Therapeutic EUS-assisted endoscopic retrograde pancreatography after failed pancreatic duct cannulation at ERCP

Current status and future perspectives for endoscopic treatment of local complications in chronic pancreatitis

Chronic pancreatitis is a progressive disease characterized by irregular fibrosis, cellular infiltration, and parenchymal loss within the pancreas. Chronic pancreatitis treatment includes lifestyle modifications based on disease etiology, dietary adjustments appropriate for each stage and condition, drug therapy, endoscopic treatments, and surgical treatments. Although surgical treatments of symptomatic chronic pancreatitis provide good pain relief, endoscopic therapies are recommended as the first-line treatment because they are minimally invasive. In recent years, endoscopic therapy has emerged as an alternative treatment method to surgery for managing local complications in patients with chronic pancreatitis. For pancreatic stone removal, a combination of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy and endoscopic extraction is used. For refractory pancreatic duct stones, intracorporeal fragmentation techniques, such as pancreatoscopy-guided electrohydraulic lithotripsy and laser lithotripsy, offer additional options. Interventional endoscopic ultrasound has become the primary treatment modality for pancreatic pseudocysts, except in the absence of disconnected pancreatic duct syndrome. This review focuses on the current status of endoscopic therapies for common local complications of chronic pancreatitis, including updated information in the past few years.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided pancreatic duct drainage: a comprehensive state of the art review

INTRODUCTION

Endoscopic retrograde pancreatography (ERP) has traditionally been the standard modality for pancreatic endotherapy. However, in certain situations, failure of retrograde ductal access may warrant an alternative modality of drainage. This can occur in various settings like difficult and/or surgically altered anatomy or duodenal obstruction. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided pancreatic duct drainage (EUS-PDD) is a relatively newer addition to the armamentarium for endoscopic access to the PD.

AREAS COVERED

This comprehensive state-of-art review aims to give an overview of the indications, technical details, different approaches, and outcomes of EUS-PDD, with the latest evidence available in scientific literature.

EXPERT OPINION

Akin to its biliary drainage counterpart, EUS-PDD enables an EUS-assisted-ERP using rendezvous technique or EUS-guided drainage through transmural stenting. The technique has evolved over the ensuing years with multitude of accessories, approaches, and devices to optimize the outcomes. However, the technical success and adverse events rates need to be further improved. Additionally, it has a steep learning curve with requirements of advanced technical skill and optimum infrastructure back-up. Meticulous patient selection, precise knowledge of ductal anatomy, appropriate approach, and carefully chosen accessories can improve its clinical outcomes.

Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Pancreatic Duct Interventions

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided pancreatic duct drainage is one of the most challenging procedures in therapeutic endoscopy. Technical success is lower than for other therapeutic EUS procedures. However, when successful in a clear clinical indication, this procedure can offer a useful therapeutic alternative and improves the overall clinical success of the endoscopic approach. Current challenges include the standardization of clinical indications and of the techniques used for accessing the pancreatic duct, the strategy for mid-term and long-term management, and definition of the scope of the training that should be offered to a few highly experienced endoscopists.

Multicenter retrospective cohort of EUS-guided anterograde pancreatic duct access

Background and study aims  Pancreatic duct (PD) cannulation may be difficult during conventional endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) due to underlying pathology, anatomical variants or surgically altered anatomy. Pancreatic access in these cases previously necessitated percutaneous or surgical approaches. Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) allows for an alternative and can be combined with ERCP for rendezvous during the same procedure, or for other salvage options. Patients and methods  Patients with attempted EUS access of the PD from tertiary referral centers between 2009 and 2022 were included in the cohort. Demographic data, technical data, procedural outcomes and adverse events were collected. The primary outcome was rendezvous success. Secondary outcomes included rates of successful PD decompression and change in procedural success over time. Results  The PD was accessed in 105 of 111 procedures (95 %), with successful subsequent ERCP in 45 of 95 attempts (47 %). Salvage direct PD stenting was performed in 5 of 14 attempts (36 %). Sixteen patients were scheduled for direct PD stenting (without rendezvous) with 100 % success rate. Thus 66 patients (59 %) had successful decompression. Success rates improved from 41 % in the first third of cases to 76 % in the final third. There were 13 complications (12 %), including post-procedure pancreatitis in seven patients (6 %). Conclusions  EUS-guided anterograde pancreas access is a feasible salvage method if retrograde access fails. The duct can be cannulated, and drainage can be achieved in the majority of cases. Success rates improve over time. Future research may involve investigation into technical, patient and procedural factors contributing to rendezvous success.

