Complication of endoscopic ultrasound-guided celiac plexus neurolysis

Endoscopic Management of Pain due to Chronic Pancreatitis

Pain secondary to chronic pancreatitis is a poorly understood and complex phenomenon. Current endoscopic treatments target pancreatic duct decompression secondary to strictures, stones, or inflammatory and neoplastic masses. When there is refractory pain and other treatments have been unsuccessful, one can consider an endoscopic ultrasound-guided celiac plexus block. Data on the latter are underwhelming.

Efficacy of EUS-guided celiac plexus neurolysis compared with medication alone for unresectable pancreatic cancer in the oxycodone/fentanyl era: a prospective randomized control study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The efficacy of celiac plexus neurolysis (CPN) with EUS guidance (EUS-CPN) has not been confirmed in the era of developed opioids. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of EUS-CPN for patients with pancreatic cancer-associated pain to compare medication using oxycodone and/or fentanyl with and without EUS-CPN.

METHODS

In this randomized control study involving patients who underwent EUS-CPN and those who did not, pain, quality of life (QOL), and opioid consumption were compared. Standard medicinal treatment using oxycodone and/or fentanyl was performed for both groups. The primary endpoint was defined as the pain evaluated by using a visual analog scale (VAS) rated from a 0 to 10, 4 weeks after the baseline.

RESULTS

For 48 registered patients, the outcomes of 24 patients in the EUS-CPN group and 22 patients in the control group were analyzed. EUS-CPN was successfully performed and did not induce severe procedure-related adverse events for all patients in the EUS-CPN group. Although the average pain VAS scores for both groups significantly decreased in comparison with baseline, scores were not statistically different between the groups at week 4 (1.3 ± 1.3 for the EUS-CPN group vs 2.3 ± 2.3 for the control group, P = .10). There was no statistical difference or tendency in favor of EUS-CPN at evaluation points of weeks 1, 2, 8, and 12. Moreover, the average VAS scores for QOL and the average opioid consumption between the groups were not different at all evaluation points.

CONCLUSIONS

EUS-CPN for patients with pancreatic cancer-associated pain did not appear to improve pain, QOL, or opioid consumption compared with those who did not undergo EUS-CPN and medicated with oxycodone/fentanyl. Although EUS-CPN can be an option, it was not found to have a large enough impact to be routinely performed for all patients with pain. (Clinical trial registration number: UMIN 000037172.).

Celiac Plexus Block and Neurolysis: A Review

Pain is often associated with chronic pancreatitis and pancreatic cancer. Often times opioids are used to treat pain; however, the use of opioids is frequently difficult. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided celiac plexus block and celiac plexus nuerolysis are safe and effective modalities used to alleviate pain. Celiac plexus block is a transient interruption of the plexus by local anesthetic, while celiac plexus neurolysis is prolonged interruption of the transmission of pain from the celiac plexus using chemical ablation. Celiac plexus block is generally performed in the unilateral position, while celiac plexus neurolysis is performed in the unilateral or bilateral position.

Consensus guidelines on the optimal management in interventional EUS procedures: results from the Asian EUS group RAND/UCLA expert panel

OBJECTIVES

Interventional endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) procedures are gaining popularity and the most commonly performed procedures include EUS-guided drainage of pancreatic pseudocyst, EUS-guided biliary drainage, EUS-guided pancreatic duct drainage and EUS-guided celiac plexus ablation. The aim of this paper is to formulate a set of practice guidelines addressing various aspects of the above procedures.

METHODS

Formulation of the guidelines was based on the best scientific evidence available. The RAND/UCLA appropriateness methodology (RAM) was used. Panellists recruited comprised experts in surgery, interventional EUS, interventional radiology and oncology from 11 countries. Between June 2014 and October 2016, the panellists met in meetings to discuss and vote on the clinical scenarios for each of the interventional EUS procedures in question.

RESULTS

A total of 15 statements on EUS-guided drainage of pancreatic pseudocyst, 15 statements on EUS-guided biliary drainage, 12 statements on EUS-guided pancreatic duct drainage and 14 statements on EUS-guided celiac plexus ablation were formulated. The statements addressed the indications for the procedures, technical aspects, pre- and post-procedural management, management of complications, and competency and training in the procedures. All statements except one were found to be appropriate. Randomised studies to address clinical questions in a number of aspects of the procedures are urgently required.

CONCLUSIONS

The current guidelines on interventional EUS procedures are the first published by an endoscopic society. These guidelines provide an in-depth review of the current evidence and standardise the management of the procedures.

