Clinical utility of an endoscopic ultrasound-guided rendezvous technique via various approach routes

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.

Asymptomatic Pneumoperitoneum With a Large Amount of Gas Appeared During Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Biliary Drainage

We report a case in which a large amount of intraperitoneal free gas developed during endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage with the rendezvous technique. A 62-year-old woman presented with obstructive jaundice caused by a pancreatic head tumor. Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography was attempted but failed due to difficulty cannulating the bile duct. Consequently, endoscopic ultrasound-guided hepaticogastrostomy was performed using a fully covered metal stent. Subsequently, the rendezvous technique was employed to access the biliary system and perform an endoscopic sphincterotomy. Finally, a fully covered metal stent was placed transpapillary. Fluoroscopic imaging during the procedure revealed a large amount of gas between the liver and diaphragm. Despite the pneumoperitoneum, the patient experienced no abdominal pain or fever. One week later, a computed tomography scan confirmed the disappearance of free air in the intraperitoneal cavity. The patient's subsequent clinical course remained uneventful, and she was discharged from the hospital. This case highlights the potential for pneumoperitoneum to develop during endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage, particularly when using the rendezvous technique. It is crucial to differentiate this finding from gastrointestinal perforation based on clinical presentation and imaging features.

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.

Efficacy and safety of EUS-guided biliary drainage for benign biliary obstruction - A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background and Objectives

ERCP is the first line of treatment for benign and malignant biliary obstruction and EUS-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) is usually used for patients who have failed ERCP. Recently, several studies have evaluated the role of EUS-BD in the management of benign biliary obstruction. This meta-analysis evaluates the efficacy and safety of EUS-BD in the management of benign biliary obstruction.

Methods

We reviewed several databases from inception to July 8, 2022, to identify studies evaluating the efficacy and safety of EUS-BD in the management of benign biliary obstruction. Our outcomes of interest were technical success, clinical success, and adverse events. Pooled rates with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for all outcomes were calculated using a random effects model. Subgroup analyses were performed including patients with normal anatomy versus surgically altered anatomy (SAA). Heterogeneity was assessed by I2 statistic.

Results

We included 14 studies with 329 patients. The pooled rate (95% CI) of technical success was 88% (83%, 92%). The pooled rate (95% CI) of technical success for patients with SAA and normal anatomy was 92% (85%, 96%) and 83% (75%, 89%), respectively. The pooled rates (95% CI) of clinical success and adverse events were 89% (83%, 93%) and 19% (13%, 26%), respectively. We found low heterogeneity in most of the analyses.

Conclusions

EUS-BD is an effective and safe option in patients with benign biliary obstruction and should be considered after a failed attempt at ERCP or when ERCP is not technically possible.

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.

Choledochoduodenostomy Versus Hepaticogastrostomy in Endoscopic Ultrasound-guided Drainage for Malignant Biliary Obstruction: A Meta-analysis and Systematic Review

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to estimate the safety and efficacy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided choledochoduodenostomy (EUS-CDS) and endoscopic ultrasound-guided hepaticogastrostomy (EUS-HGS) for malignant biliary obstruction.

METHODS

We conducted a literature search using PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov. Studies that compared EUS-CDS and EUS-HGS were included in this study.

RESULTS

Thirteen studies were eligible for inclusion. The technical [odds ratio (OR): 0.95; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.51-1.74) and clinical (OR: 1.13; 95%CI: 0.66-1.94) success rates of EUS-CDS were comparable to those of EUS-HGS. However, EUS-CDS had less reintervention (OR: 0.31; 95%CI: 0.16-0.63) and stent obstruction (OR: 0.48; 95%CI: 0.21-0.94) than EUS-HGS. Both groups had similar adverse events (OR: 1.00; 95%CI: 0.70-1.43) and overall survival (hazard ratio: 1.07; 95%CI: 0.58-1.97).

CONCLUSIONS

EUS-CDS and EUS-HGS have comparable technical and clinical success rates, adverse events, and overall survival. However, EUS-CDS has less reintervention and stent obstruction.

