Endoscopic Ultrasound Guided Rendezvous Drainage of Biliary Obstruction Using a New Flexible 19-Gauge Fine Needle Aspiration Needle

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided rendezvous techniques for difficult biliary cannulation: Technical review

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is the standard procedure for the diagnosis and treatment of biliary diseases. However, selective biliary cannulation, the essential first step in ERCP, can sometimes fail due to anatomical variations or technical limitations. In these cases, the endoscopic ultrasound-guided rendezvous technique (EUS-RV) offers a valuable salvage option. Nevertheless, it is crucial to be aware of potential adverse events associated with bile duct puncture. To optimize the success rate and safety of EUS-RV, understanding the basic techniques, technical tips for each procedural step, and troubleshooting strategies for potential difficulties is essential. This review article summarizes the clinical outcomes and technical considerations of EUS-RV, including a comprehensive analysis of the current evidence.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary rendezvous after failed cannulation, and comparison between benign vs malignant biliopancreatic disorders: outcomes at a single tertiary-care centre

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided biliary rendezvous (RV) is an EUS-assisted technique described as a rescue method in cases of failed biliary cannulation via endoscopic retrograde cholangiography (ERC). Current literature remains unclear regarding its current role. The study aim was to evaluate the effectiveness for biliary EUS-RV, and comparison between benign vs malignant biliopancreatic disorders.

METHODS

Retrospective observational study with prospective consecutive inclusion in a specific database from a tertiary-center. All patients with biliopancreatic diseases that underwent a EUS-assisted ERC between October-2010 and November-2022 for failed ERC were included. Main outcomes were technical/overall success. Secondary outcomes were safety, potential factors related to failure/success or safety; and a comparative analysis between EUS-RV and EUS-guided transmural drainage (TMD) in malignant cases.

RESULTS

A total of 69 patients who underwent EUS-RV procedures, with benign and malignant pathologies (n = 40 vs n = 29), were included. Technical / overall success and related-adverse events (AEs) were 79.7% (95%CI, 68.3-88.4) / 74% (95%CI, 61-83.7) and 24% (95%CI, 15.1-36.5), respectively. Failed cases were mainly related with guidewire manipulation. Seven failed RV were successfully rescued by EUS-TMD. On multivariable analysis, EUS-RV and malignant pathology was associated with a greater failure rate (technical success: OR,0.21; 95%CI,0.05-0.72; p = 0.017), and higher AEs rate (OR,3.46; 95%CI,1.13-11.5; p = 0.034). Also, the EUS-TMD group had greater technical success (OR,16.96; 95%CI,4.69-81.62; p < 0.001) and overall success (OR, 3.09; 95%CI,1.18-8-16; p < 0.026) with a lower AEs rate (OR,0.30; 95%CI,0.11-0.78; p = 0.014) than EUS-RV in malignant disorders.

CONCLUSIONS

EUS-RV is a demanding technique with better outcomes in benign than in malignant biliopancreatic diseases. Comparison of the EUS-TMD group on malignant disorders showed worse outcomes with EUS-RV. Given these findings, maybe EUS-RV is not the best option for malignant biliopancreatic disorders.

Pre-Cut Papillotomy Versus Endoscopic Ultrasound-Rendezvous for Difficult Biliary Cannulation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background

Various endoscopic techniques are employed to achieve biliary cannulation when confronted with difficult biliary access. Every procedure carries its own risk in terms of bleeding, infection, pancreatitis, and cholangitis. Our meta-analysis aimed to compare pre-cut papillotomy and endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-rendezvous in terms of technical success rates, and post-procedure pancreatitis and bleeding.

Methods

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies that compared pre-cut papillotomy and EUS-rendezvous. The primary outcome was technical success by achieving biliary cannulation. Secondary outcomes were postoperative pancreatitis and bleeding. A random-effects model was used to calculate the risk ratios (RRs) and confidence intervals (CIs). A P value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

Our meta-analysis included four studies comparing pre-cut papillotomy and EUS-rendezvous. The studies included 13,659 total endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) procedures, of whom 1,004 patients underwent alternate biliary cannulation procedures due to difficult biliary cannulation. The mean age of the study population was noted to be 49.5 years and males represented 53.3% of the total participants. Both procedures were similar in terms of technical success (RR: 0.95, 95% CI (0.88, 1.02)). No difference was found between rates of post procedure pancreatitis (RR: 1.82, 95% CI (0.80, 4.15)) and post procedure bleeding (RR: 2.80, 95% CI (0.67, 11.66)).

