The intra-conduit release method is useful for avoiding migration of metallic stents during EUS-guided hepaticogastrostomy (with video). J Med Ultrason (2001). 2018;45:399-403. [PMID: 29235065 DOI: 10.1007/s10396-017-0846-x]

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary interventions

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) includes EUS-guided hepaticogastrostomy (EUS-HGS), EUS-guided choledochoduodenostomy (EUS-CDS), EUS-guided gallbladder drainage (EUS-GBD), EUS-guided antegrade stenting (EUS-AG) and EUS-guided rendezvous (EUS-RV). While EUS-HGS, EUS-CDS and EUS-GBD are transluminal drainage procedures, EUS-AG is a traspapillary drainage procedure and EUS-RV is a procedure intended to facilitate endoscopic retrograde cholangio pancreatography (ERCP) in instances of failed cannulation. These procedures were initially developed as options for endoscopic salvage of failed ERCP, but have evolved to become first-line interventions also for select indications over time as the technique and expertise improved. Several randomised controlled trials have demonstrated EUS-BD, especially EUS-CDS has similar or even better outcomes as compared to ERCP in malignant biliary obstruction. However, widespread adoption of these modalities is limited by the availability of expertise, steep learning curve, lack of standardization of techniques and cost. In this review, we aim to provide an overview of various EUS-BD procedures including the indications, accessories, technique, outcomes and follow-up of each of these procedures.

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 biliary drainage in patients with surgically altered anatomy: a systematic review and Meta‑analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography is technically challenging to perform in patients with surgically altered anatomy (SAA). For these patients, endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) is one of the good indications. The aim of our systematic review and meta-analysis was to identify and evaluate evidence of the efficacy and safety of EUS-BD in patients with SAA.

METHODS

A systematic review of the PubMed was conducted through to December 2021 to identify studies performing EUS-BD in patients with SAA. The primary outcome was the pooled technical success proportion in patients with SAA. The pooled clinical success and adverse event proportions in patients with SAA were also analyzed.

RESULTS

The search identified 1195 possible records, with 18 studies meeting our criteria for analysis, reporting data for 409 patients with SAA who underwent EUS-BD. The pooled technical success, clinical success and adverse event proportions in patients with SAA were 97.8% (95% confidence interval [CI], 95.8-99.7%), 94.9% (95% CI, 91.8-98.1%), and 12.8% (95% CI, 7.4-18.1%), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

EUS-BD is effective for patients with SAA. However, adverse events should be considered when performing EUS-BD in these patients.

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.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage: Are we there yet?

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is the mainstay procedure of choice for management of obstructive biliary disease. While ERCP is widely performed with high success rates, the procedure is not feasible in every patient such as cases of non-accessible papilla. In the setting of unsuccessful ERCP, endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) has become a promising alternative to surgical bypass and percutaneous biliary drainage (PTBD). A variety of different forms of EUS-BD have been described, allowing for both intrahepatic and extrahepatic approaches. Recent studies have reported high success rates utilizing EUS-BD for both transpapillary and transluminal drainage, with fewer adverse events when compared to PTBD. Advancements in novel technologies designed specifically for EUS-BD have led to increased success rates as well as improved safety profile for the procedure. The techniques of EUS-BD are yet to be fully standardized and are currently performed by highly trained advanced endoscopists. The aim of our review is to highlight the different EUS-guided interventions for achieving biliary drainage and to both assess the progress that has been made in the field as well as consider what the future may hold.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage for malignant biliary obstruction with surgically altered anatomy: a multicenter prospective registration study

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic treatment for malignant biliary obstruction (MBO) in patients bearing surgically altered anatomy (SAA) is not well-established. Although endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) has emerged as a new treatment option for MBO, limited data are available regarding the efficacy and safety of EUS-BD in patients with SAA. We conducted a multicenter prospective registration study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of EUS-BD in this population.

METHODS

This study involved 10 referral centers in Japan. Patients with SAA who were scheduled to receive EUS-BD for unresectable MBO between May 2016 and September 2018 were prospectively registered. The primary endpoint was technical success and the secondary outcomes were clinical success, procedure time, procedure-related adverse events (AEs), stent patency, and overall survival.

RESULTS

In total, 40 patients were prospectively enrolled. The surgical reconstruction methods were gastrectomy with Roux-en-Y reconstruction (47.5%), gastrectomy with Billroth-II reconstruction (15%), pancreaticoduodenectomy (27.5%), and hepaticojejunostomy with Roux-en-Y reconstruction (10%). EUS-BD was performed for primary biliary drainage in 31 patients and for rescue biliary drainage in nine patients. Transmural stenting alone (60%), antegrade stenting alone (5%), and a combination of the two techniques (35%) were selected for patients treated with EUS-BD. Technical and clinical success rates were 100% (95% confidence interval, 91.2-100.0%) and 95% (95% confidence interval, 83.1-99.4%), respectively. Mean procedure time was 36.5 min. Early AEs were noted in six patients (15%): three self-limited bile leak, one bile peritonitis, and two pneumoperitonea. Late AEs occurred in six patients (15%): one jejunal ulcer and five stent occlusions. Stent patency rate after 3 months of survival was 95.7% (22/23). Median overall survival was 96 days.

CONCLUSION

EUS-BD for MBO in patients with SAA appears to be effective and safe not only as a rescue drainage technique after failed endoscopic retrograde cholangiography but also as a primary drainage technique.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

UMIN000022101.

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.

Relationship Between the Intraperitoneal Stent Length in Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Hepaticogastrostomy and Surgically Altered Upper Gastrointestinal Anatomy in Patients With Malignant Biliary Obstruction

Background

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided hepaticogastrostomy (EUS-HGS) is associated with a relatively high proportion of adverse events, and this is attributable to the lack of standardized protocols and specialized equipment. Although the outcomes of EUS-HGS may differ between patients with and those without surgically altered upper gastrointestinal anatomy, there have been no reports on this topic. The present study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of EUS-HGS using our standardized method and to compare the outcomes between patients with and those without surgically altered upper gastrointestinal anatomy.

Methods

In EUS-HGS, we used a long partially covered metal stent, and we kept the gastric wall pressed with the scope tip until the stent was deployed more than 1 cm inside the working channel of the scope to minimize free space between the liver and gastric wall (the intraperitoneal stent length). A total of 12 patients who underwent EUS-HGS using our method were retrospectively studied. Procedural success and adverse events were evaluated, and the outcomes of EUS-HGS were compared between six patients with and six without surgically altered upper gastrointestinal anatomy.

Results

The procedural success rate was 100%. Additionally, stent migration or dislocation was not noted in any of the patients. The intraperitoneal stent length was significantly greater in patients without surgically altered upper gastrointestinal anatomy than in those with surgically altered upper gastrointestinal anatomy (19.8 mm vs. 11.6 mm; 95% confidence interval, 2.185 - 14.147; P = 0.012).

Conclusions

EUS-HGS using our method was safe. Our findings suggested that special attention should be paid to stent migration or dislocation in patients without surgically altered upper gastrointestinal anatomy.