Usefulness of Routine Plain CT the Day After an Interventional EUS Procedure

BACKGROUND

Interventional endoscopic ultrasound-guided procedures (I-EUS) are widely accepted as salvage procedures in ERCP-failed cases, and to drain fluid collected in the abdominal cavity. Although I-EUS has a relatively high incidence of complications and is severe/fatal in some cases, no follow-up strategy has been established. In our institution, plain computed tomography (P-CT) is performed routinely the day after I-EUS. In this study, we evaluated the usefulness of routine P-CT the day after I-EUS, as a follow-up method, and propose an algorithm.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed 81 patients who underwent I-EUS and evaluated the usefulness of P-CT, abdominal X-ray, laboratory data, and symptoms as a follow-up method. An adverse event (AE) was defined as an event requiring any treatment.

RESULTS

Technical success, clinical success, and AE rates were 96.3%, 90.1%, and 18.9%, respectively. In total, 30 patients had abnormal findings among the follow-up methods: 6 cases underwent additional procedures, 8 underwent medical treatments, and 16 were observed. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy for detecting AEs were assessed based on P-CT (85.7%, 100%, and 97.5%), X-ray (7.1%, 100%, and 83.5%), laboratory data (71.4%, 83.0%, and 81.0%), and symptoms (92.9%, 86.2%, and 87.3%). The sensitivity and accuracy of the latter two items were as high as those for X-ray, but specificity was lower than those for X-ray and P-CT.

CONCLUSIONS

Routine P-CT the day after I-EUS was useful for detecting complications and deciding to perform an invasive salvage procedure. Symptoms and laboratory data were useful to supplement routine P-CT.

EUS-guided biliary drainage for malignant hilar biliary obstruction: A concise review

EUS-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) has emerged as an alternative to ERCP for distal biliary obstruction in expert hands. Various routes for EUS-guided access in distal biliary obstruction include EUS choledochoduodenostomy, EUS-guided rendezvous, and EUS-antegrade (EUS-AG) stent placement. While percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage and ERCP are established modalities in management of malignant hilar biliary obstruction, the role of EUS-BD is emerging. Various methods of drainage in hilar obstruction include EUS hepaticogastrostomy, EUS hepaticoduodenostomy, EUS-guided bridging stent placement, and combined ERCP and EUS-guided biliary drainage. In this review, we discuss the role of EUS-BD in malignant hilar biliary obstruction with the currently available evidence, along with the limitations and challenges to the use of this modality in management of these patients.

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.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided rendezvous in benign biliary or pancreatic disorders with a 22-gauge needle and a 0.018-inch guidewire

Background and study aims  The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of endoscopic ultrasound-guided rendezvous (EUS-RV) for benign biliary or pancreatic disorders with a 22-gauge needle and a 0.018-inch guidewire. Patients and methods  Patients who underwent EUS-RV after failed biliary or pancreatic cannulation for benign disorder were candidates for this study. For EUS-RV, a 22-gauge needle and a 0.018-inch guidewire were used. Inclusion criteria were unsuccessful biliary or pancreatic cannulation for therapeutic endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) with benign biliary or pancreatic obstruction. Exclusion criteria included malignant biliary or pancreatic obstruction, inaccessible papilla due to surgically altered upper gastrointestinal anatomy or duodenal stricture, and previous sphincterotomy and/or biliary stent placement. The primary outcome was the technical success rate of biliary or pancreatic cannulation, and the secondary outcome was the rate of adverse events. Results  Thirty-one patients were evaluated. The overall technical success rate was 80.6 % (81.5 % in biliary and 75 % in pancreatic cases). Adverse events (AEs) were identified in 12.9 % of patients, including one with biliary peritonitis, one with abdominal pain and one with severe pancreatitis plus pneumomediastinum. Only one of the AEs (3.3 %) was directly related to the rendezvous procedure. Conclusions  EUS-RV may be a safe and feasible salvage method for unsuccessful cannulation for benign disorders. Use of a 22-gauge needle with a 0.018-inch guidewire may be the first option for benign pathology.

