Endoscopic guided biliary drainage: how can we achieve efficient biliary drainage?

Feasibility and safety of EUS-guided biliary drainage in inexperienced centers: a multicenter study in southwest Japan

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

EUS-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) has shown promising procedural outcomes in high-volume centers. Although inferior procedural outcomes were reported in inexperienced centers during the early days of EUS-BD, the current outcomes are unknown. This study aimed to clarify the feasibility and safety of EUS-BD in centers that recently introduced EUS-BD.

METHODS

This multicenter retrospective study was conducted at 22 centers that introduced EUS-BD between 2017 and 2022. A maximum of 20 initial EUS-BD cases at each center were evaluated. The clinical outcomes and experience of 84 endoscopists who performed these procedures were examined. Primary outcomes were the rate of technical success and adverse events (AEs), whereas secondary outcomes were risk factors associated with technical failure and procedure-related AEs.

RESULTS

Two hundred fifty-five patients were enrolled. The technical success rate was 91.4% (233/255). Among 22 technical failure cases, guidewire manipulation failure was the most common cause (n = 12) followed by tract dilation failure (n = 5). The AE rate was 10.2% (26/255). Multivariate analysis identified a puncture target diameter of <5 mm (odds ratio, 3.719; 95% CI, 1.415-9.776; P = .008) and moderate ascites extending to the liver surface (odds ratio, 3.25; 95% CI, 1.195-8.653; P = .021) as independent risk factors for technical failure and procedure-related AEs, respectively. Endoscopists' procedural experience was not a risk factor for technical failure or procedure-related AEs.

CONCLUSIONS

The feasibility and safety of EUS-BD were maintained during the induction phase at inexperienced centers. These data will be helpful to better understand the current status of EUS-BD. (Clinical trial registration number: UMIN 000053615.).

Therapeutic endoscopic ultrasound

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) has been continuously evolving for the past three decades and has become widely used for both diagnostic and therapeutic purposes. The efficacy of therapeutic EUS (TEUS) has proven to be superior and better tolerated than conventional percutaneous or surgical techniques. TEUS has allowed the performance of multiple procedures including gallbladder, pancreatic duct and biliary drainage as well as gastrointestinal anastomoses. TEUS procedures generally require the following critical steps: needle access, guidewire placement, fistula creation and stent deployment. The indications and contraindication for TEUS procedures vary with different procedures but common contraindications include hemodynamic instability, severe coagulopathy unable to be reversed, large volume ascites or the inability to obtain access to the target site. Proficiency and high volume in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and diagnostic EUS procedures are required for training in TEUS. The complexity of the cases performed can be seen as a pyramid with drainage of pancreatic fluid collections at the base, pancreaticobiliary decompression in the middle, and creation of digestive anastomosis at the top. The mastery of each level is crucial prior to reaching the next level of complexity. TEUS has been incorporated in our arsenal and is impacting on a daily basis the way we offer minimally invasive therapy.

Application of endoscopic ultrasound-guided hepaticogastrostomy combined with antegrade stenting in patients with malignant biliary obstruction after failed ERCP

BACKGROUND

This study was aimed at comparing the safety and effectiveness of endoscopic ultrasound-guided hepaticogastrostomy (EUS-HGS) and EUS-HGS combined with antegrade stenting (EUS-HGAS) in patients with malignant biliary obstruction (MBO) after failed endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP).

METHODS

Patients diagnosed with MBO and receiving EUS-HGS or EUS-HGAS from September 2015 to October 2020 were enrolled in this study. Clinical success, complications, reintervention rate, post-operative hospital stay, time to stent dysfunction, and patient death were compared.

