Endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage versus percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage: Predictors of successful outcome in patients who fail endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. Surg Endosc. 2016;30:5500-5505. [PMID: 27129552 DOI: 10.1007/s00464-016-4913-y]

Hepaticogastrostomy versus hepaticogastrostomy with antegrade stenting for malignant biliary obstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Combining antegrade stenting (AGS) and hepaticogastrostomy (HGS) is an increasingly used endoscopic ultrasound-guided intervention when stenting by endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography is impossible.

Objectives

We comprehensively assessed the benefits and downsides of combined AGS and HGS (HGS procedure with AGS, HGAS).

Data sources and methods

From 788 HGS and 295 HGAS cases, a random-effects meta-analysis was performed using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses protocol. Five electronic databases were searched for studies on HGS with or without AGS from inception until May 2024. The odds ratio (OR) and pooled rates were used for single and two-arm comparisons with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

Results

From 26 eligible studies. The pooled technical and clinical success was 94% (CI: 92%-96%) and 88% (CI: 84%-91%) for HGS and 89% (CI: 83%-93%) and 94% (CI: 89%-97%) for HGAS, respectively. Pooled OR of HGAS and HGS showed an OR = 0.38 (CI: 0.07-2.00) for technical success and an OR = 1.02 (CI: 0.50-2.06) for clinical success. The pooled adverse event rates were 20% (CI: 16%-25%) for HGS and 14% (CI: 9%-20%) for HGAS, whereas pooled OR showed an OR = 1.09 (CI: 0.30-3.94). For re-intervention, an OR = 0.37 (CI: 0.27-0.52) was found. Time to stent dysfunction increased, HGAS 333 (CI: 280-Not reached) and HGS 209 (CI: 120-325) with no change in overall survival HGS 117 (CI: 94-147) and 140 (CI: 105-170).

Conclusion

The use of HGAS appears to increase clinical success and reduce the need for re-intervention. Overall adverse event rates were similar but bile leakage prevalence was decreased. Time to stent dysfunction seems to increase with no change in overall survival.

Trial registration

Our protocol was prospectively registered with PROSPERO (CRD42024509412).

Quality of Life and Clinical Outcomes of Endosonography-Guided Biliary Drainage in Patients with Malignant Biliary Obstruction: A Single-Center, Prospective Analysis

Introduction: Endosonography-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) serves as a rescue treatment modality for patients with malignant biliary obstruction when endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) fails. Objectives: This study explores the effects of EUS-BD on liver function and quality of life (QoL). Patients and Methods: Patients with malignant biliary obstruction and failed ERCP were enrolled to undergo EUS-BD. QoL, including pruritus severity, was evaluated using EQ-5D-5L and PSS-10 questionnaires before and after EUS-BD. Serum bilirubin and liver function tests were measured on the procedure day, two days, and at least 14 days post-procedure. Results: During a 20-month study period, 1755 ERCPs were performed, with 595 for malignant cases. Of these, 49 underwent EUS-BD following failed ERCP, and 37 (54% women, age range 34-87 years) completed the 14-day follow-up. Pancreatic cancer was the most common (49%) condition, and the median hospital stay was 4 days. Serum bilirubin, alanine aminotransferase, aspartate aminotransferase, alkaline phosphatase, and gamma-glutamyl transferase significantly decreased 2 and 14 days after EUS-BD (all p < 0.001). Pruritus significantly improved, with an average reduction of 5.19 points on the PSS-10 scale two weeks post-procedure (p < 0.001). EUS-BD led to improvements in anxiety and depression according to the EQ-5D-5L (p = 0.013). Conversely, deteriorations were observed in the Mobility, Self-Care, and Usual Activities domains over time (all p < 0.05). Successful EUS-BD enabled the resumption of chemotherapy in 11 (30%) patients. The median post-procedure survival was 112 (range 27-1030) days. Conclusions: EUS-BD improves liver parameters and some aspects of life quality in patients with malignant biliary obstruction, thereby increasing their eligibility for optimal palliative care.

American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guideline on the role of therapeutic EUS in the management of biliary tract disorders: summary and recommendations

This clinical practice guideline from the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy provides an evidence-based approach for the role of therapeutic EUS in the management of biliary tract disorders. This guideline was developed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework and addresses the following: 1: The role of EUS-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) versus percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD) in resolving biliary obstruction in patients after failed ERCP. 2: The role of EUS-guided hepaticogastrostomy versus EUS-guided choledochoduodenostomy in resolving distal malignant biliary obstruction after failed ERCP. 3: The role of EUS-directed transgastric ERCP (EDGE) versus laparoscopic-assisted ERCP and enteroscopy-assisted ERCP (E-ERCP) in resolving biliary obstruction in patients with Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) anatomy. 4: The role of EUS-BD versus E-ERCP and PTBD in resolving biliary obstruction in patients with surgically altered anatomy other than RYGB. 5: The role of EUS-guided gallbladder drainage (EUS-GBD) versus percutaneous gallbladder drainage and endoscopic transpapillary transcystic gallbladder drainage in resolving acute cholecystitis in patients who are not candidates for cholecystectomy.

EUS-guided hepaticojejunostomy in patients with history of total gastrectomy: a multicenter retrospective feasibility study (with video)

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

EUS-guided hepaticogastrostomy (EUS-HGS) is an effective biliary drainage technique for patients with altered anatomy or duodenal strictures. EUS-guided hepaticojejunostomy (EUS-HJS) can be used to create a fistula between the left hepatic duct and the jejunum in patients with a history of total gastrectomy. No specific data on this technique have been published. The aim of this study was to assess the feasibility and safety of EUS-HJS in patients with a history of total gastrectomy.

METHODS

This retrospective multicenter study included all adult patients who underwent EUS-HJS at 3 tertiary French centers and 1 tertiary Swiss center between May 2011 and February 2023. The primary outcome was clinical success, which was defined as the disappearance of pruritus, jaundice, and/or cholangitis. An improvement in bilirubin >30% within the first week and/or bilirubin normalization within 1 month after the procedure were also considered indicators of clinical success. Secondary outcomes were technical success, rate of adverse events, need for endoscopic revision, possibility of resuming anticancer treatment, median survival, and technical differences compared with EUS-HGS.

RESULTS

Twenty-one patients with history of complete gastrectomy who underwent EUS-HJS were included. Technical success was achieved in 100% of patients (95% confidence interval [CI], 85-100). Clinical success was achieved in 80% of patients (95% CI, 58-92). The incidence of recorded adverse events was 33% (95% CI, 17-55), with cholangitis being the most frequent adverse event. Seven patients (39%) were able to benefit from anticancer treatment after the procedure. Median survival time was 6 months (interquartile range, 1.5-12).

CONCLUSIONS

EUS-HJS is an effective and feasible procedure for patients whose anatomy has been altered by total gastrectomy.

Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Biliary Drainage (EUS-BD)

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided biliary drainage (BD) is a minimally invasive procedure that allows for biliary access when conventional endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is unsuccessful. The technique can be divided based on biliary access route: intrahepatic or extrahepatic, as well as on stenting approach: rendezvous approach (EUS-RV), antegrade placement, or transluminal (intra or extra hepatic) placement. There is no clear consensus on which approach is superior. Compared to percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage, EUS-BD offers lower rates of adverse events without the need for an external drain. Compared to conventional ERCP, EUS-BD shows comparable, and in some cases superior, outcomes related to technical success, clinical success, and adverse events.