Clinical practice guidelines for safe performance of endoscopic ultrasound/ultrasonography-guided biliary drainage: 2018

Endoscopic ultrasound/ultrasonography‐guided biliary drainage (EUS‐BD) is a relatively new modality for biliary drainage after failed or difficult transpapillary biliary cannulation. Despite its clinical utility, EUS‐BD can be complicated by severe adverse events such as bleeding, perforation, and peritonitis. The aim of this paper is to provide practice guidelines for safe performance of EUS‐BD as well as safe introduction of the procedure to non‐expert centers. The guidelines comprised patient–intervention–comparison–outcome‐formatted clinical questions (CQs) and questions (Qs), which are background statements to facilitate understanding of the CQs. A literature search was performed using the PubMed and Cochrane Library databases. Statement, evidence level, and strength of recommendation were created according to the GRADE system. Four committees were organized: guideline creation, expert panelist, evaluation, and external evaluation committees. We developed 13 CQs (methods, device selection, supportive treatment, management of adverse events, education and ethics) and six Qs (definition, indication, outcomes and adverse events) with statements, evidence levels, and strengths of recommendation. The guidelines explain the technical aspects, management of adverse events, and ethics of EUS‐BD and its introduction to non‐expert institutions.

Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Biliary Drainage for Benign Biliary Diseases

Although endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is the first-line treatment for benign biliary diseases, this procedure is technically difficult in some conditions such as a surgically altered anatomy and gastric outlet obstruction. After a failed ERCP, a surgical or a percutaneous approach is selected as a rescue procedure; however, various endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided interventions are increasingly utilized in pancreatobiliary diseases, including EUS-guided rendezvous for failed biliary cannulation, EUS-guided antegrade treatment for stone management, and EUS-guided hepaticogastrostomy for anastomotic strictures in patients with a surgically altered anatomy. There are some technical hurdles in EUS-guided interventions for benign biliary diseases owing to the difficulty in puncturing a relatively small bile duct and in subsequent guidewire manipulation, as well as the lack of dedicated devices. A recent major advancement in this field is the introduction of a 2-step approach, in which EUS-guided drainage is placed in the first session and antegrade treatment is performed in subsequent sessions. This approach allows the use of various techniques such as mechanical lithotripsy and cholangioscopy without a risk of bile leak. In summary, EUS-guided interventions are among the treatment options for benign biliary diseases; however, standardization of the procedure and development of a treatment algorithm are needed.

Comparison of Endoscopic Ultrasonography Guided Biliary Drainage and Percutaneous Transhepatic Biliary Drainage in the Management of Malignant Obstructive Jaundice After Failed ERCP

AIMS

The aim of this study is to compare the efficacy and safety of endoscopic ultrasonography guided biliary drainage and percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage in the management of malignant obstructive jaundice after failed ERCP.

METHODS

We performed a prospective study on 66 consecutive patients with malignant obstructive jaundice admitted to our hospital between January 2014 and January 2016 [corrected]. Patients were performed endoscopic ultrasonography-guided biliary drainage in 36 cases (group A) and percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage in 30 cases (group B) according to the results of the draw. Data on the following variables were compared between the 2 groups: the technical success rate, the clinical success rate, complications, length of hospital stay, and hospital costs.

RESULTS

There was statistically significant difference in the clinical success rate (88.89% vs. 66.67%; χ=4.84), complications (5.56% vs. 23.33%; χ=4.39), length of hospital stay (11.54±3.73 d vs. 15.68±6.56 d; t=8.17) and hospital costs (23.52±8.44 thousand yuan vs. 32.81±6.06 thousand yuan; t=16.28) (P<0.05) between group A and group B. The technical success rate was higher in groups A than that in group B, although the difference did not reach statistical significance (94.44% vs. 86.67%; χ=1.20; P>0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

In the treatment of malignant obstructive jaundice, endoscopic ultrasonography guided biliary drainage is safer and more effective than percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage when performed by experienced practitioners after failed ERCP. Its more widespread use is recommended.

Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Rendezvous Technique for Failed Biliary Cannulation in Benign and Resectable Malignant Biliary Disorders

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided rendezvous technique (EUS-RV) has emerged as an effective salvage method for unsuccessful biliary cannulation. However, its application for benign and resectable malignant biliary disorders has not been fully evaluated.

AIMS

To assess the efficacy and safety of EUS-RV for benign and resectable malignant biliary disorders.

