% CIs were calculated for all the dichotomous outcomes. Continuous variables were analyzed using mean difference (MD).

RESULTS

A total of 24 studies were included in the final analysis. Technical success was comparable between EUS-BD and PTBD (OR=1.12, 0.67-1.88). EUS-BD was associated with a higher clinical success rate (OR=2.55, 1.63-4.56) and lower odds of adverse events (OR=0.41, 0.29-0.59) compared with PTBD. The incidence of major adverse events (OR=0.66, 0.31-1.42) and procedure-related mortality (OR=0.43, 0.17-1.11) were similar between the groups. EUS-BD was associated with lower odds of reintervention with an OR of 0.20 (0.10-0.38). The duration of hospitalization (MD: -4.89, -7.73 to -2.05) and total treatment cost (MD: -1355.46, -2029.75 to -681.17) were significantly lower with EUS-BD.

CONCLUSIONS

EUS-BD may be preferred over PTBD in patients with biliary obstruction after failed ERCP where appropriate expertise is available. Further trials are required to validate the findings of the study.

Same-session double EUS-guided bypass versus surgical gastroenterostomy and hepaticojejunostomy: an international multicenter comparison

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Gastric outlet and biliary obstruction are common manifestations of GI malignancies and some benign diseases for which standard treatment would be surgical gastroenterostomy and hepaticojejunostomy (ie, "double bypass"). Therapeutic EUS has allowed for the creation of an EUS-guided double bypass. However, same-session double EUS-guided bypass has only been described in small proof-of-concept series and lacks a comparison with surgical double bypass.

METHODS

A retrospective multicenter analysis was performed of all consecutive same-session double EUS-guided bypass procedures performed in 5 academic centers. Surgical comparators were extracted from these centers' databases from the same time interval. Efficacy, safety, hospital stay, nutrition and chemotherapy resumption, long-term patency, and survival were compared.

RESULTS

Of 154 identified patients, 53 (34.4%) received treatment with EUS and 101 (65.6%) with surgery. At baseline, patients undergoing EUS exhibited higher American Society of Anesthesiologists scores and a higher median Charlson Comorbidity Index (9.0 [interquartile range {IQR}, 7.0-10.0] vs 7.0 [IQR, 5.0-9.0], P < .001). Technical success (96.2% vs 100%, P = .117) and clinical success rates (90.6% vs 82.2%, P = .234) were similar when comparing EUS and surgery. Overall (11.3% vs 34.7%, P = .002) and severe adverse events (3.8% vs 19.8%, P = .007) occurred more frequently in the surgical group. In the EUS group, median time to oral intake (0 days [IQR, 0-1] vs 6 days [IQR, 3-7], P < .001) and hospital stay (4.0 days [IQR, 3-9] vs 13 days [IQR, 9-22], P < .001) were significantly shorter.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite being used in a patient population with more comorbidities, same-session double EUS-guided bypass achieved similar technical and clinical success and was associated with fewer overall and severe adverse events when compared with surgical gastroenterostomy and hepaticojejunostomy.

Combined endoscopic mAnagement of BiliaRy and gastrIc OutLET obstruction (CABRIOLET Study): A multicenter retrospective analysis

Objectives

Combined biliary obstruction and gastric outlet obstruction (GOO) represent a challenging clinical scenario despite developments in therapeutic endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) as GOO might impair EUS‐guided biliary drainage. Little is known about the effectiveness of different therapeutic combinations used to treat double obstruction, especially regarding stent patency.

Methods

All consecutive patients with double obstruction treated between 2016 and 2021 in three tertiary academic centres were eligible for inclusion. Five combinations involving enteral stenting (ES), EUS‐guided gastroenterostomy (EUS‐GE), hepaticogastrostomy (EUS‐HGS), choledochoduodenostomy (EUS‐CDS), and transpapillary biliary stenting (TPS) were evaluated for dysfunction during follow‐up, either as proportions or dysfunction‐free survival (DFS) using Kaplan–Meier estimates.

Results

Ninety‐three patients were included (male 46%; age 67 [interquartile range 60–76] years; pancreatic cancer 73%, metastatic 57%), resulting in 103 procedure combinations. Different combinations showed significantly different overall dysfunction rates (p = 0.009), ranging from the null rate of EUS‐GE+HG to the 18% rate of EUS‐GE+TPS, 31% of EUS‐GE+EUS‐CD, 53% of ES+TPS and 83% of ES+EUS‐CDS. Sub‐analyses restricted to biliary dysfunction confirmed these trends. A multivariate Cox proportional‐hazards regression of DFS, a stenosis distal to the papilla (HR 3.2 [1.5–6.9]) and ES+EUS‐CDS (HR 5.6 [2–15.7]) independently predicted dysfunction.