Techniques and Outcomes of Endoscopic Ultrasound Guided-Pancreatic Duct Drainage (EUS- PDD)

Endoscopic ultrasound guided-pancreatic duct drainage (EUS- PDD) is one of the most technically challenging procedures for the interventional endoscopist. The most common indications for EUS- PDD are patients with main pancreatic duct obstruction who have failed conventional endoscopic retrograde pancreatography (ERP) drainage or those with surgically altered anatomy. EUS- PDD can be performed via two approaches: the EUS-rendezvous (EUS- RV) or the EUS-transmural drainage (TMD) techniques. The purpose of this review is to provide an updated review of the techniques and equipment available for EUS- PDD and the outcomes of EUS- PDD reported in the literature. Recent developments and future directions surrounding the procedure will also be discussed.

EUS-guided transenteric pancreatic duct drainage

Endoscopic drainage requires transpapillary access to the pancreatic duct during ERCP. When ERCP failed, EUS-guided pancreatico-gastro or bulbostomy and/or rendez-vous technique offers an alternative to surgery. Although data has demonstrated that the procedure can be safe and effective, EUS-guided PD drainage remains one of the most technically challenging therapeutic EUS interventions, as evidenced by the multiple considerations on device selection and the risk of severe complications.

Surgical revision for pancreatojejunostomy stricture: a case series of 14 patients

Background

Pancreatojejunostomy stricture (PJS) is a rare long-term complication of pancreaticojejunal anastomosis. This study aimed to investigate the role of surgery in the management of pancreatojejunostomy strictures.

Methods

The database of the Pancreas Center of Nanjing Medical University was retrospectively screened for patients who underwent a surgical revision for PJS between June 2012 and August 2019, and their clinical characteristics and management modalities were reviewed.

Results

Fourteen consecutive cases were retrieved, the median age at index operation was 41.1 years (19–71). The average time between the two operations was 70.6 months (8–270 months). Index procedures included pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) (7/14, 50%), pylorus-preserving PD (4/14, 28.6%), Berger procedure (2/14, 14.3%), and middle pancreatectomy (1/14, 7.1%). The diameter of the main pancreatic duct was < 4 mm in all 14 cases, and nine underwent pancreaticojejunostomy (PJ) stenting during the index operation. The most frequent complaints were abdominal pain (6/14, 42.9%), recurrent acute pancreatitis (6/14, 42.9%), pancreatic fistula (1/14, 7.1%), and abdominal distention (1/14, 7.1%). The diagnosis of PJ stricture was confirmed by computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging in all cases. All patients had a main duct diameter > 5 mm before surgical revision. All patients underwent wedge excision with interrupted one-layer suturing with absorbable sutures and without stent placement. In this series, only one patient required reoperation. Upon follow-up, 11 of 12 patients had complete resolution of the PJ stricture.

Conclusion

PJS is a long-term complication of pancreatojejunostomy. Surgical revision of the anastomosis is a safe and effective treatment modality.

EUS-guided drainage of the pancreatic duct for the treatment of postoperative stenosis of pancreatico-digestive anastomosis or pancreatic duct stenosis complicating chronic pancreatitis: Experience at a tertiary care center

Background and Objectives

For the treatment of pancreatic duct stenosis due to chronic pancreatitis (CP) or postoperative (PO) stenosis, endoscopic procedures are usually the first choice. In cases of failure of the recommended treatment by ERCP, anastomosis between the Wirsung duct and the stomach or duodenum can be performed under EUS guidance. The objective of this retrospective study was to compare the outcomes of pancreatico-gastric or pancreaticoduodenal anastomosis under EUS for PO stenosis versus CP stenosis.