METHODS

This was a multicenter prospective study from 12 Japanese referral centers. Patients who underwent EUS-RV after failed biliary cannulation for biliary disorder were candidates for this study. Inclusion criteria were unsuccessful biliary cannulation for therapeutic endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography with benign and potentially resectable malignant biliary obstruction. Exclusion criteria included unresectable malignant biliary obstruction, inaccessible papillae due to surgically altered upper gastrointestinal anatomy or duodenal stricture, and previous sphincterotomy and/or biliary stent placement. The primary outcome was the technical success rate of biliary cannulation; procedure time, adverse events, and clinical outcomes were secondary outcomes.

RESULTS

Twenty patients were prospectively enrolled. The overall technical success rate and median procedure time were 85% and 33 min, respectively. Guidewire manipulation using a 4-Fr tapered tip catheter contributed to the success in advancing the guidewire into the duodenum. Adverse events were identified in 15% patients, including 2 with biliary peritonitis and 1 mild pancreatitis. EUS-RV did not affect surgical maneuvers or complications associated with surgery, or postoperative course.

CONCLUSIONS

EUS-RV may be a safe and feasible salvage method for unsuccessful biliary cannulation for benign or resectable malignant biliary disorders. Use of a 4-Fr tapered tip catheter may improve the overall EUS-RV success rate.

Endoscopic Ultrasound-guided Rendezvous Technique after Failed Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography: Which Approach Route Is the Best?

Objective The endoscopic ultrasound-guided rendezvous technique (EUS-RV) is a salvage method for failed selective biliary cannulation. Three puncture routes have been reported, with many comparisons between the intra-hepatic and extra-hepatic biliary ducts. We used the trans-esophagus (TE) and trans-jejunum (TJ) routes. In the present study, the utility of EUS-RV for biliary access was evaluated, focusing on the approach routes. Methods and Patients In 39 patients, 42 puncture routes were evaluated in detail. EUS-RV was performed between January 2010 and December 2014. The patients were prospectively enrolled, and their clinical data were retrospectively collected. Results The patients' median age was 71 (range 29-84) years. The indications for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) were malignant biliary obstruction in 24 patients and benign biliary disease in 15. The technical success rate was 78.6% (33/42) and was similar among approach routes (p=0.377). The overall complication rate was 16.7% (7/42) and was similar among approach routes (p=0.489). However, mediastinal emphysema occurred in 2 TE route EUS-RV patients. No EUS-RV-related deaths occurred. Conclusion EUS-RV proved reliable after failed ERCP. The selection of the appropriate route based on the patient's condition is crucial.

Usefulness of combined percutaneous-endoscopic rendezvous techniques after failed therapeutic endoscopic retrograde cholangiography in the era of endoscopic ultrasound guided rendezvous

The rendezvous approach is a salvage technique after failure of endoscopic retrograde cholangiography (ERC). In certain circumstances, percutaneous-endoscopic rendezvous (PE-RV) is preferred, and endoscopic ultrasound-guided rendezvous (EUS-RV) is difficult to perform. We aimed to evaluate PE-RV outcomes, describe the PE-RV techniques, and identify potential indications for PE-RV over EUS-RV.Retrospective analysis was conducted of a prospectively designed ERC database between January 2005 and December 2016 at a tertiary referral center including cases where PE-RV was used as a salvage procedure after ERC failure.During the study period, PE-RV was performed in 42 cases after failed therapeutic ERC; 15 had a surgically altered enteric anatomy. The technical success rate of PE-RV was 92.9% (39/42), with a therapeutic success rate of 88.1% (37/42). Potential indications for PE-RV over EUS-RV were identified in 23 cases, and either PE-RV or EUS-RV could have effectively been used in 19 cases. Endoscopic bile duct access was successfully achieved with PE-RV in 39 cases with accessible biliary orifice using one of PE-RV cannulation techniques (classic, n = 11; parallel, n = 19; and adjunctive maneuvers, n = 9).PE-RV uses a unique technology and has clinical indications that distinguish it from EUS-RV. Therefore, PE-RV can still be considered a useful salvage technique for the treatment of biliary obstruction after ERC failure.

Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Pancreatic Duct Intervention

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided pancreatic duct intervention (EUS-PDI) is an emerging endoscopic approach allowing access and intervention to the pancreatic duct (PD) for patients with failed endoscopic retrograde pancreatography (ERP) or patients with surgically altered anatomy. As opposed to biliary drainage for which percutaneous drainage is an alternative following failed endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), the treatment options after failed ERP are very limited. Therefore, endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided access to the PD and options for subsequent drainage may play an important role as an alternative to surgical intervention. However, this approach is technically demanding with a high risk of complications, and should only be performed by highly experienced endoscopists. In this review, we describe an overview of the current endoscopic approaches, basic technical tips, and outcomes using these procedures.