Conclusions

Despite a lack of statistical power per combination, this study introduces new associations beyond the increased risk of GOO recurrence with ES versus EUS‐GE. EUS‐CDS showed reduced effectiveness and frequent dysfunction in the context of GOO, especially when combined with ES. EUS‐GE+HGS or EUS‐GE+TPS in this setting might result in superior patency. These results suggest that a prospective evaluation of the optimal endoscopic approach to malignant double obstruction is needed.

Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy of India Consensus Guidelines on Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Biliary Drainage: Part I (Indications, Outcomes, Comparative Evaluations, Training)

Endoscopic management of bile duct obstruction is a key aspect in gastroenterology practice and has evolved since the first description of biliary cannulation by McCune et al in 1968. Over many decades, the techniques and accessories have been refined and currently, the first-line management for extrahepatic biliary obstruction is endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreaticography (ERCP). However, even in expert hands the success rate of ERCP reaches up to 95%. In almost 4 to 16% cases, failure to cannulate the bile duct may necessitate other alternatives such as surgical bypass or more commonly percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD). While surgery is associated with high morbidity and mortality, PTBD has a very high reintervention and complication rate (∼80%) and poor quality of life. Almost parallelly, endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) has come a long way from a mere diagnostic tool to a substantial therapeutic option in various pancreatico-biliary diseases. Biliary drainage using EUS-guidance (EUS-BD) has gained momentum since the first report published by Giovannini et al in 2001. The concept of accessing the bile duct through a different route than the papilla, circumventing the shortcomings of PTBD and sometimes bypassing the actual obstruction have enthused a lot of interest in this novel strategy. The three key methods of EUS-BD entail transluminal, antegrade, and rendezvous approach. Over the past decade, with growing experience, EUS-BD has been found to be equivalent to ERCP or PTBD for malignant obstruction with better success rates.

EUS-BD, albeit, is not devoid of adverse events and can carry fatal adverse events. However, neither the technique of EUS-BD, nor the accessories and stents for EUS-BD have been standardized.

Additionally, different countries and regions have different availability of the accessories making generalizability a difficult task. Thus, technical aspects of this evolving therapy need to be outlined. For these reasons, the Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy India deemed it appropriate to develop technical consensus statements for performing safe and successful EUS-BD.

Endoscopic ultrasound guided biliary interventions

Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), even in expert hands, may fail in 5-10% of cases, especially in cases of papillary infiltration, malignant gastric outlet obstruction, or surgically altered anatomy. Percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD) has represented the traditional rescue therapy, despite associated with high rate of adverse events, need for re-interventions and an inferior quality of life. The evolution of Endoscopic Ultrasound (EUS) from a diagnostic to a therapeutic tool offers an effective and safe alternative for internal biliary drainage (BD) into the stomach or the duodenum. EUS-BD is reported to have similar or even improved efficacy and increased safety when compared to PTBD and can be performed in the same session of a failed ERCP. This review summarizes technical aspects of intra-hepatic and extra-hepatic EUS-BD (including hepatico-gastrostomy, choledocho-duodenostomy and rendezvous) together with current evidence and future perspectives that steadily cements EUS-BD's place in multidisciplinary management of bilio-pancreatic diseases.

How to perform EUS-guided biliary drainage

EUS-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) has recently gained widespread acceptance as a minimally invasive alternative method for biliary drainage. Even in experienced endoscopy centers, ERCP may fail due to inaccessibility of the papillary region, altered anatomy (particularly postsurgical alterations), papillary obstruction, or neoplastic gastric outlet obstruction. Biliary cannulation fails at first attempt in 5%-10% of cases even in the absence of these factors. In such cases, alternative options for biliary drainage must be provided since biliary obstruction is responsible for poor quality of life and even reduced survival, particularly due to septic cholangitis. The standard of care in many centers remains percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD). However, despite the high technical success rate with experienced operators, the percutaneous approach is more invasive and associated with poor quality of life. PTBD may result in long-term external catheters for biliary drainage and carry the risk of serious adverse events (SAEs) in up to 10% of patients, including bile leaks, hemorrhage, and sepsis. PTBD following a failed ERCP also requires scheduling a second procedure, resulting in prolonged hospital stay and additional costs. EUS-BD may overcome many of these limitations and offer some distinct advantages in accessing the biliary tree. Current data suggest that EUS-BD is safe and effective when performed by experts, although SAEs have been also reported. Despite the high number of clinical reports and case series, high-quality comparative studies are still lacking. The purpose of this article is to report on the current status of this procedure and to discuss the tools and techniques for EUS-BD in different clinical scenarios.