Subjects and Methods

This was a retrospective, single-center, consecutive case study of patients who underwent EUS-guided Wirsungo-gastric/bulbar anastomosis.

Results

Forty-three patients were included. Twenty-one patients underwent treatment for PO stenosis, and 22 patients underwent treatment for CP stenosis. The technical success rate was 95.3% (41/43), with 100% in cases of PO stenosis and 90.9% in cases of CP stenosis. The clinical success rate was 72.5% (29/40): 75% (15/20) in cases of PO stenosis and 70% (14/20) in cases of CP stenosis. The overall morbidity rate was 34.9% (15/43). The main complication was postprocedural pain, occurring in 20.9% (9/443) of patients. The rate of stent migration or obstruction was 27.9% (12/43). There was no difference in patient outcomes or morbidity according to the etiology of the stenosis. The median follow-up duration in this study was 14 months.

Conclusions

EUS-guided Wirsungo-gastric/duodenal anastomosis is a feasible, minimally invasive, safe, and relatively effective procedure. The rates of technical success, clinical success, and complications were not different between patients with PO and CP stenosis. However, the follow-up period was too short to assess recurrent symptoms in these patients.

EUS guided pancreatic duct decompression in surgically altered anatomy or failed ERCP - A systematic review, meta-analysis and meta-regression

INTRODUCTION

EUS-PD (EUS guided pancreatic duct drainage) is classified into two types: EUS-guided rendezvous techniques and EUS-guided PD stenting. Prior studies showed significant variation in terms of technical success, clinical success and adverse events.

METHODS

Three independent reviewers performed a comprehensive review of all original articles published from inception to June 2020, describing pancreatic duct drainage utilizing EUS. Primary outcomes were technical success, clinical success of EUS-PDD and safety of EUS-PD in terms of adverse events. All meta-analysis and meta-regression tests were 2-tailed. Finally, probability of publication bias was assessed using funnel plots and with Egger's test.

RESULTS

A total of sixteen studies (503 patients) described the use of EUS-PD for pancreatic duct decompression yielded a pooled technical success rate was 81.4% (95% CI 72-88.1, I 2 = 74). Meta-regression revealed that proportion of altered anatomy and method of dilation of tract explain the variance. Overall pooled clinical success rate was 84.6% (95% CI 75.4-90.8, I 2 = 50.18). Meta-regression analysis revealed that the type of pancreatic duct decompression, proportion of altered anatomy and follow up time explained the variance. Overall pooled adverse event rate was 21.3% (95% CI 16.8-26.7, I 2 = 36.6). The most common post procedure adverse event was post procedure pain. Overall pooled adverse event rate of post EUS-PD pancreatitis was 5% (95% CI 3.2-7.8, I 2 = 0).

CONCLUSION

The systematic review, meta-analysis and meta-regression provides answer to the questions of the overall technical success, clinical success and the adverse event rate of EUS-PD by summarizing the available literature.

Safety and efficacy of EUS-guided pancreatic duct drainage in symptomatic main pancreatic duct obstruction: Is there still a place for surgery?

Background and study aims In patients with symptomatic dilation of the main pancreatic duct (MPD) for whom endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is impossible, surgery has long been the only available treatment. EUS-PD is described as a minimally invasive alternative for ductal decompression surgery. We describe the results of our experience with it.

Patients and methods This was a retrospective single-center study over 9 years. Twenty-seven patients, median age 61.8 years (range 36 to 85) who underwent EUS-PD for symptomatic MPD dilatation were included. The main objective was to evaluate the technical success (placement of a plastic stent between the stomach and the MPD). Secondary objectives were to document clinical success based on pain and quality of life (visual analogic scales and treatments) and complication rates, and to define a standardized management algorithm.

Results The technical success rate was 92.5 %. The rate of minor adverse events was 21 % (4 cases of non-specific postoperative pain and two cases of delayed benign edematous pancreatitis). The clinical success rate was 88 %, and half of patients in whom the procedure was successful had "complete regression" of pain and half "partial regression." Median follow-up was 34.2 months (range 4 to 108). During follow-up, 74 % of patients reported improvement in quality of life and no patients required secondary surgery.