Simplified single-session EUS-guided transhepatic antegrade stone removal for management of choledocholithiasis in patients with surgically altered anatomy

Background

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided transhepatic antegrade stone removal (TASR) has been reserved for choledocholithiasis after failed endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in recent years. The aim of this study was to evaluate the techniques, feasibility, and safety of simplified single-session EUS-TASR for choledocholithiasis in patients with surgically altered anatomy (SAA).

Methods

A retrospective database of patients with SAA and choledocholithiasis from the Second Hospital of Hebei Medical University (Shijiazhuang, China) between August 2020 and February 2023 was performed. They all underwent single-session EUS-TASR after ERCP failure. Basic characteristics of the patients and details of the procedures were collected. The success rates and adverse events were evaluated and discussed.

Results

During the study period, 13 patients underwent simplified single-session EUS-TASR as a rescue procedure (8 males, median age, 64.0 [IQR, 48.5-69.5] years). SAA consisted of four Whipple procedures, one Billroth II gastrectomy, four gastrectomy with Roux-en-Y anastomoses, and four hepaticojejunostomy with Roux-en-Y anastomoses. The technical success rate was 100% and successful bile duct stone removal was achieved in 12 of the patients (92.3%). Adverse events occurred in two patients (15.4%), while one turned to laparoscopic surgery and the other was managed conservatively.

Conclusions

Simplified single-session EUS-TASR as a rescue procedure after ERCP failure appeared to be effective and safe in the management of choledocholithiasis in patients with SAA. But further evaluation of this technique is still needed, preferably through prospective multicenter trials.

Role of advanced endoscopy in the management of inflammatory digestive diseases (pancreas and biliary tract)

The progress of endoscopic diagnosis and treatment for inflammatory diseases of the biliary tract and pancreas have been remarkable. Endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) and EUS-elastography are used for the diagnosis of early chronic pancreatitis and evaluation of endocrine and exocrine function in chronic pancreatitis. Notably, extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy and electrohydraulic shock wave lithotripsy have improved the endoscopic stone removal rate in patients for whom pancreatic stone removal is difficult. Studies have reported the use of self-expanding metal stents for stent placement for pancreatic duct stenosis and EUS-guided pancreatic drainage for refractory pancreatic duct strictures. Furthermore, EUS-guided drainage using a double-pigtailed plastic stent has been performed for the management of symptomatic pancreatic fluid collection after acute pancreatitis. Recently, lumen-apposing metal stents have led to advances in the treatment of walled-off necrosis after acute pancreatitis. EUS-guided biliary drainage is an alternative to refractory endoscopic biliary drainage and percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage for the treatment of acute cholangitis. The placement of an inside stent followed by switching to uncovered self-expanding metal stents in difficult-to-treat cases has been proposed for acute cholangitis by malignant biliary obstruction. Endoscopic transpapillary gallbladder drainage is an alternative to percutaneous transhepatic gallbladder drainage for severe and some cases of moderate acute cholecystitis. EUS-guided gallbladder drainage has been reported as an alternative to percutaneous transhepatic gallbladder drainage and endoscopic transpapillary gallbladder drainage. However, it is important to understand the advantages and disadvantages of each drainage method and select the optimal drainage method for each case.

Safety of endoscopic ultrasound-guided hepaticogastrostomy in patients with malignant biliary obstruction and ascites

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided hepaticogastrostomy (EUS-HGS) is useful for patients with biliary cannulation failure or inaccessible papillae. However, it can lead to serious complications such as bile peritonitis in patients with ascites; therefore, development of a safe method to perform EUS-HGS is important. Herein, we evaluated the safety of EUS-HGS with continuous ascitic fluid drainage in patients with ascites.

METHODS

Patients with moderate or severe ascites who underwent continuous ascites drainage, which was initiated before EUS-HGS and terminated after the procedure at our institution between April 2015 and December 2022, were included in the study. We evaluated the technical and clinical success rates, EUS-HGS-related complications, and feasibility of re-intervention.

RESULTS

Ten patients underwent continuous ascites drainage, which was initiated before EUS-HGS and terminated after completion of the procedure. Median duration of ascites drainage before and after EUS-HGS was 2 and 4 days, respectively. Technical success with EUS-HGS was achieved in all 10 patients (100%). Clinical success with EUS-HGS was achieved in 9 of the 10 patients (90 %). No endoscopic complications such as bile peritonitis were observed.

CONCLUSION

In patients with ascites, continuous ascites drainage, which is initiated before EUS-HGS and terminated after completion of the procedure, may prevent complications and allow safe performance of EUS-HGS.

Use of endoscopic ultrasound-guided gallbladder drainage as a rescue approach in cases of unsuccessful biliary drainage

This narrative review provides an overview of the utilization of endoscopic ultrasound-guided gallbladder drainage (EUS-GBD) as a salvage approach in cases of unsuccessful conventional management. EUS-GBD is a minimally invasive and effective technique for drainage in patients with acute cholecystitis with high risk of surgery. The procedure has demonstrated impressive technical and clinical success rates with low rates of adverse events, making it a safe and effective option for appropriate candidates. Furthermore, EUS-GBD can also serve as a rescue option for patients who have failed endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography or EUS biliary drainage for relief of jaundice in malignant biliary stricture. However, patient selection is critical for the success of EUS-GBD, and proper patient selection and risk assessment are important to ensure the safety and efficacy of the procedure. As the field continues to evolve and mature, ongoing research will further refine our understanding of the benefits and limitations of EUS-GBD, ultimately leading to improved outcomes for patients.

EUS-guided hepaticogastrostomy versus percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage after failed ERCP: A propensity score-matched analysis

Background and study aims Percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD) is the traditional second-line option after unsuccessful endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). Endoscopic ultrasound-guided hepaticogastrostomy (EUS-HG) is a viable alternative to PTBD. Our study aimed to compare outcomes of EUS-HG and PTBD for benign and malignant biliary diseases following failed ERCP. Patients and methods This single-center study retrospectively analyzed patients undergoing EUS-HG and PTBD for benign and malignant biliary disorders. A propensity score-matched analysis was performed using age, sex, and Charlson Comorbidity Index. The primary outcome was clinical success, which we defined as a decrease in total bilirubin by ≥ 50% at 2 weeks for malignant disease and resolution of the biliary disorder for benign disease. Results In total, 41 patients underwent EUS-HG and 138 patients underwent PTBD. After propensity score matching in a 1:2 ratio, 32 EUS-HG patients were matched with 64 PTBD. Technical success was achieved in 29 of 32 (91%) for EUS-HG and 63 of 64 (98%) for PTBD ( P =0.11). Clinical success was 100% for EUS-HG and 75% for PTBD ( P =0.0021). EUS-HG was associated with a lower adverse event rate (EUS-HG 13% vs. PTBD 58%, P <0.0001), shorter procedure duration (median 60 vs. 115 minutes, P <0.0001), shorter post-procedure length of stay (median 2 vs. 4 days, P <0.0001), and fewer reinterventions (median 1 vs. 3, P <0.0001). Conclusions Our results suggest that EUS-HG is superior to PTBD in the treatment of benign and malignant biliary disorders after failed ERCP.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided choledochoduodenostomy using single-step lumen-apposing metal stents for primary drainage of malignant distal biliary obstruction (SCORPION-p): a prospective pilot study

BACKGROUND

 This study aimed to assess the safety and feasibility of endoscopic ultrasound-guided choledochoduodenostomy (EUS-CDS) using a lumen-apposing metal stent (LAMS) as a primary drainage strategy in patients with distal malignant biliary obstruction (MBO).