Current endoscopic approaches to biliary strictures

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To summarize the current status and future perspectives of the endoscopic management of biliary strictures.

RECENT FINDINGS

In addition to conventional diagnostic modalities, such as cross-sectional imaging and endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS), per-oral cholangioscopy is helpful for indeterminate biliary strictures. It allows direct visualization of the biliary tract and targeted biopsy. For distal malignant biliary obstruction (MBO), a self-expandable metal stent (SEMS) via endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is a standard of care. EUS-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) is an emerging alternative to percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage in cases with failed ERCP. EUS-BD is also an effective salvage option for perihilar MBO, which can not be managed via ERCP or percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage. Preoperative drainage is necessary for most jaundiced patients as neoadjuvant chemotherapy is widely administered for resectable and borderline resectable pancreatic cancer, and a SEMS is preferred in this setting, too. For benign biliary strictures, a covered SEMS can improve stricture resolution and reduce the number of endoscopic sessions as compared to plastic stents.

SUMMARY

ERCP and EUS play a central role in the diagnosis and drainage for both malignant and benign biliary strictures.

Radiation exposure during modern therapeutic endoscopic ultrasound procedures and standard alternatives

Background and study aims  Therapeutic EUS (t-EUS) is increasingly being adopted in clinical practice in tertiary referral centers; however, little is known about radiation exposure (RE) metrics and diagnostic reference limits for it. Methods  Kerma-area product (KAP [Gy·cm ² ]), Air Kerma and fluoroscopy time were retrospectively evaluated for all consecutive t-EUS procedures performed in San Raffaele Institute between 2019 and 2021. For EUS-guided choledochoduodenostomies (EUS-CDS) and gastroenterostomies (EUS-GE), an equal number of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatographies (ERCPs) plus metal stenting and duodenal stents were included respectively for comparison. Results  Data from 141 t-EUS procedures were retrieved (49 % pancreatic cancer, 38 % peripancreatic fluid collections). EUS-CDS (N = 44) were mainly performed fluoroless, while ERCPs required a significantly higher RE (KAP = 25 [17-55], P < 0.0001). Fluid collection drainage (EUS-FCD) with lumen apposing metal stents (LAMS, N = 26) were performed fluoroless, while EUS-FCD with double-pigtail plastic stents (DPPS, N = 28) required higher RE (KAP = 23 [13-45]). EUS-guided gallbladder drainage (EUS-GBD, N = 6) required scarce RE (KAP = 9 [3-21]) for coaxial DPPS placement. EUS-GE (N = 27) required higher RE than duodenal stenting (KAP = 44 [28-88] versus 29 [19-46], P = 0.03). EUS-guided hepaticogastrostomies (EUS-HGS, N = 10) had the highest RE among t-EUS procedures (KAP = 81 [49-123]). Procedure complexity or intervening complications were evaluated and resulted in higher RE within each procedure. Conclusions  t-EUS procedures have different RE ( P  < 0.000001). EUS-CDS, EUS-GBD, and EUS-FCD with LAMS can be performed with no-to-mild radioscopy, unlike standard alternatives. However, radioscopy remains essential in case of technical difficulties or complications. EUS-GE and EUS-HGS involve a high RE. Endoscopists involved in t-EUS might experience RE higher than category standards, which indicates a need for increased awareness and personalized preventive measures.

Therapeutic endoscopic ultrasound: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Technical Review

1:  ESGE recommends a prolonged course of a prophylactic broad-spectrum antibiotic in patients with ascites who are undergoing therapeutic endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) procedures.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 2:  ESGE recommends placement of partially or fully covered self-expandable metal stents during EUS-guided hepaticogastrostomy for biliary drainage in malignant disease.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 3:  ESGE recommends EUS-guided pancreatic duct (PD) drainage should only be performed in high volume expert centers, owing to the complexity of this technique and the high risk of adverse events.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 4:  ESGE recommends a stepwise approach to EUS-guided PD drainage in patients with favorable anatomy, starting with rendezvous-assisted endoscopic retrograde pancreatography (RV-ERP), followed by antegrade or transmural drainage only when RV-ERP fails or is not feasible.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 5:  ESGE suggests performing transduodenal EUS-guided gallbladder drainage with a lumen-apposing metal stent (LAMS), rather than using the transgastric route, as this may reduce the risk of stent dysfunction.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 6:  ESGE recommends using saline instillation for small-bowel distension during EUS-guided gastroenterostomy.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 7:  ESGE recommends the use of saline instillation with a 19G needle and an electrocautery-enhanced LAMS for EUS-directed transgastric endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (EDGE) procedures.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 8:  ESGE recommends the use of either 15- or 20-mm LAMSs for EDGE, with a preference for 20-mm LAMSs when considering a same-session ERCP.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.