Conclusion Provided it is performed in an expert center, EUS-PD is a minimally invasive, effective, and safe alternative to pancreatic surgical drainage in patients with symptomatic MPD dilatation with failure or in whom ERCP is impossible.

Optimal Timing of Endoscopic Intervention After Extracorporeal Shock-Wave Lithotripsy in the Treatment of Chronic Calcified Pancreatitis

OBJECTIVES

The interval between extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy (ESWL) and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) may cause differences in cannulation and stone removal. This study was to investigate the optimal timing of ERCP after ESWL.

METHODS

Patients with chronic calcified pancreatitis, who underwent ESWL and subsequent ERCP in Changhai Hospital from February 2012 to February 2015, were retrospectively analyzed. The interval between ESWL and ERCP was used to divide patients into groups A (<12 hours), B (12-36 hours), and C (>36 hours). Cannulation success, stone clearance, and post-ESWL/ERCP complications were compared.

RESULTS

A total of 507 patients were enrolled. There were no significant differences regarding the successful cannulation and stone removal rates between the 3 groups. In patients without prior ERCP, the successful cannulation rates were 71.4%, 81.9%, and 90.9% (P = 0.004), and the successful clearance rates were 76.2%, 85.1%, and 90.9% (P = 0.031) for these 3 groups, respectively, showing significant differences. There were no differences in the successful cannulation and stone extraction rates for patients with prior ERCP.

CONCLUSIONS

The interval between ESWL and ERCP in chronic calcified pancreatitis patients with prior ERCP is not relevant, while delaying endoscopic intervention is recommended in those with native papilla.

Endoscopic retrograde pancreatography-guided versus endoscopic ultrasound-guided technique for pancreatic duct cannulation in patients with pancreaticojejunostomy stenosis: a systematic literature review

BACKGROUND

Stenosis of the pancreaticojejunostomy is a well-known long-term complication of pancreaticoduodenectomy. Traditionally, the endoscopic approach consisted of endoscopic retrograde pancreatography (ERP). Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided intervention has emerged as an alternative, but the success rate and adverse event rate of both treatment modalities are poorly known. We aimed to compare the outcome data of both interventions.

METHODS

We performed a systematic literature search using the Pubmed/Medline and Embase databases in order to summarize the available data regarding efficacy and complications of ERP- and EUS-guided pancreatic duct (PD) drainage and compare these outcome data using uniform outcome measures in a multilevel logistic model. RESULTS : 13 studies were included, involving 77 patients who underwent ERP-guided drainage, 145 who underwent EUS-guided drainage, and 12 patients who underwent both modalities. An EUS-guided approach was significantly superior to an ERP-guided approach with regard to pancreatic duct opacification (87 % vs. 30 %; P < 0.001), cannulation success (79 % vs. 26 %; P < 0.001), and stent placement (72 % vs. 20 %; P < 0.001). An EUS-guided approach also appeared superior with regard to clinical outcomes such a pain resolution. The adverse event rate between the two treatment modalities could not be compared due to insufficient data. All included studies were found to be of low quality.

CONCLUSION

Based on limited available data, EUS-guided PD intervention appears superior to ERP-guided PD intervention.

Long-term outcomes after endoscopic retrograde pancreatic drainage for symptomatic pancreaticojejunal anastomotic stenosis

There is limited evidence supporting the usefulness of endoscopic retrograde pancreatic drainage (ERPD) for symptomatic pancreaticojejunal anastomotic stenosis (sPJS). We examined the usefulness of ERPD for sPJS. We conducted a retrospective analysis of 10 benign sPJS patients. A forward-viewing endoscope was used in all sessions. Following items were evaluated: technical success, adverse events, and clinical outcome of ERPD. The technical success rate was 100% (10/10) in initial ERPD; 9 patients had a pancreatic stent (no-internal-flap: n = 4, internal-flap: n = 5). The median follow-up was 920 days. Four patients developed recurrence. Among them, 3 had a stent with no-internal-flap in initial ERPD, the stent migrated in 3 at recurrence, and a stent was not placed in 1 patient in initial ERPD. Four follow-up interventions were performed. No recurrence was observed in 6 patients. None of the stents migrated (no-internal-flap: n = 1, internal-flap: n = 5) and no stents were replaced due to stent failure. Stenting with no-internal-flap was associated with recurrence (p = 0.042). Mild adverse events developed in 14.3% (2/14). In conclusions, ERPD was performed safely with high technical success. Recurrence was common after stenting with no-internal-flap. Long-term stenting did not result in stent failure.