METHODS

 A prospective, single-center, pilot study was conducted in patients with pathology-confirmed MBO without gastric outlet obstruction. The primary outcome was technical success. Secondary outcomes included clinical success, adverse events (AEs), and reinterventions. The study was registered in the Netherlands Trial Registry (registry number NL9757).

RESULTS

 22 patients were enrolled (median age 69.5 years [interquartile range 64-75.3]). Technical success was achieved in 20/22 patients (91 %). AEs occurred in one patient, namely perforation following inadequate stent deployment (5 %), which was treated in the same procedure. Clinical success was achieved in 19/22 patients (86 %). Stent dysfunction was observed in 11/20 patients (55 %) after technically successful EUS-CDS: two patients were treated conservatively and nine patients underwent reintervention(s). One patient died within ≤ 30 days due to fulminant disease progression.

CONCLUSIONS

 The results confirmed the safety and feasibility of EUS-CDS using LAMS as a primary drainage strategy. The high incidence of stent dysfunction should be improved before EUS-CDS with LAMS can be seen as a valid alternative to endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography.

The Use of Oblique-viewing Endoscopic Ultrasound for Accessing the Afferent Limb for Endoscopic Ultrasound-guided Biliary Drainage in Patients with Severe Stenotic Hepaticojejunal Anastomosis: One Case and Literature Review

BACKGROUND

The treatment of hepaticojejunal anastomotic strictures in patients with surgically altered anastomosis is challenging. Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided biliary drainage is being established as a feasible biliary drainage procedure. How can oblique-viewing endoscopic ultrasound (OV-EUS) safely reach the treatment area in the afferent limb for EUS-guided hepaticojejunostomy? This is a key, meaningful, and challenging question.

METHODS

A unique case of an OV-EUS-guided hepaticojejunostomy performed in a patient with severe stenotic hepaticojejunal anastomosis was reported, and the relevant literatures were reviewed.

RESULTS

There are only 3 previous case reports of EUS-guided transanastomotic drainage using OV-EUS. The above 3 cases reported did not elaborate on the key treatment details of the procedure. Especially how can the OV-EUS safely reach the treatment area in the afferent limb?

CONCLUSIONS

For patients with severe anastomotic stricture, when the retrograde or antegrade guide wire cannot pass through the stenosis to establish biliary drainage, OV-EUS can safely reach the treatment area in the afferent limb under the guidance of a fluoroscopic view and a guide wire. Thus, an OV-EUS-guided hepaticojejunostomy can be achieved.

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.

Endoscopic Ultrasound-guided Versus Percutaneous Transhepatic Biliary Drainage After Failed ERCP: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) may fail to achieve biliary drainage in 5% to 10% of cases. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) and percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD) are alternative therapeutic options in such cases. The present meta-analysis aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of EUS-BD and PTBD for biliary decompression after failed ERCP.

METHODS

A comprehensive search of literature from inception to September 2022 was done of 3 databases for studies comparing EUS-BD and PTBD for biliary drainage after failed ERCP. Odds ratios (ORs) with 95% CIs were calculated for all the dichotomous outcomes. Continuous variables were analyzed using mean difference (MD).

RESULTS

A total of 24 studies were included in the final analysis. Technical success was comparable between EUS-BD and PTBD (OR=1.12, 0.67-1.88). EUS-BD was associated with a higher clinical success rate (OR=2.55, 1.63-4.56) and lower odds of adverse events (OR=0.41, 0.29-0.59) compared with PTBD. The incidence of major adverse events (OR=0.66, 0.31-1.42) and procedure-related mortality (OR=0.43, 0.17-1.11) were similar between the groups. EUS-BD was associated with lower odds of reintervention with an OR of 0.20 (0.10-0.38). The duration of hospitalization (MD: -4.89, -7.73 to -2.05) and total treatment cost (MD: -1355.46, -2029.75 to -681.17) were significantly lower with EUS-BD.

CONCLUSIONS

EUS-BD may be preferred over PTBD in patients with biliary obstruction after failed ERCP where appropriate expertise is available. Further trials are required to validate the findings of the study.

Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy of India Consensus Guidelines on Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Biliary Drainage: Part I (Indications, Outcomes, Comparative Evaluations, Training)

Endoscopic management of bile duct obstruction is a key aspect in gastroenterology practice and has evolved since the first description of biliary cannulation by McCune et al in 1968. Over many decades, the techniques and accessories have been refined and currently, the first-line management for extrahepatic biliary obstruction is endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreaticography (ERCP). However, even in expert hands the success rate of ERCP reaches up to 95%. In almost 4 to 16% cases, failure to cannulate the bile duct may necessitate other alternatives such as surgical bypass or more commonly percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD). While surgery is associated with high morbidity and mortality, PTBD has a very high reintervention and complication rate (∼80%) and poor quality of life. Almost parallelly, endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) has come a long way from a mere diagnostic tool to a substantial therapeutic option in various pancreatico-biliary diseases. Biliary drainage using EUS-guidance (EUS-BD) has gained momentum since the first report published by Giovannini et al in 2001. The concept of accessing the bile duct through a different route than the papilla, circumventing the shortcomings of PTBD and sometimes bypassing the actual obstruction have enthused a lot of interest in this novel strategy. The three key methods of EUS-BD entail transluminal, antegrade, and rendezvous approach. Over the past decade, with growing experience, EUS-BD has been found to be equivalent to ERCP or PTBD for malignant obstruction with better success rates.

EUS-BD, albeit, is not devoid of adverse events and can carry fatal adverse events. However, neither the technique of EUS-BD, nor the accessories and stents for EUS-BD have been standardized.

Additionally, different countries and regions have different availability of the accessories making generalizability a difficult task. Thus, technical aspects of this evolving therapy need to be outlined. For these reasons, the Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy India deemed it appropriate to develop technical consensus statements for performing safe and successful EUS-BD.

ACG Clinical Guideline: Diagnosis and Management of Biliary Strictures

A biliary stricture is an abnormal narrowing in the ductal drainage system of the liver that can result in clinically and physiologically relevant obstruction to the flow of bile. The most common and ominous etiology is malignancy, underscoring the importance of a high index of suspicion in the evaluation of this condition. The goals of care in patients with a biliary stricture are confirming or excluding malignancy (diagnosis) and reestablishing flow of bile to the duodenum (drainage); the approach to diagnosis and drainage varies according to anatomic location (extrahepatic vs perihilar). For extrahepatic strictures, endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition is highly accurate and has become the diagnostic mainstay. In contrast, the diagnosis of perihilar strictures remains a challenge. Similarly, the drainage of extrahepatic strictures tends to be more straightforward and safer and less controversial than that of perihilar strictures. Recent evidence has provided some clarity in multiple important areas pertaining to biliary strictures, whereas several remaining controversies require additional research. The goal of this guideline is to provide practicing clinicians with the most evidence-based guidance on the approach to patients with extrahepatic and perihilar strictures, focusing on diagnosis and drainage.