Conclusions

There was no difference in technical success of procedure or post-procedure complications such as pancreatitis and bleeding between pre-cut papillotomy and EUS-rendezvous technique. More randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are needed to compare both procedural techniques and complications rates. However, currently, both procedures are equally effective and safe during difficult biliary cannulation in the hands of experienced endoscopists.

Endoscopic ultrasound-rendezvous versus percutaneous-endoscopic rendezvous endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography for bile duct access: Systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) or percutaneous-assisted antegrade guidewire insertion can be used to achieve biliary access when standard endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) fails. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate and compare the effectiveness and safety of EUS-assisted rendezvous (EUS-RV) and percutaneous rendezvous (PERC-RV) ERCP.

METHODS

We searched multiple databases from inception to September 2022 to identify studies reporting on EUS-RV and PERC-RV in failed ERCP. A random-effects model was used to summarize the pooled rates of technical success and adverse events with 95% confidence interval (CI).

RESULTS

In total, 524 patients (19 studies) and 591 patients (12 studies) were managed by EUS-RV and PERC-RV, respectively. The pooled technical successes were 88.7% (95% CI 84.6-92.8%, I2  = 70.5%) for EUS-RV and 94.1% (95% CI 91.1-97.1%, I2  = 59.2%) for PERC-RV (P = 0.088). The technical success rates of EUS-RV and PERC-RV were comparable in subgroups of benign diseases (89.2% vs. 95.8%, P = 0.068), malignant diseases (90.3% vs. 95.5%, P = 0.193), and normal anatomy (90.7% vs. 95.9%, P = 0.240). However, patients with surgically altered anatomy had poorer technical success after EUS-RV than after PERC-RV (58.7% vs. 93.1%, P = 0.036). The pooled rates of overall adverse events were 9.8% for EUS-RV and 13.4% for PERC-RV (P = 0.686).

CONCLUSIONS

Both EUS-RV and PERC-RV have exhibited high technical success rates. When standard ERCP fails, EUS-RV and PERC-RV are comparably effective rescue techniques if adequate expertise and facilities are feasible. However, in patients with surgically altered anatomy, PERC-RV might be the preferred choice over EUS-RV because of its higher technical success rate.

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.

Effectiveness and Safety of EUS Rendezvous After Failed Biliary Cannulation With ERCP: A Systematic Review and Proportion Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided rendezvous (EUS-RV) endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is an alternative to interventional radiology-guided rendezvous ERCP in patients who failed biliary cannulation with conventional ERCP. However, there is significant variation in reported rates of success and adverse events associated with EUS-RV-assisted ERCP. We performed a systematic review and a proportion meta-analysis to reliably assess the effectiveness and safety of the EUS-RV-assisted ERCP.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a comprehensive search of multiple electronic databases and conference proceedings (from inception through August 2020) to identify studies reporting EUS-RV-assisted ERCP in patients who failed biliary cannulation with conventional ERCP techniques. Using the random-effects model described by DerSimonian and Laird, we calculated the pooled rates of technical success, clinical success, and adverse events of EUS-RV-assisted ERCP.

RESULTS

Twelve studies reporting a total of 342 patients were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled rate of technical success (12 studies reporting a total of 342 patients) was 86.1% [95% confidence interval (CI): 78.4-91.3]. The pooled rate of clinical success (4 studies reporting a total of 94 patients) was 80.8% (95% CI: 64.1-90.8). The pooled rate of overall adverse events (12 studies; 42 events in 342 patients) was 14% (95% CI: 10.5-18.4). Low to moderate heterogeneity was noted in the analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

EUS-RV-assisted ERCP appears to be effective and safe in patients who failed biliary cannulation with conventional ERCP. Given the risk of adverse events, it should be performed in centers with expertise in therapeutic endoscopic ultrasound.

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.

Endoscopic salvage therapy after failed biliary cannulation using advanced techniques: A concise review

