Endoscopic ultrasound-guided hepaticogastrostomy for advanced cholangiocarcinoma after failed stenting by endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography

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.

EUS-guided intrahepatic biliary drainage: a large retrospective series and subgroup comparison between percutaneous drainage in hilar stenoses or postsurgical anatomy

Background and study aims  Endoscopic ultrasound-guided intrahepatic biliary drainage (EUS-IBD) struggles to find a place in management algorithms, especially compared to percutaneous drainage (PTBD). In the setting of hilar stenoses or postsurgical anatomy data are even more limited. Patients and methods  All consecutive EUS-IBDs performed in our tertiary referral center between 2012 - 2019 were retrospectively evaluated. Rendez-vous (RVs), antegrade stenting (AS) and hepatico-gastrostomies (HGs) were compared. The predefined subgroup of EUS-IBD patients with proximal stenosis/surgically-altered anatomy was matched 1:1 with PTBD performed for the same indications. Efficacy, safety and events during follow-up were compared. Results  One hundred four EUS-IBDs were included (malignancies = 87.7 %). These consisted of 16 RVs, 43 ASs and 45 HGs. Technical and clinical success rates were 89.4 % and 96.2 %, respectively. Any-degree, severe and fatal adverse events (AEs) occurred in 23.3 %, 2.9 %, and 0.9 % respectively. Benign indications were more common among RVs while proximal stenoses, surgically-altered anatomy, and disconnected left ductal system among HGs. Procedures were shorter with HGs performed with specifically designed stents (25 vs . 48 minutes, P  = 0.004) and there was also a trend toward less dysfunction with those stents (6.7 % vs . 30 %, P  = 0.09) compared with previous approaches. Among patients with proximal stenosis/surgically-altered anatomy, EUS-IBD vs. PTBD showed higher rates of clinical success (97.4 % vs. 79.5 %, P  = 0.01), reduced post-procedural pain (17.8 % vs. 44.4 %, p = 0.004), shorter median hospital stay (7.5 vs 11.5 days, P  = 0.01), lower rates of stent dysfunction (15.8 % vs. 42.9 %, P  = 0.01), and the mean number of reinterventions was lower (0.4 vs. 2.8, P  < 0.0001). Conclusions  EUS-IBD has high technical and clinical success with an acceptable safety profile. HGs show comparable outcomes, which are likely to further improve with dedicated tools. For proximal strictures and surgically-altered anatomy, EUS-IBD seems superior to PTBD.

The Role of EUS-BD in the Management of Malignant Biliary Obstruction: The Indonesian Perspective. Diagn Ther Endosc. 2017;2017:4856276. [PMID: 29180841 PMCID: PMC5664256 DOI: 10.1155/2017/4856276]

Aims

To evaluate the success rate and related factors of endoscopic ultrasound guided-biliary drainage (EUS-BD).

Material and Methods

We conducted a retrospective study among 24 patients with malignant biliary obstruction who underwent EUS-BD after failed ERCP from January 2015 to December 2016 in a tertiary health center. The bilirubin levels before and after the procedure were used to define the clinical success rate, while the stent deployment was used to define the technical success rate. We placed either transluminal biliary stents or transpapillary biliary stents.

Results

Among 24 patients, choledochoduodenostomy technique was conducted in 23 patients (95.8%) and hepaticogastrostomy technique in 1 patient (4.2%). Transluminal stent placement was conducted in 23 patients, while transpapillary stent placement was conducted in 1 patient. The clinical success rate was 78.2% (18) in choledochoduodenostomy route and 100% (1) in hepaticogastrostomy route. EUS-BD was 2.37 times and 2.11 times more likely to be successful in reducing the bilirubin level in patients with tumor of the head of pancreas and periampullary tumor, respectively, but not in cholangiocarcinoma.

Conclusions

EUS-BD is an effective and efficient procedure to achieve biliary drainage among patients with malignant biliary obstruction after ERCP failure.

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.