Ultrasound-guided Bedside Percutaneous Transhepatic Biliary Drainage in Critically Ill: A Friend Indeed

How to cite this article: Pachisia AV, Govil D. Ultrasound-guided Bedside Percutaneous Transhepatic Biliary Drainage in Critically Ill: A Friend Indeed. Indian J Crit Care Med 2023;27(1):4-5.

Efficacy and safety of EUS-guided gallbladder drainage for rescue treatment of malignant biliary obstruction: A systematic review and meta-analysis

ERCP is the first line of treatment for malignant biliary obstruction and EUS-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) is usually used for patients who have failed ERCP. EUS-guided gallbladder drainage (EUS-GBD) has been suggested as a rescue treatment for patients who fail EUS-BD and ERCP. In this meta-analysis, we have evaluated the efficacy and safety of EUS-GBD as a rescue treatment of malignant biliary obstruction after failed ERCP and EUS-BD. We reviewed several databases from inception to August 27, 2021, to identify studies that evaluated the efficacy and/or safety of EUS-GBD as a rescue treatment in the management of malignant biliary obstruction after failed ERCP and EUS-BD. Our outcomes of interest were clinical success, adverse events, technical success, stent dysfunction requiring intervention, and difference in mean pre- and postprocedure bilirubin. We calculated pooled rates with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for categorical variables and standardized mean difference (SMD) with 95% CI for continuous variables. We analyzed data using a random-effects model. We included five studies with 104 patients. Pooled rates (95% CI) of clinical success and adverse events were 85% (76%, 91%) and 13% (7%, 21%). Pooled rate (95% CI) for stent dysfunction requiring intervention was 9% (4%, 21%). The postprocedure mean bilirubin was significantly lower compared to preprocedure bilirubin, SMD (95% CI): -1.12 (-1.62--0.61). EUS-GBD is a safe and effective option to achieve biliary drainage after unsuccessful ERCP and EUS-BD in patients with malignant biliary obstruction.

Percutaneous transhepatic or endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage in malignant distal bile duct obstruction using a self-expanding metal stent: Study protocol for a prospective European multicenter trial (PUMa trial)

Background

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) was associated with better clinical success and a lower rate of adverse events (AEs) than fluoroscopy-guided percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD) in recent single center studies with mainly retrospective design and small case numbers (< 50). The aim of this prospective European multicenter study is to compare both drainage procedures using ultrasound-guidance and primary metal stent implantation in patients with malignant distal bile duct obstruction (PUMa Trial).

Methods

The study is designed as a non-randomized, controlled, parallel group, non-inferiority trial. Each of the 16 study centers performs the procedure with the best local expertise (PTBD or EUS-BD). In PTBD, bile duct access is performed by ultrasound guidance. EUS-BD is performed as an endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided hepaticogastrostomy (EUS-HGS), EUS-guided choledochoduodenostomy (EUS-CDS) or EUS-guided antegrade stenting (EUS-AGS). Insertion of a metal stent is intended in both procedures in the first session. Primary end point is technical success. Secondary end points are clinical success, duration pf procedure, AEs graded by severity, length of hospital stay, re-intervention rate and survival within 6 months. The target case number is 212 patients (12 calculated dropouts included).

Discussion

This study might help to clarify whether PTBD is non-inferior to EUS-BD concerning technical success, and whether one of both interventions is superior in terms of efficacy and safety in one or more secondary endpoints. Randomization is not provided as both procedures are rarely used after failed endoscopic biliary drainage and study centers usually prefer one of both procedures that they can perform best.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT03546049 (22.05.2018).

Introduction of endoscopic ultrasound-guided hepaticoenterostomy - experience from a general hospital in Japan

Background and study aims Endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) is a widely used alternative to endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) when ERCP is unsuccessful or there are contraindications such as duodenal stenosis or postsurgical intestinal reconstruction. Therefore, we retrospectively investigated the therapeutic outcomes of EUS-BD in a medium-sized hospital.

Patients and methods We included 31 consecutive patients who underwent EUS-BD at the Kitasato University Medical Center between April 2018 and October 2021. Patient characteristics, technical and clinical success rates, stent patency, adverse events (AEs), and procedure time were analyzed.

Results Of the 31 patients included in this study, one underwent endoscopic ultrasound-guided choledochoduodenostomy (EUS-CDS) and 30 underwent endoscopic ultrasound-guided hepaticoenterostomy (EUS-HES). The technical success rates were 100 % for EUS-CDS and 96.8 % for EUS-HES because EUS-HES was unsuccessful in one patient who then underwent EUS-CDS as an alternative treatment. The clinical success rates were 100 % for EUS-CDS and 96.7% for EUS-HES. The median follow-up period was 84 days (range: 14–483 days). Zero and 5 (16.6 %) patients who underwent EUS-CDS and EUS, respectively had stent dysfunction. The median stent patency (stent dysfunction and death) for EUS-HES was 124 days. AEs were observed in only two patients (6.7 %) who underwent EUS-HES.

Conclusions EUS-BD is now more widely used than before, and advances in the devices used have enabled the procedure to be performed more safely. Our results suggest that this introduction in medium-sized hospitals can be conducted safely.

EUS-guided hepaticogastrostomy in patients with obstructive jaundice after failed or impossible endoscopic retrograde drainage: A multicenter, randomized phase II Study

Background and Objectives

Over the last two decades, EUS-guided hepaticogastrostomy (EUS-HGS) has emerged as a therapeutic alternative for patients with biliary obstruction and failed ERCP. Percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD) as the gold standard is associated with relevant morbidity and need for re-intervention. The aim of our work was to evaluate in a phase II study the safety and efficacy profile of EUS-HGS. A PTBD arm was considered a control group.

Patients and Methods

We conducted a prospective, randomized, noncomparative phase II study in three French tertiary centers involving patients with benign or malignant obstructive jaundice after failure of ERCP. Patients were randomized to either PTBD or EUS-HGS.

Results

Fifty-six patients (mean age 64 years) have been included between 2011 and 2015. Twenty-one underwent PTBD and thirty-five were drained using EUS-HGS. An interim analysis after the inclusion of 41 patients revealed an unexpected high 30-day morbidity rate for PTBD (13 out of 21 patients), justifying to stop randomization and inclusion in this control arm in 2013. The primary objective was reached with 10 out of the 35 EUS-HGS patients (28.6%) having observed complications (90%-level bilateral exact binomial confidence interval [CI] [16.4%-43.6%], left-sided exact binomial test to the objectified 50% unacceptable rate P = 0.0083). Both methods achieved comparable technical success rate (TSR) and clinical success rate (CSR) (TSR: PTBD 100% vs. EUS-HGS 94.3%, P = 0.28; CSR: PTBD 66.7% vs. EUS-HGS 80%, P = 0.35). Long-term follow-up showed EUS-HGS patients being at lower risk for re-intervention (relative risk = 0.47, 95% CI [0.27-0.83]).