RESULTS

A total of 45 patients (21 in the EUS-HGAS group and 24 in the EUS-HGS group) were enrolled in this study. In the EUS-HGAS group, 21 patients all achieved clinical success (100%); in the EUS-HGS group, 24 patients also achieved technical success (100%) (P > 0.05). The differences between pre- and post-operative TB and ALT and AST levels were greater in the single-step EUS-HGAS group (P < 0.05). The incidence of complications was 2 of 21 (9.5%) in the EUS-HGAS group and 5 of 24 (20.8%) in the EUS-HGS group (P > 0.05). The reintervention rate was 0 in the EUS-HGAS group and 1 (4.2%) in the EUS-HGS group (P > 0.05). Time to stent dysfunction or patient death was longer in the EUS-HGAS group (P < 0.05). The post-operative hospital stay was longer and the total cost was higher in the EUS-HGAS group.

CONCLUSION

EUS-HGAS was superior to EUS-HGS in terms of biliary drainage effectiveness and time to stent dysfunction or patient death in patients with MBO after failed ERCP. Furthermore, two-step EUS-HGAS may be safer in some patients.

Clinical value of preferred endoscopic ultrasound-guided antegrade surgery in the treatment of extrahepatic bile duct malignant obstruction

OBJECTIVES

To explore the clinical value of preferred ultrasound endoscopic guided biliary drainage in patients with extrahepatic biliary obstruction with intrahepatic biliary ectasis.

METHODS

A total of 58 patients with malignant obstruction and intrahepatic bile duct expansion, including 32 males, 26 females and median age 65 (58‒81) were selected. A prospective randomized controlled study was randomized into EUS-AG and ERCP-BD, with 28 patients in EUS-AG and 30 in ERCP-BD. The efficacy of the two treatments, operation success rate, operation time, the incidence of complications, hospitalization days, cost, unimpeded stent duration, and survival time were compared.

RESULTS

1) The surgical success rate in group EUS-AG was 100%, and in group, ERCP-BD was 96.67%. There was no statistical difference in surgical success rate in the two groups (p>0.05). 2) Average operating time in EUS-AG was (23.69±11.57) min, and in ERCP-BD was (36.75±17.69) min. The difference between the two groups has statistical significance (p<0.05). 3) The clinical symptoms of successful patients were significantly relieved. Compared with the preoperative procedure, the differences in group levels had statistical significance (p<0.05); TBIL, ALP, WBC and CRP levels, no statistical significance difference in groups (p>0.05).

CONCLUSION

EUS-AG operation has short time, low incidence of complications, safe, effective, and can be used as the preferred treatment plan for patients with extrahepatic biliary duct malignant obstruction associated with intrahepatic biliary duct expansion; EUS-AG operation has more unique clinical advantages for patients with altered gastrointestinal anatomy or upper gastrointestinal obstruction.

What You Need to Know Before Performing Endoscopic Ultrasound-guided Hepaticogastrostomy

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is the primary treatment modality for bile duct obstruction. When ERCP is unsuccessful, percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage can be an alternative method. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) has emerged as a treatment option for biliary obstruction, especially after ERCP failure. EUS-BD offers transluminal intrahepatic and extrahepatic drainage through a transgastric and transduodenal approach. EUS-guided hepaticogastrostomy (EUS-HGS) is an excellent choice for patients with hilar strictures or those with a surgically altered anatomy. The optimal steps in EUS-HGS are case selection, bile duct visualization, puncture-site selection, wire insertion and manipulation, tract dilation, and stent placement. Caution should be taken at each step to prevent complications. Dedicated devices for EUS-HGS have been developed to improve the technical success rate and reduce complications. This technical review focuses on the essential practical points at each step of EUS-HGS.

Endoscopic ultrasonography and small-bowel endoscopy: Present and future

Over the last decade, impressive technological advances have occurred in ultrasonography and small-bowel endoscopy. Nowadays, endoscopic ultrasonography is an essential diagnostic tool and a therapeutic weapon for pancreatobiliary disorders. Capsule endoscopy and device-assisted enteroscopy have quickly become the reference standard for the diagnosis of small-bowel luminal diseases, thereby leading to radical changes in diagnostic and therapeutic pathways. We herein provide an up-to-date overview of the latest advances in endoscopic ultrasonography and small-bowel endoscopy, focusing on the emerging paradigms and technological innovations that might improve clinical practice in the near future.