Therapeutic endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) begins with successful biliary cannulation. However, it is not always be successful. The failure of the initial ERCP is attributed to two main aspects: the papilla/biliary orifice is endoscopically accessible, or it is inaccessible. When the papilla/biliary orifice is accessible, bile duct cannulation failure can occur even with advanced cannulation techniques, including double guidewire techniques, transpancreatic sphincterotomy, needle-knife precut papillotomy, or fistulotomy. There is currently no consensus on the next steps of treatment in this setting. Therefore, this review aims to propose and discuss potential endoscopic options for patients who have failed ERCP due to difficult bile duct cannulation. These options include interval ERCP, percutaneous-transhepatic-endoscopic rendezvous procedures (PTE-RV), and endoscopic ultrasound-assisted rendezvous procedures (EUS-RV). The overall success rate for interval ERCP was 76.3% (68%-79% between studies), and the overall adverse event rate was 7.5% (0-15.9% between studies). The overall success rate for PTE-RV was 88.7% (80.4%-100% between studies), and the overall adverse event rate was 13.2% (4.9%-19.2% between studies). For EUS-RV, the overall success rate was 82%-86.1%, and the overall adverse event rate was 13%-15.6%. Because interval ERCP has an acceptably high success rate and lower adverse event rate and does not require additional expertise, facilities, or other specialists, it can be considered the first choice for salvage therapy. EUS-RV can also be considered if local experts are available. For patients in urgent need of biliary drainage, PTE-RV should be considered.

When ERCP Fails: EUS-Guided Access to Biliary and Pancreatic Ducts

Pancreaticobiliary (PB) endotherapy continues to progress in the era of therapeutic endosonography. Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) remains the primary method for PB access in native and altered anatomy. In altered anatomy, PB access can be obtained via enteroscopy-assisted ERCP (e-ERCP) or laparoscopy-assisted ERCP; however, both approaches have significant limitations. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary and pancreatic duct drainage (EUS-BPD) are increasingly becoming the preferred alternative when ERCP fails, with advantages over percutaneous drainage. EUS-BPD continues to evolve with better feasibility, safety and efficacy as dedicated procedural equipment continues to improve. In this article, we discuss the role of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) when ERCP fails and their indications, technique, and outcomes.

A Proposed Algorithm for Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Rendezvous Technique in Failed Biliary Cannulation

BACKGROUND

The selection of an approach route in endoscopic ultrasound-guided rendezvous (EUS-RV) for failed biliary cannulation is complicated. We proposed an algorithm for EUS-RV.

METHODS

We retrospectively evaluated consecutive EUS-RV cases between April 2017 and July 2020. Puncturing the distal extrahepatic bile duct (EHBD) from the duodenal second part (D2) (DEHBD/D2 route) was attempted first. If necessary, puncturing the proximal EHBD from the duodenal bulb (D1) (PEHBD/D1 route), puncturing the left intrahepatic bile duct (IHBD) from the stomach (LIHBD/S route), or puncturing the right IHBD from the D1 (RIHBD/D1 route) were attempted in this order.

RESULTS

A total of 16 patients were included. The DEHBD/D2 route was used in 10 (62.5%) patients. The PEHBD/D1 route was attempted in five (31.3%) patients, and the biliary puncture failed in one patient in whom the RIHBD/D1 route was used because of tumor invasion to the left hepatic lobe. The LIHBD/S route was applied in one (6.3%) patient. Successful biliary cannulation was achieved in all patients eventually. The time from the puncture to the guidewire placement in the DEHBD/D2 route (3.5 min) was shorter than that in other methods (14.0 min) (p = 0.014). Adverse events occurred in one (6.3%) patient with moderate pancreatitis.

CONCLUSIONS

The proposed algorithm might be useful for the selection of an appropriate approach route in EUS-RV.

Clinical evaluation of the utility of a flexible 19-gauge EBUS-TBNA needle

Background

Endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration (EBUS-TBNA) is an established modality for the assessment of mediastinal and hilar adenopathy. To overcome the sampling limitations of standard 21- and 22-gauge EBUS-TBNA needles, a new flexible 19-gauge (Flex 19G) needle was developed.

Methods

We performed a retrospective analysis of patients who underwent EBUS-TBNA sampling with the Flex 19G needle. A 22G needle was always used first for cytology, followed by a Flex 19G needle, either an early version (Oct/2014-Sep/2015) or a final version needle (May/2016-Jan/2017), for tissue sampling. The success rate of obtaining samples, specimen quantity, and safety were evaluated and compared.

Results

All sampling procedures in 45 patients and 82 targets were performed without complication and the overall diagnostic yield from cytology was 100%. Furthermore, 28% of Flex 19G samples were sufficient for histopathological diagnosis. Yield improved with an increased number of passes and if the target was larger. Compared to the early version evaluated in 52 targets, the final version of the Flex 19G needle evaluated in 30 targets provided significantly larger volume samples and more frequent diagnostic cores. Tissue obtained with the Flex 19G needle retained cohesiveness to a larger degree and was of higher cellularity compared to cytological samples processed as cell blocks.

Conclusions

The Flex 19G is safe and provides larger volumetric and cohesive tissue samples that are appropriate for histopathological processing. The final version of the Flex 19G could be a good choice in selected cases where greater tissue acquisition is required.