Clinical trial register and their clinical registration number: Nos. 58-115 and R2-9.

Efficacy and safety of endoscopic ultrasound-guided pancreatic duct drainage (EUS-PDD): A systematic review and meta-analysis of 714 patients

Background and study aims  Endoscopic ultrasound guided pancreatic duct drainage (EUS-PDD) is a minimal-invasive therapeutic option to surgery and in patients with failed endoscopic retrograde pancreatography (ERP). The aim of this review was to quantitatively appraise the clinical outcomes of EUS-PDD by meta-analysis methods. Methods  We searched multiple databases from inception through March 2020 to identify studies that reported on EUS-PDD. Pooled rates of technical success, successful drainage of pancreatic duct, clinical success, and adverse events were calculated. Study heterogeneity was assessed using I ² % and 95 % prediction interval. Results  A total of 22 studies (714 patients) were included. The pooled rate of technical success in EUS-PDD was 84.8 % (95 % CI 79.1-89.2). The pooled rate of successful PD drained by EUS-PDD was 77.5 % (95 % CI 63.1-87.4). The pooled rate of clinical success of EUS-PDD was 89.2 % (95 % CI 82.1-93.7). The pooled rate of all adverse events was 18.1 % (95 % CI 14.2-22.9). On sub-group analysis, the pooled technical success and clinical success of EUS-PDD from Japanese data were considerably superior (91.2 %, 83-95.6 & 92.5 %, 83.9-96.7, respectively). The pooled rate of post EUS-PDD acute pancreatitis was 6.6 % (95 % CI 4.5-9.4), bleeding was 4.1 % (95 % CI 2.7-6.2), perforation and/or pneumoperitoneum was 3.1 % (95 % CI 1.9-5), pancreatic leak and/or pancreatic fluid collection was 2.3 % (95 % CI 1.4-4), and infection was 2.8 % (95 % CI 1.7-4.6). Conclusion  EUS-PDD demonstrates high technical success and clinical success rates with acceptable adverse events. Technical success was especially high for anastomotic strictures.

International consensus guidelines on interventional endoscopy in chronic pancreatitis. Recommendations from the working group for the international consensus guidelines for chronic pancreatitis in collaboration with the International Association of Pancreatology, the American Pancreatic Association, the Japan Pancreas Society, and European Pancreatic Club

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES

This paper is part of the international consensus guidelines on chronic pancreatitis, presenting for interventional endoscopy.

METHODS

An international working group with experts on interventional endoscopy evaluated 26 statements generated from evidence on 9 clinically relevant questions. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach was used to evaluate the level of evidence. To determine the level of agreement, a nine-point Likert scale was used for voting on the statements.

RESULTS

Strong consensus was obtained for 15 statements relating to nine questions including the recommendation that endoscopic intervention should be offered to patients with persistent severe pain but not to those without pain. Endoscopic decompression of the pancreatic duct could be used for immediate pain relief, and then offered surgery if this fails or needs repeated endoscopy. Endoscopic drainage is preferred for portal-splenic vein thrombosis and pancreatic fistula. A plastic stent should be placed and replaced 2-3 months later after insertion. Endoscopic extraction is indicated for stone fragments remaining after ESWL. Interventional treatment should be performed for symptomatic/complicated pancreatic pseudocysts. Endoscopic treatment is recommended for bile duct obstruction and afterwards surgery if this fails or needs repeated endoscopy. Surgery may be offered if there is significant calcification and/or mass of the pancreatic head. Percutaneous endovascular treatment is preferred for hemosuccus pancreaticus. Surgical treatment is recommended for duodenal stenosis due to chronic pancreatitis.