Malignant obstructive jaundice: approaches to minimally invasive biliary decompression

Modern approaches to surgical treatment of malignant obstructive jaundice are reviewed in the article. The advantages and disadvantages of various types of minimally invasive biliary decompression are emphasized.

Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Biliary Drainage

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography is the preferred procedure for biliary drainage in benign and malignant obstructions. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage is an emerging technique for when endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography fails. It is a highly versatile procedure with several options of access point, stent direction, and drainage route. Based on the current literature, the cumulative success rate is 88% to 93%, with an overall complication rate of 13% to 20%. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage seems to be an effective and valuable alternative technique after failed endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography when performed by highly skilled endoscopists.

Percutaneous cholecystostomy for biliary decompression in patients with cholangitis and pancreatitis

Objective

This study was performed to assess the effectiveness and safety of percutaneous cholecystostomy (PC) for biliary decompression.

Methods

We retrospectively analyzed our institution’s PC database from March 2015 to August 2017 and selected patients with biliary obstruction. The primary outcomes were the technical and clinical success rates. As secondary outcomes, adverse events and pain after PC were compared with those of patients who underwent PC for acute cholecystitis during the same period.

Results

Twenty patients underwent PC for biliary obstruction (cholangitis, 19; pancreatitis, 1). The technical and clinical success rates were 100%. The median serum total bilirubin level decreased considerably from 4.5 to 1.4 mg/dL after PC. An adverse event (catheter migration) occurred in 1 patient, and 17 patients developed pain after PC. During the same period, 104 patients underwent PC for cholecystitis. Adverse events occurred in 7 patients, and 62 developed pain. There was no significant difference in the adverse event rate between the cholangitis/pancreatitis and cholecystitis groups (5.0% vs. 6.7%, respectively), but pain occurred considerably more frequently in the cholangitis/pancreatitis group (94.4% vs. 63.9%, respectively).

Conclusions

PC is an effective and safe method for biliary decompression in selected patients. However, attention should be paid to postoperative pain.

Feasibility and Safety of Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Biliary Drainage (EUS-BD) for Malignant Biliary Obstruction Associated with Ascites: Results of a Pilot Study

BACKGROUND

It has been suggested that EUS-BD may be a feasible and safer alternative to percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD) after failed ERCP in patients with ascites. To date, no study has specifically evaluated the performance of EUS-BD in this context.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis was done for patients with and without ascites who underwent EUS-BD for malignant biliary obstruction after failed ERCP between July 2010 and September 2014. Complications and technical and clinical successes between the two groups were compared.

RESULTS

A total of 31 patients were included: 20 patients without ascites (group 1) and 11 with ascites (group 2). Nineteen patients underwent EUS-hepaticogastrostomy (six in group 2), and 12 underwent EUS-choledochoduodenostomy (five in group 2). Technical success was achieved in all patients. Clinical success was observed in 95% (n = 19) in group 1 and 64% (n = 7) in group 2 (p = 0.042). In three out of four patients without clinical success in group 2, the follow-up period was not long enough to observe the clinical response because of early death within the 2 weeks after EUS-BD secondary to disease progression or preprocedural unresponsive sepsis. No significant differences were observed between groups 1 and 2 either in the overall rates of procedural-related complications (20 and 9%, respectively, p = 0.63) or in the rates of major complications (15 vs 9%, respectively, p = 0.639). Stent migration occurred in one patient in each group, intra- or post-procedural bleeding occurred in two patients in group 1, which was conservatively managed, and one patient in group 1 presented biliary leakage. Stent patency and the number of re-interventions were not significantly different.

CONCLUSIONS

EUS-BD is technically feasible in patients with ascites. Our results suggest that EUS-BD may be a clinically effective and safe alternative after failed ERCP in patients with ascites.

