Large balloon expansion method for re-intervention after endoscopic ultrasound-guided hepaticogastrostomy for stent obstruction

Re-intervention Utility After Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Hepaticogastrostomy Using a Partially Covered Stent with Anchoring Flange

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Although long self-expandable metal stent (SEMS) with a sufficient intragastric portion is typically preferred for endoscopic ultrasound-guided hepaticogastrostomy (EUS-HGS), this design can complicate endoscopic re-intervention for recurrent biliary obstruction (RBO). We evaluated the efficacy and safety of endoscopic re-intervention for RBO through the stent after EUS-HGS using a novel partially covered SEMS with an anchoring flange.

METHODS

The partially covered SEMS was designed with a intrahepatic uncovered portion measuring 1.5 cm in length and a resilient fold-back wide distal anchoring flange with a 2.0 cm diameter. Re-interventions were performed through the stent lumen while the stent was in situ. The primary outcomes were technical and clinical success, and secondary outcomes were procedure time, adverse events, and the median time to RBO after re-intervention.

RESULTS

In total, 35 re-interventions were performed in 19 patients. Re-intervention was successfully conducted in 97.1% (34/35) of cases via the intragastric end of the stent in a retroflexed position. Technical and clinical success were 94.3% (33/35) and 88.6% (31/35). Re-intervention methods included stent cleaning (18.2%), additional HGS stent placement (33.3%), and antegrade stent placement (48.5%). Mild cholangitis occurred in 5.7% (2/35) of patients and was managed conservatively. The median time to RBO after re-intervention was 148 days.

CONCLUSION

Endoscopic re-interventions can be effectively and safely performed through the lumen of the novel partially covered SEMS with an anchoring flange.

How should radiation exposure be handled in fluoroscopy-guided endoscopic procedures in the field of gastroenterology?

Fluoroscopy-guided endoscopic procedures (FGEPs) are rapidly gaining popularity in the field of gastroenterology. Radiation is a well-known health hazard. Gastroenterologists who perform FGEPs are required to protect themselves, patients, as well as nurses and radiologists engaged in examinations from radiation exposure. To achieve this, all gastroenterologists must first understand and adhere to the International Commission on Radiological Protection Publication. In particular, it is necessary to understand the three principles of radiation protection (Justification, Optimization, and Dose Limits), the As Low As Reasonably Achievable principle, and the Diagnostic Reference Levels (DRLs) according to them. This review will mainly explain the three principles of radiation exposure protection, DRLs, and occupational radiological protection in interventional procedures while introducing related findings. Gastroenterologists must gain knowledge of radiation exposure protection and keep it updated.

Comparison of Radiation Exposure between Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Hepaticogastrostomy and Hepaticogastrostomy with Antegrade Stenting

Fluoroscopy forms an essential part of endoscopic ultrasound-guided hepaticogastrostomy (EUS-HGS) and hepaticogastrostomy with antegrade stenting (EUS-HGAS). To date, no study has assessed and compared radiation exposure between EUS-HGS and EUS-HGAS. This study aimed to compare the radiation exposure parameters between EUS-HGS and EUS-HGAS. This retrospective single-center cohort study included consecutive patients who underwent EUS-HGS or EUS-HGAS from October 2017 to March 2019. The air kerma (AK: mGy), kerma-area product (KAP: Gycm2), fluoroscopy time (FT: min), and procedure time (PT: min) were assessed and compared between the two procedures. Altogether, 45 and 24 patients underwent EUS-HGS and EUS-HGAS, respectively. The median AK, KAP, FT, and PT were higher in the EUS-HGAS group than in the EUS-HGS group. A comparison revealed no difference in the technical success rate, complications rate, adverse event occurrence rate, and re-intervention rate between both procedures. This is the first report in which radiation exposure was used as a comparative parameter between EUS-HGS and EUS-HGAS. This study revealed that radiation exposure is significantly higher in EUS-HGAS than in EUS-HGS. Increased awareness on radiation exposure is warranted among gastroenterologists so that they choose the procedure with lower radiation exposure in cases where both procedures are indicated.

Endoscopic Reintervention for Recurrence of Malignant Biliary Obstruction: Developing the Best Strategy

Drainage therapy for malignant biliary obstruction (MBO) includes trans-papillary endoscopic retrograde biliary drainage (ERBD), percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD), and trans-gastrointestinal endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD). With the development of chemotherapy, many MBO cases end up needing endoscopic reintervention (E-RI) for recurrent biliary obstruction. To achieve a successful E-RI, it is necessary to understand the various findings regarding E-RI in MBO cases reported to date. Therefore, in this review, we focus on E-RI for ERBD of distal MBO, ERBD of hilar MBO, and EUS-BD. To plan an appropriate E-RI strategy for biliary stent occlusion for MBO, the following must be considered on a case-by-case basis: the urgency of the drainage, the cause of the occlusion, the original route of drainage (PTBD/ERBD/EUS-BD), the initial stent used (plastic stent or self-expandable metallic stent), and in the case of self-expandable metallic stents, the type used (fully covered or uncovered). Regardless of the original method of stent placement, if the inflammation caused by obstructive cholangitis is severe and/or the patient is in shock, PTBD should be considered as the first choice. Finally, it is important to keep in mind that in many cases, performing E-RI will be difficult.