CONCLUSIONS

This international expert consensus guideline provides evidenced-based statements concerning indications and key aspects for interventional endoscopy in the management of patients with chronic pancreatitis.

EUS-guided pancreatic drainage: A steep learning curve

Background and Objective:

EUS-guided pancreatic drainage (EUS-PD) is an efficacious, acceptable risk option for patients with pancreatic duct obstruction who fail conventional ERCP. The aim of this study was to define the learning curve (LC) for EUS-PD.

Methods:

Consecutive patients undergoing EUS-PD by a single operator were included from a dedicated registry. Demographics, procedural info, adverse events, and follow-up data were collected. Nonlinear regression and cumulative sum (CUSUM) analyses were conducted for the LC.

Results:

Fifty-six patients were included (54% of male, with a mean age of 58 years). Technical success was achieved in 47 patients (84%). Stent placement was antegrade in 36 patients (77%) and retrograde in 11 (23%). Clinical success was achieved in 46/47 (98%) patients who achieved technical success. Adverse events were seen in 13 patients (6 of whom did not achieve technical success) and included bleeding requiring embolization (n = 5), bleeding treated with clips peri-procedurally (n = 1), pancreatitis (n = 5), and a pancreatic fluid collection drained via EUS-drainage (n = 2). The median procedural time was 80 min (range 49–159 min). The CUSUM chart showed that 80-min procedural time was achieved at the 27^th procedure. Durations further reduced 40^th procedure onward, reaching a plateau indicating proficiency (nonlinear regression P < 0.0001).

Conclusion:

Endoscopists experienced in EUS-PD are expected to achieve a reduction in procedural time over successive cases, with efficiency reached at 80 min and a learning rate of 27 cases. Continued improvement is demonstrated with additional experience, with plateau indicating mastery suggested at the 40^th case. EUS-PD is probably one of the hardest therapeutic endosonographic procedures to learn.

Six-year retrospective analysis of endoscopic ultrasonography-guided pancreatic ductal interventions at a tertiary referral center

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Endoscopic ultrasonography-guided pancreatic ductal intervention (EUS-PDI) serves as a rescue therapy in patients with failure of retrograde access to the pancreatic duct (PD) at the time of endoscopic retrograde pancreatography (ERP). We review our experience of this procedure.

METHODS

This is a retrospective study of patients who underwent EUS-PDI for an unsuccessful ERP and altered anatomy.

RESULTS

A total of 44 (65.9% male) patients underwent EUS-PDI with a mean age of 43.5 years, (range: 23-67). Transgastric rendezvous technique was carried out in 23/44 (52.3%), transgastric pancreaticogastrostomy in 18/44 (40.9%) and transduodenal pancreaticobulbostomy in 3/44 (6.8%). Overall technical and clinical success was seen in 88.6% (39/44) and 81.8% (36/44), respectively. Technical success of transgastric rendezvous was 95.6% and that of transgastric pancreaticogastrostomy was 77.8%. Two of seven patients with failure to access the PD had successfully undergone EUS-PD stenting at subsequent attempt. Ten immediate adverse events (AE) were noted which included abdominal pain (n = 4), pancreatitis (n = 2), fever (n = 2), minor bleeding (n = 1), and stripping of wire (n = 1). Delayed AE included stent blockage in 12/39 (30.8%) and spontaneous stent migration in 5/39 (12.8%) which were managed with stent exchange at follow up. The rendezvous technique was associated with fewer AE than transgastric pancreaticogastrostomy.

CONCLUSIONS

Endoscopic ultrasonography-PDI is an effective treatment modality and salvage therapy in patients with unsuccessful ERP. Technical and clinical success seen with this study is comparable to studies conducted across the world. EUS-PDI needs to show cost-effectiveness in future studies.

The Dilemma of the Dilated Main Pancreatic Duct in the Distal Pancreatic Remnant After Proximal Pancreatectomy for IPMN

OBJECTIVE(S)

A dilated main pancreatic duct in the distal remnant after proximal pancreatectomy for intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms (IPMN) poses a diagnostic dilemma. We sought to determine parameters predictive of remnant main-duct IPMN and malignancy during surveillance.

