EUS-guided pancreatic ductal intervention: A comprehensive literature review

Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Pancreatic Duct Drainage

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided pancreatic duct drainage (EUS-PDD) is a method of decompressing the pancreatic duct (PD) if unable to access the papilla or surgical anastomosis, particularly in nonsurgical candidates. The 2 types of EUS-PDD are EUS-assisted pancreatic rendezvous (EUS-PRV) and EUS-guided pancreaticogastrostomy (EUS-PG). EUS-PRV should be considered in patients with accessible papilla or anastomosis, while EUS-PG is a comparable alternative in surgically altered foregut anatomy. While technical and clinical successes range from 79% to 100%, adverse events occur in approximately 20%. A multidisciplinary approach that considers the patient's anatomy, clinical indication, and long-term goals should be discussed with surgical and interventional radiology colleagues.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided versus surgical pancreatic duct drainage after failed endoscopic retrograde pancreatography: a pilot comparative study

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided pancreatic duct (PD) drainage (EUS-PDD) is being increasingly performed as an alternative method to surgical drainage to achieve PD decompression after failed endoscopic retrograde pancreatography (ERP). However, no directly study has compared EUS-PDD with surgical PD drainage after failed ERP in patients with chronic pancreatitis.

METHODS

Consecutive patients who underwent EUS-PDD or longitudinal pancreaticojejunostomy after failed ERP were retrospectively identified from our endoscopy and medical information systems. The primary end point was the Izbicki pain score. The secondary end points were pain relief at the end of follow-up, procedure outcomes, adverse events, readmission, and reintervention.

RESULTS

A total of 21 patients (11 EUS-PDD, 10 surgical drainages) were analyzed. There were no significant differences in mean Izbicki pain score (EUS-PDD, 13.6 ± 10.1 vs. surgical drainage 10.7 ± 7.9, p = 0.483) or complete/partial pain relief (60%/30% vs. 70%/30%, p = 0.752) at the end of follow-up of the two groups. The rates of overall adverse events (27.3% vs. 30.0%, p = 0.893) and readmission (63.6% vs. 40.0%, p = 0.290) were similar in the two treatment groups, while patients in EUS-PDD group required more reinterventions (45.5% vs. 0%, p = 0.039) compared with patients in the surgery group.

CONCLUSION

EUS-PDD showed comparable pain relief and safety to surgical PD drainage after failed ERP, with a higher rate of reintervention. The selection of EUS-PDD or surgical drainage may be appropriate based on an individualized strategy.

Long-term outcomes of endoscopic ultrasound-guided pancreatic duct interventions: A single tertiary center experience

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided pancreatic duct intervention (EUS-PDI) is one of the most technically challenging procedures. There remains a knowledge gap due to its rarity. The aim is to report the accumulated EUS-PDI experience in a tertiary center.

METHODS

Single tertiary center, retrospective cohort study of prospectively collected data during the study period, from January 2013 to June 2021.

RESULTS

In total, 14 patients (85% male; mean age, 61 years, range 37-81) and 25 EUS-PDI procedures for unsuccessful endoscopic retrograde pancreatography (ERP) were included. Principal etiology was chronic pancreatitis with pancreatic duct obstruction (78%). EUS-guided assisted (colorant and/or guidewire, rendezvous) ERP was performed in 14/25 (56%); and transmural drainage in 11 procedures, including pancreaticogastrosmy in 9/25 (36%) and pancreaticoduodenostomy in 2/25 (8%). Overall technical and clinical success was 78.5% (11/14). Three (21%) patients required a second procedure with success in all cases. Two failed cases required surgery. Three (21%) adverse events (AEs) were noted (fever, n=1; perforation, n=1; pancreatitis, n=1). Patients underwent a median of 58 months (range 24-108) follow-up procedures for re-stenting. Spontaneous stent migration was detected in 50% of cases.

CONCLUSIONS

EUS-PDI is an effective salvage therapy for unsuccessful ERP, although 21% of patients may still experience AEs. In case of EUS-guided rendezvous failure, it can cross over to a transmural drainage.

The Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography and Endoscopic Ultrasound Connection: Unity Is Strength, or the Endoscopic Ultrasonography Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography Concept

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) are both crucial for the endoscopic management of biliopancreatic diseases: the combination of their diagnostic and therapeutic potential is useful in many clinical scenarios, such as indeterminate biliary stenosis, biliary stones, chronic pancreatitis and biliary and pancreatic malignancies. This natural and evident convergence between EUS and ERCP, which by 2006 we were calling the "Endoscopic ultrasonography retrograde colangiopancreatography (EURCP) concept", has become a hot topic in the last years, together with the implementation of the therapeutic possibilities of EUS (from EUS-guided necrosectomy to gastro-entero anastomoses) and with the return of ERCP to its original diagnostic purpose thanks to ancillary techniques (extraductal ultrasound (EDUS), intraductal ultrasound (IDUS), cholangiopancreatoscopy with biopsies and probe-based confocal laser endomicroscopy (pCLE)). In this literary review, we retraced the recent history of EUS and ERCP, reported examples of the clinical applicability of the EURCP concept and explored the option of performing the two procedures in only one endoscopic session, with its positive implications for the patient, the endoscopist and the health care system. In the last few years, we also evaluated the possibility of combining EUS and ERCP into a single endoscopic instrument in a single step, but certain obstacles surrounding this approach remain.

Endoscopic Ultrasound in Pancreatology: Focus on Inflammatory Diseases and Interventions

Background

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) is a main tool in pancreatology for both diagnosis and therapy. It allows minimally invasive differentiation of various diseases, with a minimal degree of inflammation or anatomic variations. EUS also enables interventional direct access to the pancreatic parenchyma and the retroperitoneal space, the pancreatic duct, the pancreatic masses, cysts, vascular structures for diagnostic and therapeutic purposes.

Summary

This review aimed to summarize the new developments of EUS in the field of pancreatology, with special interest on inflammation and interventions. EUS enables way to perform pseudocyst drainage, necrosectomy, transenteral drainage and transenteric access of the main pancreatic duct, or the direct visualization or therapy of vascular structures adjacent to the pancreas.

Key Messages

EUS has a deep impact on pancreatology, and the development of new diagnostic and interventional approaches to the retroperitoneal space and the pancreas has increased in the last years exponentially, allowing minimal invasive diagnostics and therapy and avoiding surgery and percutaneous therapy.

Therapeutic Endoscopic Ultrasound: Current Indications and Future Perspectives

The transcendence of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) from diagnostic to therapeutic tool has revolutionized management options in the field of gastroenterology. Through EUS-guided methods, pancreaticobiliary obstruction can now be utilized as an alternative to surgical and percutaneous approaches. This modality also allows for gallbladder drainage in patients who are not ideal operative candidates. By utilizing its unique imaging capabilities, EUS also allows for drainage access points in cases of gastric outlet obstruction as well as windows to ablate pancreatic cystic lesions. As technical progress continues to evolve, interventional gastroenterology continues to push the envelope of minimally invasive therapeutic procedures in a multidisciplinary setting. In this comprehensive review, we set out to describe current indications and innovations through EUS.

The formation process and mechanism of gastrointestinal anastomosis after retrieval anchor-assisted endoscopic ultrasound-guided gastroenterostomy: a preclinical study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided gastroenterostomy (EUS-GE) is a promising method of treating gastric outlet obstruction. However, no study has investigated gastrointestinal anastomosis formation after EUS-GE. We aimed to evaluate the formation of gastrointestinal anastomosis after EUS-GE in a porcine model.

METHODS

Retrieval anchor-assisted EUS-GE was performed on 15 Bama mini pigs. Five pigs each were randomly euthanized 3, 7, and 14 days postoperatively to evaluate the formation of gastrointestinal anastomosis and measure the anastomotic distance. The expression of transforming growth factor-β1(TGF-β1) and Smad3 in the anastomosis site were examined by immunohistochemistry.

RESULTS

EUS-GE was successfully performed in all 15 pigs. The mean procedure time was 29.2 ± 6.0 (range 18-40) minutes. The anastomotic distance was 34.0 ± 3.6 cm in 14 pigs. The site of gastroenterostomy of one pig was at the ileum. For pigs euthanized 3 days postoperatively, the structure was mechanically maintained by a stent. For pigs euthanized 7 or 14 days postoperatively, the stomach and small intestine were anastomosed to form a stable structure. The level of TGF-β1 and Smad3 in the anastomosis site gradually increased from 3 to 14 days after EUS-GE. TGF-β1 and Smad3 expression had a significant difference between 3 days, 7 days, and 14 days after EUS-GE (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

For EUS-GE, the stomach and small intestine were initially linked together mechanically and spontaneously anastomosed to form a stable structure 7 days postoperatively. TGF-β1 and Smad3 play an important role in the formation of a stable structure of gastrointestinal anastomosis.

Endoscopic management of pancreatic walled-off necrosis

Pancreatic walled-off necrosis (WON) is a complication of severe pancreatitis. Endoscopic transmural drainage has been recognized as the first-line treatment for pancreatic fluid collections. Endoscopy offers a minimally invasive approach when compared to surgical drainage. Today, endoscopists may choose to use self-expanding metal stents, pigtail stents, or lumen-apposing metal stents to facilitate drainage of fluid collections. Current data suggest that all 3 approaches yield similar outcomes. It was previously thought that drainage should be performed 4 weeks from the initial event of pancreatitis, theoretically allowing the capsule to mature. However, current data show that both early (<4 weeks) and standard (≥4 weeks) endoscopic drainage are comparable. Herein, we provide an up-to-date state-of-the-art review of the indications, techniques, innovations, outcomes, and future perspectives following drainage of pancreatic WON.

Small-bowel capsule endoscopy and device-assisted enteroscopy for diagnosis and treatment of small-bowel disorders: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline - Update 2022

MR1: ESGE recommends small-bowel capsule endoscopy as the first-line examination, before consideration of other endoscopic and radiological diagnostic tests for suspected small-bowel bleeding, given the excellent safety profile of capsule endoscopy, its patient tolerability, and its potential to visualize the entire small-bowel mucosa.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. MR2: ESGE recommends small-bowel capsule endoscopy in patients with overt suspected small-bowel bleeding as soon as possible after the bleeding episode, ideally within 48 hours, to maximize the diagnostic and subsequent therapeutic yield.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. MR3: ESGE does not recommend routine second-look endoscopy prior to small-bowel capsule endoscopy in patients with suspected small-bowel bleeding or iron-deficiency anemia.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. MR4: ESGE recommends conservative management in those patients with suspected small-bowel bleeding and high quality negative small-bowel capsule endoscopy.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. MR5: ESGE recommends device-assisted enteroscopy to confirm and possibly treat lesions identified by small-bowel capsule endoscopy.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. MR6: ESGE recommends the performance of small-bowel capsule endoscopy as a first-line examination in patients with iron-deficiency anemia when small bowel evaluation is indicated.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. MR7: ESGE recommends small-bowel capsule endoscopy in patients with suspected Crohn's disease and negative ileocolonoscopy findings as the initial diagnostic modality for investigating the small bowel, in the absence of obstructive symptoms or known bowel stenosis.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. MR8: ESGE recommends, in patients with unremarkable or nondiagnostic findings from dedicated small-bowel cross-sectional imaging, small-bowel capsule endoscopy as a subsequent investigation if deemed likely to influence patient management.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. MR9: ESGE recommends, in patients with established Crohn's disease, the use of a patency capsule before small-bowel capsule endoscopy to decrease the capsule retention rate.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. MR10: ESGE recommends device-assisted enteroscopy (DAE) as an alternative to surgery for foreign bodies retained in the small bowel requiring retrieval in patients without acute intestinal obstruction.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. MR11: ESGE recommends DAE-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (DAE-ERCP) as a first-line endoscopic approach to treat pancreaticobiliary diseases in patients with surgically altered anatomy (except for Billroth II patients).Strong recommendation, moderate 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.