Indications for endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS)-guided biliary intervention: Does EUS always come after failed endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography?

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Endoscopic ultrasonography-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD), first reported as an alternative to percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD) after failed endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), is increasingly reported as a primary procedure without failed ERCP. The present study aims to evaluate the outcomes of therapeutic biliary ERCP and to compare the safety and effectiveness of primary EUS-BD with those of ERCP, rescue EUS-BD and PTBD.

METHODS

We retrospectively studied therapeutic biliary ERCP as well as subsequent rescue PTBD and EUS-BD. Additionally, indications, safety and technical success of primary EUS-BD were evaluated.

RESULTS

Between August 2013 and September 2015, a total of 520 therapeutic biliary ERCP with a native papilla were analyzed. We encountered 23 cases with inaccessible papilla and 22 cases with failed cannulation, which were rescued by 21 PTBD, 16 EUS-BD and two repeat ERCP. Additionally, 40 primary EUS-BD were carried out during the same period as a result of 10 recurrent cholangitis cases after transpapillary drainage, five outside failed cannulation, four altered anatomy, two history of ERCP-related adverse events (AE), two technical difficulties in stenting under enteroscopy-assisted ERCP and 17 on study protocol. Technical success and AE rates were 95.6% and 14.5% in ERCP, 90.5% and 33.3% in rescue PTBD, 93.8% and 18.8% in rescue EUS-BD, and 95.0% and 22.5% in primary EUS-BD, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Rescue EUS-BD was used in 3.1% among all ERCP. Given the comparable technical success and AE rates of both primary and rescue EUS-BD, primary EUS-BD without failed ERCP can be a treatment option if it provides advantages over ERCP.

Selective biliary cannulation techniques for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography procedures and prevention of post- endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis

Numerous endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) techniques have been reported to achieve selective biliary cannulation success. For standard biliary cannulation procedures, the wire-guided cannulation technique has been reported to reduce the rate of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) and increase the biliary cannulation success rate, although conflicting reports exist. The pancreatic or double-guidewire technique and several precut techniques have been reported as useful techniques in difficult biliary cannulation cases. Although ERCP is a useful endoscopic procedure, the risk of adverse events, particularly post-ERCP pancreatitis, is inevitable. Previous studies and analyses have revealed the risk factors for PEP. The efficacy of prophylactic pancreatic duct stent placement and the administration of rectal nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for preventing PEP has also been reported. Herein, we reviewed reports in the literature regarding the current status of selective biliary cannulation techniques and PEP prevention.

Endoscopic ultrasonography-guided rendezvous technique

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) requires deep biliary cannulation. When deep biliary cannulation is failed, the endoscopic ultrasonography rendezvous technique (EUS-RV) is a useful salvage method. From the previous 15 articles that included 382 EUS-RV cases, the overall success rate of EUS-RV is 81 % with a complication rate of 10 %. In EUS-RV, the bile duct is punctured under EUS guidance and a guidewire is advanced into the duodenum via the papilla. The EUS scope is then switched to a duodenoscope and inserted into the bile duct over the guidewire exiting the papilla, or the guidewire is grasped with forceps and passed through the working channel; the catheter can then be inserted through the papilla over the wire. There are three puncture routes for EUS-RV: transgastric puncture of the intrahepatic bile duct (IHBD), transduodenal puncture of the extrahepatic bile duct (EHBD) via the proximal duodenum (D1), and transduodenal puncture of the EHBD via the second portion of the duodenum (D2). The puncture route for each patient should be selected based on the patient condition. GW selection for EUS-RV is critical, a hydrophilic GW is useful for this procedure. Although EUS-RV is now performed relatively routinely in a few high-volume centers, procedure standardization and the development of exclusive devices for EUS-RV are still underway. The development of exclusive devices for EUS-RV and prospective comparative studies with other salvage methods are needed to truly evaluate the procedure's usefulness and safety.