Therapeutic endoscopic ultrasound: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline

1: ESGE recommends the use of endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) over percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD) after failed endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in malignant distal biliary obstruction when local expertise is available.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 2: ESGE suggests EUS-BD with hepaticogastrostomy only for malignant inoperable hilar biliary obstruction with a dilated left hepatic duct when inadequately drained by ERCP and/or PTBD in high volume expert centers.Weak recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 3: ESGE recommends that EUS-guided pancreatic duct (PD) drainage should only be considered in symptomatic patients with an obstructed PD when retrograde endoscopic intervention fails or is not possible.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 4: ESGE recommends rendezvous EUS techniques over transmural PD drainage in patients with favorable anatomy owing to its lower rate of adverse events.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 5: ESGE recommends that, in patients at high surgical risk, EUS-guided gallbladder drainage (GBD) should be favored over percutaneous gallbladder drainage where both techniques are available, owing to the lower rates of adverse events and need for re-interventions in EUS-GBD.Strong recommendation, high quality of evidence. 6: ESGE recommends EUS-guided gastroenterostomy (EUS-GE), in an expert setting, for malignant gastric outlet obstruction, as an alternative to enteral stenting or surgery.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 7: ESGE recommends that EUS-GE may be considered in the management of afferent loop syndrome, especially in the setting of malignancy or in poor surgical candidates. Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 8: ESGE suggests that endoscopic ultrasound-directed transgastric ERCP (EDGE) can be offered, in expert centers, to patients with a Roux-en-Y gastric bypass following multidisciplinary decision-making, with the aim of overcoming the invasiveness of laparoscopy-assisted ERCP and the limitations of enteroscopy-assisted ERCP.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence.

EUS-guided hepaticogastrostomy for patients with afferent loop syndrome: a comparison with EUS-guided gastroenterostomy or percutaneous drainage

OBJECTIVES

Where palliative surgery or percutaneous drainage used to be the only option in patients with afferent loop syndrome, endoscopic management by EUS-guided gastroenterostomy has been gaining ground. However, EUS-guided hepaticogastrostomy might also provide sufficient biliary drainage. Our aim was to evaluate the feasibility of EUS-guided hepaticogastrostomy for the management of afferent loop syndrome and provide comparative data on the different approaches.

METHODS

The institutional databases were queried for all consecutive minimally invasive procedures for afferent loop syndrome. A retrospective, dual-centre analysis was performed, separately analysing EUS-guided hepaticogastrostomy, EUS-guided gastroenterostomy and percutaneous drainage. Efficacy, safety, need for re-intervention, hospital stay and overall survival were compared.

RESULTS

In total, 17 patients were included (mean age 59 years (± SD 10.5), 23.5% female). Six patients, which were ineligible for EUS-guided gastroenterostomy, were treated with EUS-guided hepaticogastrostomy. EUS-guided gastroenterostomy and percutaneous drainage were performed in 6 and 5 patients respectively. Clinical success was achieved in all EUS-treated patients, versus 80% in the percutaneous drainage group (p = 0.455). Furthermore, higher rates of bilirubin decrease were seen among patients undergoing EUS: > 25% bilirubin decrease in 10 vs. 1 patient(s) in the percutaneously drained group (p = 0.028), with > 50% and > 75% decrease identified only in the EUS group. Using the ASGE lexicon for adverse event grading, adverse events occurred only in patients treated with percutaneous drainage (60%, p = 0.015). And last, the median number of re-interventions was significantly lower in patients undergoing EUS (0 (IQR 0.0-1.0) vs. 1 (0.5-2.5), p = 0.045) when compared to percutaneous drainage.

CONCLUSIONS

In the management of afferent loop syndrome, EUS seems to outperform percutaneous drainage. Moreover, in our cohort, EUS-guided gastroenterostomy and hepaticogastrostomy provided similar outcomes, suggesting EUS-guided hepaticogastrostomy as the salvage procedure in situations where EUS-guided gastroenterostomy is not feasible or has failed.