Conclusion

In cases of ERCP failure, EUS-HGS is a valuable alternative for biliary drainage with a high TSR and CSR. PTBD is associated with an unacceptable 30-day morbidity rate, whereas EUS-HGS seems to have a decent safety profile, suggesting that it may be the treatment of choice in appropriately selected patients.

Percutaneous transhepatic cholangiography vs endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Percutaneous transhepatic cholangiography is a diagnostic and therapeutic procedure that involves inserting a needle into the biliary tree, followed by the immediate insertion of a catheter. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) is a novel technique that allows BD by echoendoscopy and fluoroscopy using a stent from the biliary tree to the gastrointestinal tract.

AIM

To compare the technical aspects and outcomes of percutaneous transhepatic BD (PTBD) and EUS-BD.

METHODS

Different databases, including PubMed, Embase, clinicaltrials.gov, the Cochrane library, Scopus, and Google Scholar, were searched according to the guidelines for Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses to obtain studies comparing PTBD and EUS-BD.

RESULTS

Among the six studies that fulfilled the inclusion criteria, PTBD patients underwent significantly more reinterventions (4.9 vs 1.3), experienced more postprocedural pain (4.1 vs 1.9), and experienced more late adverse events (53.8% vs 6.6%) than EUS-BD patients. There was a significant reduction in the total bilirubin levels in both the groups (16.4-3.3 μmol/L and 17.2-3.8 μmol/L for EUS-BD and PTBD, respectively; P = 0.002) at the 7-d follow-up. There were no significant differences observed in the complication rates between PTBD and EUS-BD (3.3 vs 3.8). PTBD was associated with a higher adverse event rate than EUS-BD in all the procedures, including reinterventions (80.4% vs 15.7%, respectively) and a higher index procedure (39.2% vs 18.2%, respectively).

CONCLUSION

The findings of this systematic review revealed that EUS-BD is linked with a higher rate of effective BD and a more manageable procedure-related adverse event profile than PTBD. These findings highlight the evidence for successful EUS-BD implementation.

Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Biliary Interventions

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided biliary interventions have evolved to become an integral part of advanced gastrointestinal endoscopy units. EUS-guided biliary drainage is an accepted alternative for patients with failed ERCP or altered surgical anatomy. The potential advantages of EUS-guided interventions include choice of biliary access from stomach or duodenum, choice of stent exit in stomach and duodenum, and possibility of avoiding traversing through the obstruction. A variety of procedures have been described depending on the level of obstruction. Maximum evidence is available for distal malignant obstruction, and more studies are needed for hilar obstruction and benign indications.

The value of endoscopic ultrasonography for differential diagnosis in obstructive jaundice of the distal common bile duct

INTRODUCTION

Obstructive jaundice is a common clinical disease of great significance; however, diagnosing it according to etiology, especially in patients with distal obstructive jaundice is difficult. The development of endoscopic ultrasonography has improved diagnostic methods. Endoscopic ultrasonography not only improves the accuracy of conventional endoscopic ultrasound technology in etiological diagnosis, but also offers several special endoscopic ultrasound technologies for diagnosing distal obstructive jaundice of the common bile duct. What's more, endoscopic ultrasonography can be used to treat distal obstructive jaundice of common bile duct.

AREAS COVERED

This review discusses the diagnostic value and applications of endoscopic ultrasonography for obstructive jaundice of the distal common bile duct.

EXPERT OPINION

This article summarizes the value of endoscopic ultrasonography in the etiological diagnosis, relevant treatment applications of distal obstructive jaundice and the limitations of endoscopic ultrasonography in some etiologies due to the lack of clear comparison with other imaging methods. We also provide new data for the future research direction of endoscopic ultrasonography in distal obstructive jaundice.

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.

Endoscopic stenting for malignant biliary obstruction is technically successful in patients with preexisting duodenal stents

Background and study aims  There are limited data on the success of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in patients with malignant biliary and duodenal obstruction with a preexisting duodenal stent. The aim of this study was to evaluate patient and procedural outcomes of a cohort of patients with preexisting duodenal stents who underwent an attempt at ERCP for malignant biliary obstruction (MBO). Patients and methods  This was a single-center retrospective study on consecutive patients with a preexisting duodenal stent who underwent attempted ERCP for MBO. Technical success was defined as successful cannulation of the common bile duct, with successful dilation and/or deployment of a biliary stent under fluoroscopy. Clinical success was defined as number of patients in the entire group who underwent ERCP successfully with resolution of symptoms. Results  We identified 64 patients (73 % men, 74 % white, median age 62 years) with a preexisting duodenal stent who underwent 85 attempts at ERCP. ERCP was technically successful in 50 of 85 procedures (59 %). Overall ERCP was successful in 41 of 85 patients (48 %). ERCP was more likely to be successful in patients with Type 1 and 3 duodenal strictures than with Type 2 strictures (83 % and 92 % vs. 42 %, P  < 0.01), in patients with a preexisting sphincterotomy (79% vs. 20 %, P  = 0.01) or preexisting biliary stent (66 % vs. 34 %, P  = 0.04). Adverse events included bleeding (n = 3), post-procedure fever (n = 3) and abdominal pain (n = 1). Conclusions  Although biliary stenting via ERCP is often technically challenging in patients with a prior duodenal stent, it is a safe and effective method of biliary drainage. ERCP should be attempted in patients with Type 1 and 3 duodenal strictures, a prior sphincterotomy or an indwelling biliary stent.

Practical Tips for Safe and Successful Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Hepaticogastrostomy: A State-of-the-Art Technical Review

Currently, endoscopic ultrasound-guided hepaticogastrostomy (EUS-HGS) is widely performed worldwide for various benign and malignant biliary diseases in cases of difficult or unsuccessful endoscopic transpapillary cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). Furthermore, its applicability as primary drainage has also been reported. Although recent advances in EUS systems and equipment have made EUS-HGS easier and safer, the risk of serious adverse events such as bile leak and stent migration still exists. Physicians and assistants need not only sufficient skills and experience in ERCP-related procedures and basic EUS-related procedures such as fine needle aspiration and pancreatic fluid collection drainage, but also knowledge and techniques specific to EUS-HGS. This technical review mainly focuses on EUS-HGS with self-expandable metal stents for unresectable malignant biliary obstruction and presents the latest and detailed tips for safe and successful performance of the technique.

EUS-guided transhepatic biliary drainage: a large single-center U.S. experience

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

EUS-guided hepaticogastrostomy has been performed for many years with most published experience from outside the United States. The luminal access point can be from the esophagus, stomach, duodenum, or jejunum; biliary access can be either into the right or left intrahepatic system. Thus, we prefer the term EUS-guided transhepatic biliary drainage (ETBD). We describe what is believed to be the largest single-center U.S. experience of ETBD for management of benign and malignant biliary disease.

METHODS

This was a retrospective study of all ETBD conducted by 1 endoscopist between September 2014 and May 2021.