METHODS

Three hundred seventeen patients underwent proximal pancreatectomy for IPMN (Indiana University, 1991-2016). Main-duct dilation included those ≥ 5 mm or "dilated" on radiographic reports. Statistics compared groups using Student's T/Mann-Whitney U tests for continuous variables or chi-square/Fisher's exact test for categorical variables with P < 0.05 considered significant.

RESULTS

High-grade/invasive IPMN or adenocarcinoma at proximal pancreatectomy predicted malignant outcomes (100.0% malignant outcomes; P < 0.001) in remnant surveillance. Low/moderate-grade lesions revealed benign outcomes at last surveillance regardless of duct diameter. Twenty of 21 patients undergoing distal remnant reoperation had a dilated main duct. Seven had main-duct IPMN on remnant pathology; these patients had greater mean maximum main-duct diameter prior to reoperation (9.5 vs 6.2 mm, P = 0.072), but this did not reach statistical significance. Several features showed high sensitivity/specificity for remnant main-duct IPMN.

CONCLUSIONS

Remnant main-duct dilation after proximal pancreatectomy for IPMN remains a diagnostic dilemma. Several parameters show a promise in accurately diagnosing main-duct IPMN in the remnant.

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

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

Practice Patterns and Use of Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography in the Management of Recurrent Acute Pancreatitis

Background/Aims

There are conflicting opinions regarding the management of recurrent acute pancreatitis (RAP). While some physicians recommend endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in this setting, others consider it to be contraindicated in patients with RAP. The aim of this study was to assess the practice patterns and clinical features influencing the management of RAP in the US.

Methods

An anonymous 35-question survey instrument was developed and refined through multiple iterations, and its use was approved by our Institutional Review Board. The survey was distributed via email to 408 gastroenterologists to assess the practice patterns in the management of RAP in multiple clinical scenarios.

Results

The survey was completed by 65 participants representing 36 of the top academic/tertiary care centers across the country. Approximately 90.8% of the participants indicated that they might offer or recommend ERCP in the management of RAP. Multinomial logistic regression analysis revealed that ductal dilatation and presence of symptoms were the most predictive variables (p<0.001) for offering ERCP.

Conclusions

A preponderance of the respondents would consider ERCP among patients with RAP presenting to tertiary care centers in the US. Ductal dilatation, presence of symptoms, and pancreas divisum significantly increased the likelihood of a recommendation for ERCP.

Low Serum Trypsin Levels Predict Deep Pancreatic Cannulation Failure During Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography in Patients With Symptomatic Obstructive Chronic Pancreatitis

OBJECTIVES

Deep pancreatic cannulation (DPC) failure during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in patients with chronic pancreatitis (CP) can occur in the presence of ductal obstruction due to strictures and/or stones. There are currently no simple preprocedure clinical or laboratory tests that can predict DPC failure during ERCP.

METHODS

All adult patients with definite CP by M-ANNHEIM criteria referred to the pancreatitis clinic between 2010 and 2017 were evaluated. Serum trypsin levels were obtained to assess the morphologic severity of disease and/or exocrine insufficiency. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to identify factors associated with DPC failure.

RESULTS

There were 346 patients, of whom 100 underwent trypsin measurements and ERCP for symptomatic CP. Deep pancreatic cannulation failure occurred in 32 (32%). There were no significant differences with regard to age, sex, etiology, smoking, and alcohol use. Deep pancreatic cannulation failure was more likely to occur in patients with low trypsin levels (53.1% vs 25%, P = 0.007) compared with those with successful DPC. Low trypsin levels were independently associated with DPC failure in adjusted analysis (odds ratio, 3.7; 95% confidence interval, 1.2-11; P = 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

Low serum trypsin levels independently predict DPC failure during ERCP in patients with symptomatic obstructive CP.

Treatment of Difficult Minor Papilla Cannulation in Patients of Pancreatic Divisum: Using Endoscopic Ultrasonography-guided Puncture Combined With Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography: 2 Cases and Literature Review

CONTEXT

Pancreas divisum (PD), the most common congenital anatomic variation of the pancreatic ductal system, is still rare in clinical practice. Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is the first-line treatment for patients with symptomatic PD. However, even by experienced endoscopists, the procedure of ERCP can fail in 3% to 10% of cases. Traditionally, if we fail in cannulation we have no choice but to rely on surgery.