Current situation of endoscopic biliary cannulation and salvage techniques for difficult cases: Current strategies in Japan

In the pancreatobiliary session at Endoscopic Forum Japan (EFJ) 2015, current trends of routine biliary cannulation techniques and salvage techniques for difficult biliary cannulation cases were discussed. Endoscopists from nine Japanese high-volume centers along with two overseas centers participated in the questionnaires and discussion. It was concluded that, currently, in Western countries, the wire-guided cannulation (WGC) technique is favored during initial cannulation attempts. However, the conventional technique using an endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography catheter with contrast medium injection is still used as first choice at most Japanese high-volume centers. The WGC technique is used as the second choice at some institutions only. After failed biliary cannulation attempts, the initial salvage option preferred in most centers includes pancreatic guidewire placement, followed by precut techniques as the second salvage choice. Among several precut techniques, the free-hand needle knife sphincterotomy with cutting upwards from the pancreatic duct is most popular. Endoscopic ultrasonography-guided rendezvous technique is also carried out as a final salvage option at select institutions.

Endoscopic palliation of malignant biliary strictures

Malignant biliary strictures often present late after the window for curative resection has elapsed. In such patients, the goal of therapy is typically focused on palliation. While historically, palliative measures were performed surgically, the advent of endoscopic intervention offers minimally invasive options to provide relief of symptoms, improve quality of life, and in some cases, increase survival of these patients. Some of these therapies, such as endoscopic biliary decompression, have become mainstays of treatment for decades, whereas newer modalities, including radiofrequency ablation, and photodynamic therapy offer additional options for patients with incurable biliary malignancies.

Endoscopic ultrasound and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: Can they be successfully combined?

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) have much in common, including their main indications (biliopancreatic disorders), powerful therapeutic capacities and a steep learning curve. Over the years they have evolved from novel diagnostic procedures to interventional therapeutic techniques, but along different paths (different scopes or devices and endoscopists specializing exclusively in one or the other technique). However, EUS has gradually developed into a therapeutic technique that requires skills in the use of ERCP devices and stents, leading some ERCP specialists to explore the therapeutic potential of EUS. The corresponding literature, which has grown exponentially, includes recent experiments on combining the two techniques, which have gradually come to be used in routine care in a number of centers, with positive technical, clinical and financial outcomes. We review EUS and ERCP as individual or combined procedures for managing biliopancreatic disorders.

EUS-guided rendezvous for difficult biliary cannulation using a standardized algorithm: a multicenter prospective pilot study (with videos)

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Biliary cannulation is necessary in therapeutic ERCP for biliary disorders. EUS-guided rendezvous (EUS-RV) can salvage failed cannulation. Our aim was to determine the safety and efficacy of EUS-RV by using a standardized algorithm with regard to the endoscope position in a prospective study.

METHODS

EUS-RV was attempted after failed cannulation in 20 patients. In a standardized approach, extrahepatic bile duct (EHBD) cannulation was preferentially attempted from the second portion of the duodenum (D2) followed by additional approaches to the EHBD from the duodenal bulb (D1) or to the intrahepatic bile duct from the stomach, if necessary. A guidewire was placed in an antegrade fashion into the duodenum. After the guidewire was placed, the endoscope was exchanged for a duodenoscope to complete the cannulation.

RESULTS

The bile duct was accessed from the D2 in 10 patients, but from the D1 in 5 patients and the stomach in 4 patients because of no dilation or tumor invasion at the distal EHBD. In the remaining patient, biliary puncture was not attempted due to the presence of collateral vessels. The guidewire was successfully manipulated in 80% of patients: 100% (10/10) with the D2 approach and 66.7% (6/9) with other approaches. The overall success rate was 80% (16/20). Failed EUS-RV was salvaged with a percutaneous approach in 2 patients, repeat ERCP in 1 patient, and conservative management in 1 patient. Minor adverse events occurred in 15% of patients (3/20).

CONCLUSIONS

EUS-RV is a safe and effective salvage method. Using EUS-RV to approach the EHBD from the D2 may improve success rates.

Endoscopic ultrasonography-guided biliary drainage: Who, when, which, and how?