RESULTS

Two hundred fifteen patients underwent attempted ETBD: 85 for benign disease and 130 for malignant disease. Ninety-two patients (43%) had surgically altered anatomy (SAA). In 94 patients previously endoscopic attempts failed. The approach was transesophageal in 9, transgastric in 188, transduodenal in 5, and transjejunal in 5 patients. In 1 patient a bilateral approach was used. Standard fully covered self-expandable stents of 4- to 10-cm lengths and 8- or 10-mm diameters were used. Technical success was 95.3% and clinical success was 87.25%. Forty patients (18.6%) experienced adverse events (13 mild, 21 moderate, and 6 severe according to the modified American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy lexicon). Mean follow-up was 257.31 ± 308.11 days for all patients (124.53 ± 229.86 days for benign disease and 457.27 ± 466.31 days for malignant disease). Seventy-four patients (34.4%) had died at the time of data collection (66 in the malignant cohort, 8 in the benign cohort). Of those with malignancy surviving >6 months, 17.4% required reintervention.

CONCLUSIONS

ETBD is effective in the management of benign and malignant biliary obstruction for patients with SAA as well as native anatomy, with a modest adverse event rate.

Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Versus Percutaneous Transhepatic Biliary Drainage in Patients With Malignant Biliary Obstruction: Which Is the Optimal Cost-Saving Strategy After Failed ERCP?

Background and Aim

Although endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) after failed primary ERCP in malignant distal biliary obstruction has similar clinical outcomes compared to percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD), little is known about optimal cost-saving strategy after failed ERCP. We performed a cost analysis of EUS-BD and PTBD after failed ERCP in two countries with different health care systems in the East and West.

Methods

From an unpublished database nested in a randomized controlled trial, we compared the cost between EUS-BD and PTBD in Korea. The total cost was defined as the sum of the total biliary drainage costs plus the cost of hospital stay to manage adverse events. We also performed a cost-minimization analysis using a decision-analytic model of a US Medicare population.

Results

In Korea, the median total costs for the biliary intervention ($1,203.36 for EUS-BD vs. $1,517.83 for PTBD; P=.0015) and the median total costs for the entire treatment were significantly higher in PTBD ($4,175.53 for EUS-BD vs. $5,391.87 for PTBD; P=.0496) due to higher re-intervention rate in PTBD. In cost-minimization analysis of US Medicare population, EUS-BD would cost $9,497.03 and PTBD $13,878.44 from a Medicare insurance perspective (average cost-savings in choosing EUS-BD of $4,381.41 in the US). In sensitivity analysis, EUS-BD was favored over PTBD regardless of the expected re-intervention rate in EUS-BD and PTBD.

Conclusions

EUS-BD may have an impact on cost-savings due to better clinical outcomes profile compared to PTBD after failed ERCP, even in different medical insurance programs.

Therapeutic endoscopic ultrasound: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline

1: ESGE recommends the use of endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) over percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD) after failed endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in malignant distal biliary obstruction when local expertise is available.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 2: ESGE suggests EUS-BD with hepaticogastrostomy only for malignant inoperable hilar biliary obstruction with a dilated left hepatic duct when inadequately drained by ERCP and/or PTBD in high volume expert centers.Weak recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 3: ESGE recommends that EUS-guided pancreatic duct (PD) drainage should only be considered in symptomatic patients with an obstructed PD when retrograde endoscopic intervention fails or is not possible.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 4: ESGE recommends rendezvous EUS techniques over transmural PD drainage in patients with favorable anatomy owing to its lower rate of adverse events.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 5: ESGE recommends that, in patients at high surgical risk, EUS-guided gallbladder drainage (GBD) should be favored over percutaneous gallbladder drainage where both techniques are available, owing to the lower rates of adverse events and need for re-interventions in EUS-GBD.Strong recommendation, high quality of evidence. 6: ESGE recommends EUS-guided gastroenterostomy (EUS-GE), in an expert setting, for malignant gastric outlet obstruction, as an alternative to enteral stenting or surgery.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 7: ESGE recommends that EUS-GE may be considered in the management of afferent loop syndrome, especially in the setting of malignancy or in poor surgical candidates. Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 8: ESGE suggests that endoscopic ultrasound-directed transgastric ERCP (EDGE) can be offered, in expert centers, to patients with a Roux-en-Y gastric bypass following multidisciplinary decision-making, with the aim of overcoming the invasiveness of laparoscopy-assisted ERCP and the limitations of enteroscopy-assisted ERCP.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence.

Role of therapeutic endoscopic ultrasound in gastrointestinal malignancy- current evidence and future directions

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) has come a long way from a mere diagnostic tool to an advanced therapeutic modality. With the advent of better technologies and accessories, EUS has found ground in the management of gastrointestinal (GI) malignancies, not only for diagnosis but also for therapeutic purposes. EUS can tackle a host of conditions, including hepato-pancreatico-biliary malignancies. Advances and experience in various EUS-guided biliary drainage techniques have enabled the endosonologist to tackle biliary obstruction when conventional techniques of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and/or percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD) fails. More and more emerging data not only establishes the safety of EUS-BD but also demonstrates superior efficacy over PTBD and sometimes even ERCP. Malignant gastric outlet obstruction can now be safely managed with EUS-guided gastroenterostomy. Starting from pain management in malignant tumors through celiac plexus neurolysis to various tumor ablative therapies, EUS has forged ahead over percutaneous treatment or surgical options in the management of GI malignancies. Additional data is now coming up on the prospects of EUS-guided immunotherapy and biological therapy for tumor management. The future of EUS therapeutics in the field of GI malignancies is bright. With increasing evidence, this modality becoming a key player in management of a host of complex clinical conditions arising out of GI malignancies is in the offing. This review focuses on elucidating the role of therapeutic EUS in the management of GI malignancies, a synopsis of various techniques, data on its safety and efficacy as well as future advancements in this domain.

The aborted Whipple: Why, and what happens next?

BACKGROUND

For patients with periampullary adenocarcinoma (PAC), pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) provides the best survival. Surgery on a subset of patients is aborted during PD. We analyzed these patients.

METHODS

Patients who underwent laparotomy for planned PD for PAC were identified (2006-2019). From operative notes, we identified the subset with intraoperative decision to abort. Patient, treatment, and outcome data were analyzed. The subset with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) was analyzed for survival.

RESULTS

Only 6.7% (n = 55/819) of cases were aborted. Majority 78% (n = 43) had pathologically-confirmed diagnoses at time of surgery, and 18.2% (n = 10) received preoperative chemotherapy. Reasons for aborted PD included: distant metastases (65.5%, n = 36) and local invasion (34.5%, n = 19). Of patients with metastatic disease, 75% (n = 27) had liver metastases. Eighty-nine percent (n = 49) of patients underwent at least one palliative bypass procedure and 81.8% (n = 45) had both gastric and biliary bypass. Patients with computed tomography (CT) scans before surgery more commonly had missed metastatic disease (79.2% CT compared to 54.8% magnetic resonance imaging [MRI], χ²  = 3.54, p = 0.059). In PDAC, 61.4% (n = 27/44) were aborted for metastatic disease and 38.7% (n = 17/44) for local invasion. Median overall survival for all PDAC patients after aborted PD was 334 days.

CONCLUSION

Majority of pancreatoduodenectomies for periampullary adenocarcinoma are done to completion. Liver metastases is the most common reason for aborting. Preoperative MRI may help identify hepatic metastases.