Alleviating Pancreatic Cancer-Associated Pain Using Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Neurolysis

The most common symptom in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer is abdominal pain. This has traditionally been treated with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and opioid analgesics. However, these treatments result in inadequate pain control or drug-related adverse effects in some patients. An alternative pain-relief modality is celiac plexus neurolysis, in which the celiac plexus is chemically ablated. This procedure was performed percutaneously or intraoperatively until 1996, when endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided celiac plexus neurolysis was first described. In this transgastric anterior approach, a neurolytic agent is injected around the celiac trunk under EUS guidance. The procedure gained popularity as a minimally invasive approach and is currently widely used to treat pancreatic cancer-associated pain. We focus on two relatively new techniques of EUS-guided neurolysis: EUS-guided celiac ganglia neurolysis and EUS-guided broad plexus neurolysis, which have been developed to improve efficacy. Although the techniques are safe and effective in general, some serious adverse events including ischemic and infectious complications have been reported as the procedure has gained widespread popularity. We summarize reported clinical outcomes of EUS-guided neurolysis in pancreatic cancer (from the PubMed and Embase databases) with a goal of providing information useful in developing strategies for pancreatic cancer-associated pain alleviation.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided celiac plexus block and neurolysis

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided celiac plexus neurolysis (EUS-CPN) is widely used for reducing pain originating from upper abdominal organs. It is mainly indicated to treat pancreatic cancer pain, but also to relieve pain as a result of chronic pancreatitis. Real-time guidance and color Doppler imaging by EUS made the procedure easier and safer, resulting in greater pain relief. Currently, two techniques are used for EUS-CPN. The classic approach, known as the central technique, involves injection of a neurolytic agent at the base of the celiac axis. In the bilateral technique, the neurolytic agent is injected on both sides of the celiac axis. In addition, EUS-guided direct celiac ganglia neurolysis (EUS-CGN) was introduced recently. Pain relief is achieved by EUS-CPN in 70-80% of patients with pancreatic cancer and in 50-60% of those with chronic pancreatitis. The bilateral technique may be more efficient than the central technique, although the central technique is easier and possibly safer. Moreover, EUS-CGN may provide greater pain relief than conventional EUS-CPN. Procedure-related complications include transient pain exacerbation, transient hypotension, transient diarrhea, and inebriation. Although most complications are not serious, major adverse events such as retroperitoneal bleeding, abscess, and ischemic complications occasionally occur.

Practice guidelines for endoscopic ultrasound-guided celiac plexus neurolysis

Objectives:

The objective of guideline was to provide clear and relevant consensus statements to form a practical guideline for clinicians on the indications, optimal technique, safety and efficacy of endoscopic ultrasound guided celiac plexus neurolysis (EUS-CPN).

Methods:

Six important clinical questions were determined regarding EUS-CPN. Following a detailed literature review, 6 statements were proposed attempting to answer those questions. A group of expert endosonographers convened in Chicago, United States (May 2016), where the statements were presented and feedback provided. Subsequently a consensus group of 35 expert endosonographers voted based on their individual level of agreement. A strong recommendation required 80% voter agreement. The modified GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) criteria were used to rate the strength of recommendations and the quality of evidence.

Results:

Eighty percent agreement was reached on 5 of 6 consensus statements, 79.4% agreement was reached on the remaining one.

Conclusions:

EUS-CPN is efficacious, should be integrated into the management of pancreas cancer pain, and can be considered early at the time of diagnosis of inoperable disease. Techniques may still vary based on operator experience. Serious complications exist, but are rare.

Uncommon complications of therapeutic endoscopic ultrasonography: What, why, and how to prevent

There is an increasing role for endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided interventions in the treatment of many conditions. Although it has been shown that these types of interventions are effective and safe, they continue to be considered only as alternative treatments in some situations. This is in part due to the occurrence of complications with these techniques, which can occur even when performed by experienced endosonographers. Although common complications have been described for many procedures, it is also crucial to be aware of uncommon complications. This review describes rare complications that have been reported with several EUS-guided interventions. EUS-guided biliary drainage is accepted as an alternative treatment for malignant biliary obstruction. Most of the uncommon complications related to this procedure involve stent malfunction, such as the migration or malposition of stents. Rare complications of EUS-guided pancreatic pseudocyst drainage can result from air embolism and infection. Finally, a range of uncommon complications has been reported for EUS-guided celiac plexus neurolysis, involving neural and vascular injuries that can be fatal. The goal of this review is to identify possible complications and promote an understanding of how they occur in order to increase general awareness of these adverse events with the hope that they can be avoided in the future.

EUS-guided celiac plexus interventions in pancreatic cancer pain: An update and controversies for the endosonographer

Patients with pancreatic cancer (pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma [PDAC]) can develop abdominal pain that can be debilitating. Celiac plexus neurolysis (CPN) is a chemical ablation of the celiac plexus that can be used to treat pain caused by pancreatic malignancy. It can be performed by an anterior or posterior approach, and also can be done percutaneously or under guidance of transabdominal ultrasound, computed tomography, intra-operatively or most recently under linear endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) guidance (EUS-CPN). EUS is well-suited for identification of the celiac plexus due to the close proximity of the gastric wall to the origin of the celiac artery. EUS-CPN is now widely practiced, and different EUS approaches have been developed in order to improve the efficacy of this technique. Our objective is to review the use of EUS-CPN in PDAC, including a description of different techniques, review of its efficacy, predictors of pain response, and describe its limitations and safety, as well as new developments.