Both endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS)-guided choledochoduodenostomy (EUS-CDS) and EUS-guided hepaticogastrostomy (EUS-HGS) are relatively well established as alternatives to percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD). Both EUS-CDS and EUS-HGS have high technical and clinical success rates (more than 90%) in high-volume centers. Complications for both procedures remain high at 10%-30%. Procedures performed by endoscopists who have done fewer than 20 cases sometimes result in severe or fatal complications. When learning EUS-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD), we recommend a mentor’s supervision during at least the first 20 cases. For inoperable malignant lower biliary obstruction, a skillful endoscopist should perform EUS-BD before EUS-guided rendezvous technique (EUS-RV) and PTBD. We should be select EUS-BD for patients having altered anatomy from malignant tumors before balloon-enteroscope-assisted endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, EUS-RV, and PTBD. If both EUS-CDS and EUS-HGS are available, we should select EUS-CDS, according to published data. EUS-BD will potentially become a first-line biliary drainage procedure in the near future.

Hepatic applications of endoscopic ultrasound: Current status and future directions

The diagnosis and staging of various gastrointestinal malignancies have been made possible with the use of endoscopic ultrasound, which is a relatively safe procedure. The field of endoscopic ultrasound is fast expanding due to advancements in therapeutic endoscopic ultrasound. Though various studies have established its role in gastrointestinal malignancies and pancreatic conditions, its potential in the field of hepatic lesions still remains vastly untapped. In this paper the authors attempt to review important and landmark trials, case series and case studies involving hepatic applications of endoscopic ultrasound, thus not only providing an overview of utilization of endoscopic ultrasound in various liver conditions but also speculating its future role.

Recent advances in endoscopic ultrasonography-guided biliary interventions

Interventional endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) based on EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration has rapidly spread as a minimally invasive procedure. Especially in patients with failed endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, EUS-guided biliary intervention is reported to be useful as salvage therapy. EUS-guided biliary interventions are carried out using three techniques: EUS-guided bilioenteric anastomosis, EUS-guided rendezvous procedure, and EUS-guided antegrade treatment. Although interventional EUS is not yet a standardized procedure, there have been recent advances in this field that address various biliary diseases. Here, we summarize the indications, techniques, clinical results of previous studies, and future perspectives.

Endoscopic ultrasound guided interventional procedures

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) has emerged as an important diagnostic and therapeutic modality in the field of gastrointestinal endoscopy. EUS provides access to many organs and lesions which are in proximity to the gastrointestinal tract and thus giving an opportunity to target them for therapeutic and diagnostic purposes. This modality also provides a real time opportunity to target the required area while avoiding adjacent vascular and other structures. Therapeutic EUS has found role in management of pancreatic fluid collections, biliary and pancreatic duct drainage in cases of failed endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, drainage of gallbladder, celiac plexus neurolysis/blockage, drainage of mediastinal and intra-abdominal abscesses and collections and in targeted cancer chemotherapy and radiotherapy. Infact, therapeutic EUS has emerged as the therapy of choice for management of pancreatic pseudocysts and recent innovations like fully covered removable metallic stents have improved results in patients with organised necrosis. Similarly, EUS guided drainage of biliary tract and pancreatic duct helps drainage of these systems in patients with failed cannulation, inaccessible papilla as with duodenal/gastric obstruction or surgically altered anatomy. EUS guided gall bladder drainage is a useful emergent procedure in patients with acute cholecystitis who are not fit for surgery. EUS guided celiac plexus neurolysis and blockage is more effective and less morbid vis-à-vis the percutaneous technique. The field of interventional EUS is rapidly advancing and many more interventions are being continuously added. This review focuses on the current status of evidence vis-à-vis the established indications of therapeutic EUS.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage: a review

OPINION STATEMENT

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiography (ERCP) has become the standard tool for diagnosis and treatment of patients with biliary obstruction. However, despite the reported success rate of >90 % in expert centers, the common bile duct may still be occasionally inaccessible due to anatomical or technical issues. Over the past decade, endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) has emerged as an effective alternative over percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD) or surgical bypass for biliary drainage after unsuccessful ERCP. EUS-BD includes rendezvous techniques (EUS-RV), EUS-guided choledochoduodenostomy (EUS-CDS), and EUS-guided hepatogastrostomy (EUS-HGS). Published data demonstrated high success rates especially for EUS-CDS and EUS-HGS. Complication rates, however, are also higher in these two techniques. The indications and anatomical requirements for the three techniques differ and should be considered complementary to each other. Most reported studies only included a small number of patients, and larger-scaled randomized trials are required to establish the efficacy among various EUS techniques and to compare to traditional means of radiological or surgical drainage.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided pancreatic duct drainage