Endoscopic Ultrasonography-Guided Techniques for Accessing and Draining the Biliary System and the Pancreatic Duct

When endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) fails to decompress the biliary system or the pancreatic duct, endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS)-guided biliary or pancreatic access and drainage can be used. Data show a high success rate and acceptable adverse event rate for EUS-guided biliary drainage. The outcomes of EUS-guided biliary drainage seem equivalent to percutaneous drainage and ERCP, whereas only retrospective studies are available for pancreatic duct drainage. In this article, revision of the technical and clinical status and the current evidence of interventional EUS-guided biliary and pancreatic duct access and drainage are presented.

[Endoscopic Ultrasound-guided Biliary Drainage]

The therapeutic role of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) has continued to evolve in recent years. EUS-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) can be performed as an effective alternative to percutaneous drainage or surgical options when conventional Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography fails or is not possible. Depending on the access and exit routes of the stent, multiple approaches to EUS-BD have been proposed. Each patient should receive an individualized approach based on the patient's condition, anatomy, and endoscopist's experience, with an appropriate backup prepared. In high-volume centers, the cumulative success rate has been reported to be over 90%. However, the reported overall complication rate remains relatively high at 10-30%. Further studies are necessary to better understand the long-term results and standardize EUS-BD, including appropriate indications and optimal approach.

Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Biliary Access, with Focus on Technique and Practical Tips

In 1980, endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) was introduced as a diagnostic tool for evaluation of the pancreas. Since the introduction of curvilinear-array echoendoscopy, EUS has been used for a variety of gastrointestinal interventions, including fine needle aspiration, tumor ablation, and pancreatobiliary access. One of the main therapeutic roles of EUS is biliary drainage as an alternative to endoscopic retrograde biliary drainage (ERBD) or percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD). This article summarizes three different methods of EUS-guided biliary access, with focus on technique and practical tips.

Dilation of Strictures in Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease: Who, When and How

Stricture formation occurs in up to 40% of patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Patients are often symptomatic, resulting in significant morbidity, hospitalizations, and loss of productivity. Strictures can be managed endoscopically in addition to traditional surgical management (sphincteroplasty or resection of the affected bowel segments). About 3% to 5% patients with IBD develop primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC), which results in stricture formation in the biliary tree, managed for the most part by endoscopic therapies. In this article, we discuss endoscopic management of strictures both in the alimentary tract and biliary tree in patients with IBD and/or PSC.

Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Biliary Drainage Using a Fully Covered Metallic Stent after Failed Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography

Background and Study Aims. Endoscopic ultrasound- (EUS-) guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) is an alternative treatment for biliary obstruction after failed endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). In this study, we present the outcomes of inpatients with obstructive jaundice treated with EUS-BD using a fully covered metallic stent after failed ERCP. Patients and Methods. A total of 21 patients with biliary obstruction due to malignant tumors and prior unsuccessful ERCP underwent EUS via an intra- or extrahepatic approach with fully covered metallic stent between March 2014 and October 2015. A single endoscopist performed all procedures. Results. Seven patients underwent hepatogastrostomy (HGS) and 14 underwent choledochoduodenostomy (CDS). The technical and clinical success rates were both 100%. There was no difference in efficacy between HGS and CDS. Adverse events occurred in three patients, including two in the HGS group (1 bile leakage and 1 sepsis) and one in the CDS group (sepsis). Four patients died as a result of their primary tumors during a median follow-up period of 13 months (range: 3-21 months). No patient presented with stent migration. Conclusion. EUS-BD using a fully covered metallic stent appears to be a safe and effective method for the treatment of obstructive jaundice.

Assessment of efficacy and safety of EUS-guided biliary drainage: a systematic review

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

EUS-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) has emerged as an alternative procedure after failed ERCP. However, limited data on the efficacy and safety of EUS-BD are available. Therefore, a systematic review was conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of EUS-BD and to evaluate transduodenal (TD) and transgastric (TG) approaches.

METHODS

PubMed and EMBASE were searched to identify relevant studies published in the English language for inclusion in this systematic review and meta-analysis. Data from eligible studies were combined to calculate the cumulative technical success rate (TSR), functional success rate (FSR), and adverse-event rate of EUS-BD and the pooled odds ratio of TSR, FSR, and adverse-event rate of the TD approach when compared with the TG approach.