Role of Percutaneous Transhepatic Biliary Drainage as an Adjunct to Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography

Background

There is limited literature on the role of percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD) as an adjunct to endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). This study evaluates the role of PTBD in patients with failed ERCP or post-ERCP cholangitis.

Methods

Retrospective evaluation of clinical and intervention records of patients with biliary obstruction referred for PTBD following failed ERCP or post-ERCP cholangitis was performed. The cause of biliary obstruction, baseline serum bilirubin, white blood cell (WBC) count, serum creatinine, and procalcitonin were recorded. Technical success and clinical success (resolution of cholangitis, reduction in bilirubin levels, WBC count, creatinine, and procalcitonin) were assessed.

Results

Sixty-three patients (35 females, mean age 51.4 years) were included. Indications for ERCP included malignant causes in 47 (74.6%) cases and benign causes in 16 (25.4%) cases. Indications for PTBD were failed ERCP in 21 (33.3%) and post-ERCP cholangitis in 42 (66.7%). PTBD was technically successful in all patients. Clinical success rate was 68.2% in the overall group. Mild hemobilia was noted in five (7.9%) patients. There were no major complications or PTBD related mortality. Cholangitis and acute kidney injury resolved following PTBD in 63.1% and 80% of the patients, respectively. Total serum bilirubin reduced by 47.8% and 69.4% after one week and one month of the PTBD, respectively. The average fall in procalcitonin was 5.17 ng/mL after one week of the PTBD.

Conclusion

PTBD is an important adjunctive drainage procedure in patients with ERCP failure or post-ERCP cholangitis.

Comparison of EUS-guided choledochoduodenostomy and percutaneous drainage for distal biliary obstruction: A multicenter cohort study

Background and Objectives:

Percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD) and EUS-guided choledochoduodenostomy (EUS-CD) are alternate therapies to endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography with stent placement for biliary decompression. The primary outcome of this study is to compare the technical and clinical success of PTBD to EUS-CD in patients with distal biliary obstruction. Secondary outcomes were adverse events (AEs), need for reintervention, and survival.

Methods:

A multicenter retrospective cohort study from three different centers was performed. Cox regression was used to compare time to reintervention and survival and logistic regression to compare technical and clinical success and AE rates. Subgroup analysis was performed in patients with malignant biliary obstruction (MBO).

Results:

A total of 86 patients (58 PTBD and 28 EUS-CD) were included. The two groups were similar with respect to age, gender, and cause of biliary obstruction, with malignancy being the most common etiology (80.2%). EUS-CD utilized lumen-apposing metal stents in 15 patients and self-expandable metal biliary stents in 13 patients. Technical success was similar been EUS-CD (100%) and PTBD (96.6%; P = 0.3). EUS-CD was associated with higher clinical success compared to PTBD (84.6% vs. 62.1%; P = 0.04). There was a trend toward lower rates of AEs with EUS-CD 14.3% versus PTBD 29.3%, odds ratio: 0.40 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.12–1.33, P = 0.14). The need for reintervention was significantly lower among patients who underwent EUS-CD (10.7%) compared to PTBD (77.6%) (hazard ratio: 0.07, 95% CI: 0.02–0.24; P < 0.001). A sensitivity analysis of only patients with MBO demonstrated similar rate of reintervention between the groups in individuals who survived 50 days or less after the biliary decompression. However, reintervention rates were lower for EUS-CD in those with longer survival.

Conclusion:

EUS-CD is a technically and clinically highly successful procedure with a trend toward lower AEs compared to PTBD. EUS-CD minimizes the need for reintervention, which may enhance end-of-life quality in patients with MBO and expected survival longer than 50 days.

Comparing Outcomes Following Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Biliary Drainage Versus Percutaneous Transhepatic Biliary Drainage for Malignant Biliary Obstruction: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background: The aim of this study was to explore the efficacy and safety of endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) and percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTCD) in patients with malignant biliary obstruction and failed endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. Methods: We searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and ClinicalTrials.gov to identify studies reporting outcomes comparing EUS-BD and PTCD. Results: We identified 9 studies involving 469 patients. Technical success was similar for EUS-BD and PTCD (odds ratio [OR], 0.76; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.17-3.30; P = .71). EUS-BD was associated with higher clinical success versus PTCD (OR, 2.11; 95% CI, 1.15-3.87; P = .02) in all studies. However, there was no significant difference between groups in studies using self-expandable metal stents (OR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.06-2.00; P = .24). The reported adverse event rate was significantly lower for EUS-BD compared with PTCD (OR, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.22-0.52; P < .00001). Conclusion: The available literature suggests that EUS-BD is associated with fewer adverse events, greater clinical success, and comparable technical success compared with PTCD. According to the shortcomings of our study, more large, high-quality, randomized controlled trials are needed to compare these techniques and confirm our findings.

Use of endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage as a rescue of re-intervention after the placement of multiple metallic stents for malignant hilar biliary obstruction

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE

Endoscopic transpapillary re-intervention (ETP-RI) after multiple self-expandable metallic stent (SEMS) placement for unresectable malignant hilar biliary obstruction (MHBO) is challenging, but endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) could be an alternative following failed ETP-RI. We investigated appropriate re-intervention (RI) methods in MHBO after multiple SEMS placement and evaluated RI with EUS-BD (EUS-RI) benefits following ETP-RI failure.

METHODS

Patients requiring RI after multiple SEMS placement for MHBO between October 2017 and April 2021 were enrolled. Patients' characteristics, metallic-stent type, stent-placement configuration, overall survival, stent patency, re-intervention results, and re-intervention technical and clinical success rates were reviewed.

RESULTS

Forty-nine patients underwent ETP-RI for MHBO. ETP-RI's technical success rate was 69.4%. Of 15 failed ETP-RI cases, all underwent EUS-RI, achieving technical and clinical success rates of 86.7% and 100%, respectively. Time to recurrent biliary obstruction (TRBO) after RI was significantly different between EUS-RI and ETP-RI (212 vs 84 days; P = .01). On multivariate analysis, EUS-RI was the only factor associated with TRBO (odds ratio: 4.48; 95% confidence interval: 1.01-19.91; P = .04). Acute pancreatitis and bile peritonitis were present in 6.1% of ETP-RI and 13.3% of EUS-RI cases, respectively; both improved conservatively.

CONCLUSIONS

EUS-RI was effective and safe in difficult ETP-RI cases after multiple SEMS placement for MHBO.

EUS-guided biliary drainage with electrocautery-enhanced lumen-apposing metal stent placement should replace PTBD after ERCP failure in patients with distal tumoral biliary obstruction: a large real-life study

AIMS

In cases of malignant distal biliary obstruction, ERCP is the preferred technique for bile duct drainage. In case of failure, the alternative techniques are percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD) and more recently endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage. A new type of stent called the electrocautery-enhanced lumen-apposing metal stent (EC-LAMS) has been developed to enable the performance of biliary-enteric anastomosis under EUS-guidance in a single step, without prior bile duct puncture or the need for a guidewire. The aim of our study was to compare the real-life efficacies of PTBD and EUS-BD with the EC-LAMS for cases of ERCP failure in patients with malignant biliary obstruction.

METHODS

We performed a monocentric retrospective study comparing PTBD and EUS-BD with the use of electrocautery-enhanced lumen-apposing metal stent in the context of a malignant distal biliary obstruction after ERCP failure.

RESULTS

95 patients were included (50 in EUS-BD group and 45 in PTBD group). The main etiology of malignant obstruction was adenocarcinoma of the head of pancreas (85%). There was a significant difference in favor of endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage using electrocautery-enhanced lumen-apposing metal stent for the following criteria: clinical success: 89.3% vs. 45.5%; p < 0.0001; procedure-related adverse event rate: 2.12% vs. 22.7%; p = 0.003; duration of post-drainage hospitalization: 3.5 vs. 8.2 days; p < 0.0001, overall survival (median survival): 118.2 vs. 42 days; p = 0.012, overall cost of the strategy per patient: 5098 vs. 9363 euros; p < 0.001.

CONCLUSION

Our results are in favor of EUS-BD using electrocautery-enhanced lumen-apposing metal stent in case of ERCP failure for a distal tumor biliary obstruction. Operators performing ERCP for distal tumor biliary obstruction must learn this backup procedure because of its superiority over percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage in terms of clinical success, safety, cost, and overall survival.

Indian College of Radiology and Imaging Evidence-Based Guidelines for Percutaneous Image-Guided Biliary Procedures

Percutaneous biliary interventions are among the commonly performed nonvascular radiological interventions. Most common of these interventions is the percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage for malignant biliary obstruction. Other biliary procedures performed include percutaneous cholecystostomy, biliary stenting, drainage for bile leaks, and various procedures like balloon dilatation, stenting, and large-bore catheter drainage for bilioenteric or post-transplant anastomotic strictures. Although these procedures are being performed for ages, no standard guidelines have been formulated. This article attempts at preparing guidelines for performing various percutaneous image-guided biliary procedures along with discussion on the published evidence in this field.

Role of Interventional Radiology in the Management of Acute Cholangitis

Acute cholangitis presents with a wide severity spectrum and can rapidly deteriorate from local infection to multiorgan failure and fatal sepsis. The pathophysiology, diagnosis, and general management principles will be discussed in this review article. The focus of this article will be on the role of biliary drainage performed by interventional radiology to manage acute cholangitis. There are specific scenarios where percutaneous drainage should be preferred over endoscopic drainage. Percutaneous transhepatic and transjejunal biliary drainage are both options available to interventional radiology. Additionally, interventional radiology is now able to manage these patients beyond providing acute biliary drainage including cholangioplasty, stenting, and percutaneous cholangioscopy/biopsy.

Risk Factors for Stent Migration into the Abdominal Cavity after Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Hepaticogastrostomy

Background: Endoscopic ultrasound-guided hepaticogastrostomy (EUS-HGS) is becoming increasingly popular. However, the risk factors for stent migration into the abdominal cavity remain unknown. Methods: Forty-eight patients undergoing EUS-HGS with placement of a long, partially covered self-expandable metallic stent (LPC-SEMS) were studied retrospectively to identify risk factors of stent migration. We determined the technical and functional success rates, and recorded adverse events, including stent migration. Results: EUS-HGS was technically successful in all patients. However, stent migration was evident in five patients (one actual and four imminent, 10%). Stent migration into the abdominal cavity was observed in one patient (2%), and the other four cases required additional procedures to prevent migration (8%). Logistic regression analysis revealed that the risk of stent migration increased as the initial (pre-procedure) distance between the stomach and liver at the puncture site increased (p = 0.012). Conclusions: A longer distance between the stomach and liver at the puncture site increased the risk of stent migration. However, during EUS-HGS, it is difficult to adjust the puncture position. It is important to ensure that the proportion of the stent in the stomach is large; the use of a self-anchoring stent may be optimal.

Conversion of percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage to endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage

INTRODUCTION

Percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD) is a useful alternative treatment for malignant biliary obstruction (MBO) when patients have difficulty with endoscopic transpapillary drainage. We examined the feasibility of conversion of PTBD to endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) in patients with MBO unsuited for endoscopic transpapillary biliary drainage.

METHODS

This retrospective study included patients who underwent conversion of PTBD to EUS-BD between March 2017 and December 2019. Eligible patients had unresectable MBO, required palliative biliary drainage, and were not suited for endoscopic transpapillary drainage. Initial PTBD had been performed for acute cholangitis or obstructive jaundice in all patients. EUS-BD was performed following improvements in cholangitis. Sixteen patients underwent conversion of PTBD to EUS-BD. We evaluated technical success, procedure time, clinical success (defined as subsequent external catheter removal), adverse events (AEs), time to recurrent biliary obstruction (TRBO), and re-intervention rates.

RESULTS

Technical success was achieved in all patients (100%). The median procedure time was 45.0 minutes (interquartile range [IQR] 30.0-50.0 minutes). Clinical success was achieved in all patients (100%). There were mild early AEs in two patients (12.5%) (acute cholangitis: 1, bile peritonitis: 1), which improved with antibiotic administration alone. Recurrent biliary obstruction (RBO) occurred in six patients (37.5%). Kaplan-Meier analysis revealed a 50% TRBO of 95 days (IQR 41-246 days). Endoscopic treatment was possible in all RBO cases, and repeat PTBD was not required.

CONCLUSIONS

Conversion of PTBD to EUS-BD for the management of MBO is both feasible and safe. This approach is expected to be widely practiced at centers with little experience in EUS-BD.

ERCP plus endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage versus percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage for malignant hilar biliary obstruction: a multicenter observational open-label study

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) may not provide complete biliary drainage in patients with Bismuth III/IV malignant hilar biliary obstruction (MHBO). Complete biliary drainage is accomplished by adding percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD). We prospectively compared recurrent biliary obstruction (RBO) rates between combined ERCP and endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) vs. bilateral PTBD.

METHODS

Patients with MHBO undergoing endoscopic procedures (group A) were compared with those undergoing bilateral PTBD (group B). The primary outcome was the 3-month RBO rate.

RESULTS

36 patients were recruited into groups A (n = 19) and B (n = 17). Rates of technical and clinical success, and complications of group A vs. B were 84.2 % (16/19) vs. 100 % (17/17; P = 0.23), 78.9 % (15/19) vs. 76.5 % (13/17; P > 0.99), and 26.3 % (5/19) vs. 35.3 % (6/17; P = 0.56), respectively. Within 3 and 6 months, RBO rates of group A vs. group B were 26.7 % (4/15) vs. 88.2 % (15/17; P  = 0.001) and 22.2 % (2/9) vs. 100 % (9/9; P = 0.002), respectively. At 3 months, median number of biliary reinterventions in group A was significantly lower than in group B (0 [interquartile range] 0-1 vs. 1 [1-2.5]), respectively (P < 0.001). Median time to development of RBO was longer in group A than in group B (92 [56-217] vs. 40 [13.5-57.8] days, respectively; P  =  0.06).

CONCLUSIONS

Combined ERCP and EUS procedures provided significantly lower RBO rates at 3 and 6 months vs. bilateral PTBD, with similar complication rates and no significant mortality difference.