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) has evolved from a purely diagnostic procedure to one with therapeutic capabilities. One of the most challenging therapeutic intervention for endosonographers is EUS-guided pancreatic drainage. The development of this technique has allowed access and drainage of the main pancreatic duct after failed endoscopic retrograde pancreatography and can avoid invasive procedures such as surgical and percutaneous interventions. This review discusses the indications, technique, challenges, and an algorithmic approach to EUS-guided pancreatic drainage.

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.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided treatments: are we getting evidence based--a systematic review

The continued need to develop less invasive alternatives to surgical and radiologic interventions has driven the development of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided treatments. These include EUS-guided drainage of pancreatic fluid collections, EUS-guided necrosectomy, EUS-guided cholangiography and biliary drainage, EUS-guided pancreatography and pancreatic duct drainage, EUS-guided gallbladder drainage, EUS-guided drainage of abdominal and pelvic fluid collections, EUS-guided celiac plexus block and celiac plexus neurolysis, EUS-guided pancreatic cyst ablation, EUS-guided vascular interventions, EUS-guided delivery of antitumoral agents and EUS-guided fiducial placement and brachytherapy. However these procedures are technically challenging and require expertise in both EUS and interventional endoscopy, such as endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography and gastrointestinal stenting. We undertook a systematic review to record the entire body of literature accumulated over the past 2 decades on EUS-guided interventions with the objective of performing a critical appraisal of published articles, based on the classification of studies according to levels of evidence, in order to assess the scientific progress made in this field.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage: a review

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiography (ERCP) is widely used as a first-line therapy for biliary drainage. ERCP occasionally fails owing to anatomical or technical problems, despite high reported success rates. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) has recently emerged as an effective alternative biliary drainage method after unsuccessful ERCP. EUS-BD can be essentially divided into 3 different techniques—(1) EUS-guided transluminal biliary drainage including choledocoduodenostomy and hepaticogastrostomy, (2) EUS-rendezvous technique, and (3) EUS-antegrade approach. Here, we focus on the current status of EUS-BD in light of these 3 different techniques.

Interventional endoscopic ultrasonography: an overview of safety and complications

BACKGROUND

In recent years, endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS)-guided techniques have been developed as alternatives to surgical, radiologic, or conventional endoscopic approaches for the treatment or palliation of several digestive diseases. The use of EUS guidance allows the therapeutic area to be targeting more precisely, with a possible clinical benefit and less morbidity. Nevertheless, the risks persist and must be taken into consideration. This review gives an overview of the complications observed with the most established procedures of therapeutic EUS.

METHODS

The PubMed and Embase databases were used to search English language articles on interventional EUS. The studies considered for inclusion were those reporting on complications of EUS-guided celiac plexus block (EUS-CPB), EUS-guided celiac plexus neurolysis (EUS-CPN), drainage of fluid pancreatic and pelvic collections, and EUS-guided biliary and pancreatic drainage (EUS-BD and EUS-PD). Variations in methodology and design in most studies made a thorough statistical analysis difficult. Instead, a frequency analysis of complications and a critical discussion were performed.

RESULTS

Although EUS-guided celiac plexus injection causes mainly mild and transient complications, growing experience shows that EUS-CPN is not as benign a procedure as previously thought. Most of the major complications have been observed in patients with chronic pancreatitis. The findings show that EUS-guided drainage of fluid collections is a safe procedure. Complications occur more often after the drainage of pancreatic abscesses and necrosis. Although the heterogeneity of studies dealing with pancreatobiliary drainage makes the evaluation of risks after these procedures difficult, complications after EUS-BD and EUS-PD are relatively frequent and can be severe. The technical complexity and the lack of specifically designed devices may account for their complication rates.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinicians can consider EUS-guided celiac injection and EUS-guided drainage of fluid collections to be safe alternatives to surgical and radiologic interventions. Well-designed prospective trials are needed to assess the risks of EUS-BD and EUS-PD accurately before they are broadly advocated after a failed endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP).