Endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage in benign biliary pathology with normal foregut anatomy: a multicenter study

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.

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.

Current endoscopic approaches to biliary strictures

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To summarize the current status and future perspectives of the endoscopic management of biliary strictures.

RECENT FINDINGS

In addition to conventional diagnostic modalities, such as cross-sectional imaging and endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS), per-oral cholangioscopy is helpful for indeterminate biliary strictures. It allows direct visualization of the biliary tract and targeted biopsy. For distal malignant biliary obstruction (MBO), a self-expandable metal stent (SEMS) via endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is a standard of care. EUS-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) is an emerging alternative to percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage in cases with failed ERCP. EUS-BD is also an effective salvage option for perihilar MBO, which can not be managed via ERCP or percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage. Preoperative drainage is necessary for most jaundiced patients as neoadjuvant chemotherapy is widely administered for resectable and borderline resectable pancreatic cancer, and a SEMS is preferred in this setting, too. For benign biliary strictures, a covered SEMS can improve stricture resolution and reduce the number of endoscopic sessions as compared to plastic stents.

SUMMARY

ERCP and EUS play a central role in the diagnosis and drainage for both malignant and benign biliary strictures.

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.