RESULTS

Forty-two studies with 1192 patients were included in this study, and the cumulative TSR, FSR, and adverse-event rate were 94.71%, 91.66%, and 23.32%, respectively. The common adverse events associated with EUS-BD were bleeding (4.03%), bile leakage (4.03%), pneumoperitoneum (3.02%), stent migration (2.68%), cholangitis (2.43%), abdominal pain (1.51%), and peritonitis (1.26%). Ten studies were included in the meta-analysis for comparative evaluation of TD and TG approaches for EUS-BD. Compared with the TG approach, the pooled odds ratio of the TSR, FSR, and adverse-event rate of the TD approach were 1.36 (95% CI, .66-2.81; P > .05), .84 (95% CI, .50-1.42; P > .05), and .61 (95% CI, .36-1.03; P > .05), respectively, which indicated no significant difference in the TSR, FSR, and adverse-event rate between the 2 groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Although it is associated with significant morbidity, EUS-BD is an effective alternative procedure for relieving biliary obstruction. There was no significant difference between the TD and TG approaches for EUS-BD.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage versus percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage: predictors of successful outcome in patients who fail endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography

BACKGROUND

Patients with failed endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) are conventionally offered percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD). While PTBD is effective, it is associated with catheter-related complications, pain, and poor quality of life. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) is a minimally invasive endoscopic option increasingly offered as an alternative to PTBD. We compare outcomes of EUS-BD and PTBD in patients with biliary obstruction at a single tertiary care center.

METHODS

A retrospective review was performed in patients with biliary obstruction who underwent EUS-BD or PTBD after failed ERCP from June 2010 through December 2014 at a single tertiary care center. Patient demographics, procedural data, and clinical outcomes were documented for each group. The aim was to compare efficacy and safety of EUS-BD and PTBD and evaluate predictors of success.

RESULTS

A total of 60 patients were included (mean age 67.5 years, 65 % male). Forty-seven underwent EUS-BD, and thirteen underwent PTBD. Technical success rates of PTBD and EUS-BD were similar (91.6 vs. 93.3 %, p = 1.0). PTBD patients underwent significantly more re-interventions than EUS-BD patients (mean 4.9 versus 1.3, p < 0.0001), had more late (>24-h) adverse events (53.8 % vs. 6.6 %, p = 0.001) and experienced more pain (4.1 vs. 1.9, p = 0.016) post-procedure. In univariate analysis, clinical success was lower in the PTBD group (25 vs. 62.2 %, p = 0.03). In multivariable logistic regression analysis, EUS-BD was the sole predictor of clinical success and long-term resolution (OR 21.8, p = 0.009).

CONCLUSION

Despite similar technical success rates compared to PTBD, EUS-BD results in a lower need for re-intervention, decreased rate of late adverse events, and lower pain scores, and is the sole predictor for clinical success and long-term resolution. EUS-BD should be the treatment of choice after a failed ERCP.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided interventions in special situations

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) was introduced in 1982 and has since become a popular advanced procedure for diagnosis and therapeutic intervention. Initially, EUS was most commonly used for the diagnosis of pancreatobiliary diseases and tissue acquisition. EUS was first used for guided cholangiography in 1996, followed by EUS-guided biliary drainage in 2001. Advancements in equipment and endoscopic accessories have led to an expansion of EUS-guided procedures, which now include EUS-guided drainage of intra-abdominal abscesses or collections, intra-vascular treatment of refractory variceal and nonvariceal bleeding, transmural pancreatic drainage, common bile duct stone clearance, enteral feeding tube placement and entero-enteric anastomosis. Patients with surgically altered upper gastrointestinal anatomies have greatly benefited from EUS also. This systematic review describes and discusses EUS procedures performed in uncommon diseases and conditions, as well as applications on more vulnerable patients such as young children and pregnant women. In these cases, routine approaches do not always apply, and thus may require the use of innovative and unconventional techniques. Increased knowledge of such special applications will help increase the success rates of these procedures and provide a foundation for additional advances and utilizations of the technique.

Therapeutic role of endoscopic ultrasound in pancreaticobiliary disease: A comprehensive review

With the development of technology and accessories, the role of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) has evolved from diagnostics to therapeutics. In order to characterise the therapeutic role of EUS, we searched Web of Knowledge database and reviewed articles associated with therapeutic EUS. There are two modalities for the therapeutic purpose: drainage and fine-needle injection. EUS-guided drainage is a promising procedure for the treatment of peripancreatic fluid collection and biliary obstruction; EUS-guided fine-needle injections such as celiac plexus neurolysis, for the purpose of pain relief for pancreatic cancer and chronic pancreatitis, has emerged as a promising procedure. The aim of the study was to perform a comprehensive and conscientious review on the techniques, complications and clinical outcomes of those EUS-based procedures.

Choosing the appropriate strategy in managing malignant biliary obstruction

Most patients with pancreatic cancer develop malignant biliary obstruction. Treatment of obstruction is generally indicated to relieve symptoms and improve morbidity and mortality. First-line therapy consists of endoscopic biliary stent placement. Recent data comparing plastic stents to self-expanding metallic stents (SEMS) have shown improved patency with SEMS. The decision of whether to treat obstruction and the means for doing so depend on the clinical scenario. For patients with resectable disease, preoperative biliary decompression is only indicated when surgery will be delayed or complications of jaundice exist. For patients with locally advanced disease, self-expanding metal stents are superior to plastic stents for long-term patency. For patients with advanced disease, the choice of metallic or plastic stent depends on life expectancy. When endoscopic stent placement fails, EUS guided biliary drainage, percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage or surgical treatments are appropriate.

Surgery or EUS-guided choledochoduodenostomy for malignant distal biliary obstruction after ERCP failure

Background and Objectives:

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is the method of choice for drainage in patients with distal malignant biliary obstruction, but it fails in up to 10% of cases. Percutaneous transhepatic cholangiography (PTC) and surgical bypass are the traditional drainage alternatives. This study aimed to compare technical and clinical success, quality of life, and survival of surgical biliary bypass or hepaticojejunostomy (HJT) and endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided choledochoduodenostomy (CDT) in patients with distal malignant bile duct obstruction and failed ERCP.

Patients and Methods:

A prospective, randomized trial was conducted. From March 2011 to September 2013, 32 patients with malignant distal biliary obstruction and failed ERCP were studied. The HJT group consisted of 15 patients and the CDT group consisted of 14 patients. Technical and clinical success, quality of life, and survival were assessed prospectively.

Results:

Technical success was 94% (15/16) in the HJT group and 88% (14/16) in the CDT group (P = 0.598). Clinical success occurred in 14 (93%) patients in the HJT group and in 10 (71%) patients in the CDT group (P = 0.169). During follow-up, a statistically significant difference was seen in mean functional capacity scores, physical health, pain, social functioning, and emotional and mental health aspects in both techniques (P < 0.05). The median survival time in both groups was the same (82 days).

Conclusion:

Data relating to technical and clinical success, quality of life, and survival were similar in patients who underwent HJT and CDT drainage after failed ERCP for malignant distal biliary obstruction.

Therapeutic Endoscopic Ultrasound

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) technology has evolved dramatically over the past 20 years, from being a supplementary diagnostic aid available only in large medical centers to being a core diagnostic and therapeutic tool that is widely available. Although formal recommendations and practice guidelines have not been developed, there are considerable data supporting the use of EUS for its technical accuracy in diagnosing pancreaticobiliary and gastrointestinal pathology. Endosonography is now routine practice not only for pathologic diagnosis and tumor staging but also for drainage of cystic lesions and celiac plexus neurolysis. In this article, we cover the use of EUS in biliary and pancreatic intervention, ablative therapy, enterostomy, and vascular intervention.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary intervention in patients with surgically altered anatomy

AIM

To evaluate the efficacy of endoscopic ultrasound guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) in patients with surgically altered anatomies.

METHODS

We performed a search of the MEDLINE database for studies published between 2001 to July 2014 reporting on EUS-BD in patients with surgically altered anatomy using the terms "EUS drainage" and "altered anatomy". All relevant articles were accessed in full text. A manual search of the reference lists of relevant retrieved articles was also performed. Only full-text English papers were included. Data regarding age, gender, diagnosis, method of EUS-BD and intervention, type of altered anatomy, technical success, clinical success, and complications were extracted and collected. Anatomic alterations were categorized as: group 1, Billroth I; group 2, Billroth II; group 4, Roux-en-Y with gastric bypass; and group 3, all other types.

RESULTS

Twenty three articles identified in the literature search, three reports were from the same group with different numbers of cases. In total, 101 cases of EUS-BD in patients with altered anatomy were identified. Twenty-seven cases had no information and were excluded. Seventy four cases were included for analysis. Data of EUS-BD in patients categorized as group 1, 2 and 4 were limited with 2, 3 and 6 cases with EUS-BD done respectively. Thirty four cases with EUS-BD were reported in group 3. The pooled technical success, clinical success, and complication rates of all reports with available data were 89.18%, 91.07% and 17.5%, respectively. The results are similar to the reported outcomes of EUS-BD in general, however, with limited data of EUS-BD in patients with altered anatomy rendered it difficult to draw a firm conclusion.

CONCLUSION

EUS-BD may be an option for patients with altered anatomy after a failed endoscopic-retrograde-cholangiography in centers with expertise in EUS-BD procedures in a research setting.

Endoscopic ultrasonography guided drainage: summary of consortium meeting, May 21, 2012, San Diego, California

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is the preferred procedure for biliary and pancreatic drainage. While ERCP is successful in about 95% of cases, a small subset of cases are unsuccessful due to altered anatomy, peri-ampullary pathology, or malignant obstruction. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided drainage is a promising technique for biliary, pancreatic and recently gallbladder decompression, which provides multiple advantages over percutaneous or surgical biliary drainage. Multiple retrospective and some prospective studies have shown endoscopic ultrasound-guided drainage to be safe and effective. Based on the currently reported literature, regardless of the approach, the cumulative success rate is 84%-93% with an overall complication rate of 16%-35%. endoscopic ultrasound-guided drainage seems a viable therapeutic modality for failed conventional drainage when performed by highly skilled advanced endoscopists at tertiary centers with expertise in both echo-endoscopy and therapeutic endoscopy.

Comparison of percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage and endoscopic biliary drainage in the management of malignant biliary tract obstruction: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIM

To compare percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD) and endoscopic biliary drainage (EBD) for management of malignant biliary tract obstruction (MBTO).

METHODS

PubMed, Google Scholar, and the Cochrane database were searched to 31 December 2013. Main outcome measurements were therapeutic success rate, 30-day mortality rate, overall complications, cholangitis, and pancreatitis.

RESULTS

Eight studies (five retrospective and three randomized controlled trials) were included in the meta-analysis with a total of 692 participants. Combined odds ratio (OR) = 2.18 revealed no significant difference in therapeutic success between PTBD and EBD (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.73-6.47, P = 0.162). However, after excluding two studies that appeared to be outliers, PTBD exhibited a better therapeutic success rate than EBD (pooled OR = 4.45, 95% CI = 2.68-7.40, P < 0.001). Patients who underwent PTBD were 0.55 times as likely to have cholangitis as those who underwent EBD, whereas the overall complication rate, pancreatitis rate, and 30-day mortality were similar between the two procedures.

CONCLUSIONS

PTBD may be associated with a better therapeutic success rate and lower incidence of cholangitis than EBD, but the overall complication rate, pancreatitis rate, and 30-day mortality of the two procedures are similar.

Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Treatment beyond Drainage: Hemostasis, Anastomosis, and Others

Since the introduction of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) in the 1990s, it has evolved from a primarily diagnostic modality into an instrument that can be used in various therapeutic interventions. EUS-guided fine-needle injection was initially described for celiac plexus neurolysis. By using the fundamentals of this method, drainage techniques emerged for the biliary and pancreatic ducts, fluid collections, and abscesses. More recently, EUS has been used for ablative techniques and injection therapies for patients with for gastrointestinal malignancies. As the search for minimally invasive techniques continued, EUS-guided hemostasis methods have also been described. The technical advances in EUS-guided therapies may appear to be limitless; however, in many instances, these procedures have been described only in small case series. More data are required to determine the efficacy and safety of these techniques, and new accessories will be needed to facilitate their implementation into practice.

The role of therapeutic endoscopic ultrasound now and for the future

Therapeutic endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) became possible after the advent of the linear echoendoscope and the EUS guided fine needle aspiration. Over the past two decades, the indications for therapeutic EUS have expanded and evidence regarding its utility has been steadily accumulating. Randomized studies have shown EUS to be effective for cancer pain relief (celiac plexus neurolysis), pancreatic fluid collection drainage, and biliary drainage. Prospective studies have shown EUS-guided biliary drainage to be safe and effective in patients with failed ERCP. There is evidence to suggest that EUS is effective for pancreatic duct drainage, gallbladder drainage, and drainage of pelvic collections. EUS may also be useful for targeted cancer treatment via brachytherapy, radiofrequency ablation, or injection therapy. Therapeutic EUS is likely to play an increasingly important role in endoscopic therapy of gastrointestinal diseases in the near future.

Postoperative biliary adverse events following orthotopic liver transplantation: Assessment with magnetic resonance cholangiography

Biliary adverse events following orthotopic liver transplantation (OLT) are relatively common and continue to be serious causes of morbidity, mortality, and transplant dysfunction or failure. The development of these adverse events is heavily influenced by the type of anastomosis during surgery. The low specificity of clinical and biologic findings makes the diagnosis challenging. Moreover, direct cholangiographic procedures such as endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography and percutaneous transhepatic cholangiography present an inadmissible rate of adverse events to be utilized in clinically low suspected patients. Magnetic resonance (MR) maging with MR cholangiopancreatography is crucial in assessing abnormalities in the biliary system after liver surgery, including liver transplant. MR cholangiopancreatography is a safe, rapid, non-invasive, and effective diagnostic procedure for the evaluation of biliary adverse events after liver transplantation, since it plays an increasingly important role in the diagnosis and management of these events. On the basis of a recent systematic review of the literature the summary estimates of sensitivity and specificity of MR cholangiopancreatography for diagnosis of biliary adverse events following OLT were 0.95 and 0.92, respectively. It can provide a non-invasive method of imaging surgical reconstruction of the biliary anastomoses as well as adverse events including anastomotic and non-anastomotic strictures, biliary lithiasis and sphincter of Oddi dysfunction in liver transplant recipients. Nevertheless, conventional T2-weighted MR cholangiography can be implemented with T1-weighted contrast-enhanced MR cholangiography using hepatobiliary contrast agents (in particular using Gd-EOB-DTPA) in order to improve the diagnostic accuracy in the adverse events’ detection such as bile leakage and strictures, especially in selected patients with biliary-enteric anastomosis.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage: an update

OPINION STATEMENT

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is currently the preferred procedure for biliary drainage in both benign and malignant obstructions. While ERCP is successful in approximately 95 % of cases, a small subset of cases are unsuccessful due to variant anatomy, ampullary pathology, or malignant luminal obstruction. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) is a promising route for biliary decompression that provides multiple advantages over percutaneous and surgical biliary drainage. Multiple retrospective as well as some prospective studies have shown EUS-BD to be safe and effective. Based on the current literature, the cumulative success rate is 84-93 %, regardless of the approach, with an overall complication rate of 16-35 %. EUS-BD appears to a viable therapeutic modality for failed ERCP when performed by highly skilled advanced endoscopists at tertiary centers with expertise in both echo-endoscopy and biliary endoscopy. Larger prospective multicenter randomized comparative studies are needed to further define indications, outcomes, and complications.