Celiac plexus neurolysis in pancreatic cancer: the endoscopic ultrasound approach

Pain in pancreatic cancer is often a major problem of treatment. Administration of opioids is frequently limited by side effects or insufficient analgesia. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided celiac plexus neurolysis (EUS-CPN) represents an alternative for the palliative treatment of visceral pain in patients with pancreatic cancer. This review focuses on the indications, technique, outcomes of EUS-CPN and predictors of pain relief. EUS-CPN should be considered as the adjunct method to standard pain management. It moderately reduces pain in pancreatic cancer, without eliminating it. Nearly all patients need to continue opioid use, often at a constant dose. The effect on quality of life is controversial and survival is not influenced. The approach could be done in the central position of the celiac axis, which is easy to perform, or in the bilateral position of the celiac axis, with similar results in terms of pain alleviation. The EUS-CPN with multiple intraganglia injection approach seems to have better results, although extended studies are still needed. Further trials are required to enable more confident conclusions regarding timing, quantity of alcohol injected and the method of choice. Severe complications have rarely been reported, and great care should be taken in choosing the site of alcohol injection.

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).

Celiac plexus neurolysis for abdominal cancer pain: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

This systematic review assesses the effectiveness and side effects of celiac plexus neurolysis (CPN) in the treatment of upper abdominal cancer pain, and evaluates whether there are any differences between the percutaneous and endoscopic ultrasound-guided (EUS) denervation techniques.

METHODS

Five databases were searched, expanded by assessing the reference lists of all retrieved papers. Sixty-six publications fulfilled the inclusion/exclusion criteria and were included in the systematic review. Randomized controlled trials were available for the percutaneous CPN, and therefore meta-analyses were performed for pain, opioid consumption, and specific side effects. The quality of life data were too heterogeneous to be assessed by a meta-analysis, and evidence for EUS CPN could only be evaluated by observational studies.

RESULTS

Meta-analyses show that percutaneous CPN significantly improves pain in patients with upper abdominal cancer, with a decrease in opioid consumption and side effects. It is unclear whether there is any change in quality of life. Case series suggest that EUS CPN improves pain. No conclusion can be made about EUS CPN's influence on opioid consumption. Although CPN is a safe procedure, side effects and complications can occur with both the percutaneous and EUS techniques.

CONCLUSIONS

Following this review, evidence suggests that CPN should be considered in patients with upper abdominal cancer where the pain is not adequately controlled with systemic analgesics or when significant opioid-induced side effects are present. The percutaneous approach remains the standard technique as robust evidence for EUS CPN is lacking.

Endoscopic palliation of pancreatic cancer

There is no doubt that our long-range goal is to cure pancreatic cancer. Realistically, most of what we can do currently is treat the disabling symptoms of this dreadful disease. Biliary decompression, intestinal stenting, celiac plexus neurolysis, and fiducial placement are some of the endoscopic procedures that aim to provide better quality of life to patients suffering from this disease. A thorough understanding of these options will help patients make good decisions in choosing the proper treatment. Endoscopists who perform these procedures must possess great skills, but importantly, they must also be compassionate and act with good judgment.

A prospective randomized trial of 1 versus 2 injections during EUS-guided celiac plexus block for chronic pancreatitis pain

BACKGROUND

The efficacy of 1-injection versus a 2-injections method of EUS-guided celiac plexus block (EUS-CPB) in patients with chronic pancreatitis is not known.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the clinical effectiveness and safety of EUS-CPB by using 1 versus 2 injections in patients with chronic pancreatitis and pain. The secondary aim is to identify factors that predict responsiveness.

DESIGN

A prospective randomized study.

INTERVENTIONS

EUS-CPB was performed by using bupivacaine and triamcinolone injected into 1 or 2 sites at the level of the celiac trunk during a single EUS-CPB procedure.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Duration of pain relief, onset of pain relief, and complications.

RESULTS

Fifty [corrected] subjects were enrolled (23 received 1 injection, 27 [corrected] received 2 injections). The median duration of pain relief in the 31 responders was 28 days (range 1-673 days). [corrected] Fifteen [corrected] of 23 (65%) [corrected] subjects who received 1 injection [corrected] had relief from pain compared with 16 of 27 (59%) [corrected] subjects who received 2 injections [corrected] (P = .67). [corrected] The median times to onset in the 1-injection and 2-injections groups were 21 and 14 days, respectively (P = .99). No correlation existed between duration of pain relief and time to onset of pain relief or onset within 24 hours. Age, sex, race, prior EUS-CPB, and smoking or alcohol history did not predict duration of pain relief.

LIMITATION

Telephone interviewers were not blinded.

CONCLUSIONS

There was no difference in duration of pain relief or onset of pain relief in subjects with chronic pancreatitis and pain when the same total amount of medication was delivered in 1 or 2 injections during a single EUS-CPB procedure. Both methods were safe.