CASE REPORT

The 2 case reports of PD in this study with cannulation were both unsuccessful, fortunately, the use of endoscopic ultrasonography-guided pancreatic duct puncture combined with ERCP was eventually successful in treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Using endoscopic ultrasonography-guided pancreatic duct puncture combined with ERCP is safe and effective for the treatment of the patients of difficult minor papilla cannulation in patients of PD, and can be used as a remedy for minor papilla cannulation failure.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided pancreatic duct drainage

Endoscopic transpapillary or transanastomotic pancreatic duct drainage (PD) is the mainstay of drainage in symptomatic pancreatic duct obstruction or leakage. However, transpapillary or transanastomotic PD can be technically difficult due to the tight stricture or surgically altered anatomy (SAA), and endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided PD (EUS-PD) is now increasingly used as an alternative technique. There are two approaches in EUS-PD: EUS-guided rendezvous (EUS-RV) and EUS-guided transmural drainage (EUS-TMD). In cases with normal anatomy, EUS-RV should be the first approach, whereas EUS-TMD can be selected in cases with SAA or duodenal obstruction. In our literature review, technical success and adverse event rates were 78.7% and 21.8%, respectively. The technical success rate of EUS-RV appeared lower than EUS-TMD due to the difficulty in guidewire passage. In future, development of dedicated devices and standardization of EUS-PD procedure are necessary.

Late Pancreatic Anastomosis Stricture Following Pancreaticoduodenectomy: a Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

With an increasing postoperative survival and prolonged follow-up, late complications following pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) have yet to be thoroughly described and analyzed. Among those, pancreatic anastomosis stricture may lead to severe consequences.

METHODS

A systematic review focusing on pancreaticojejunostomy anastomosis (PJA) stricture.

RESULTS

PJA stricture incidence reached 1.4-11.4% with a median time interval of 34 months after PD. No risk factor was identified. PJA stricture repercussions were inconsistent but postprandial abdominal pain and recurrent acute pancreatitis were the most common symptoms, followed by impaired pancreatic function. To confirm diagnosis, secretin-enhanced magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (SMRCP) sensitivity reached 56-100%. As impaired pancreatic function is not improved by any procedure, only PJA stricture leading to abdominal pain or acute pancreatitis should be considered for treatment. Endoscopic techniques (mainly ultrasound-assisted "rendezvous") should be proposed prior to surgical repair, with a morbidity, an overall technical and clinical success reaching 16.5-33% and 28.6-100% and 33-100%, respectively. Regarding surgical repair, overall morbidity varied between 14.3 and 33%, with a clinical success reaching 26.1-100%. Finally, total pancreatectomy with islet auto-transplantation should be considered only for pain intractable to medical management and recurrent acute pancreatitis which has failed medical, endoscopic, and traditional surgical management strategies.

CONCLUSION

PJA stricture following PD is a late, unusual, and potentially serious complication. When there is currently no clear consensus, PJA stricture leading to abdominal pain or acute pancreatitis should be considered treatment. With increasing survival after PD, further studies should focus on late complications.

CORE TIP

Stricture of pancraticojejunostomy is a late and potentially serious complication after pancreaticoduodenectomy. Incidence reaches 1.4-11.4% and no risk factor is identified. Symptoms are inconsistent but postprandial abdominal pain, recurrent acute pancreatitis, and impaired pancreatic function are the most frequent. To confirm diagnosis, secretin-enhanced magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography is the best modality. Only PJA stricture leading to abdominal pain or acute pancreatitis should be considered for treatment. Endoscopic techniques (mainly ultrasound-assisted "rendezvous") should be proposed prior to surgical repair. Finally, total pancreatectomy with islet auto-transplantation should be considered only for pain intractable to medical management and recurrent acute pancreatitis which has failed medical, endoscopic, and traditional surgical management strategies.

Updates in Therapeutic Endoscopic Ultrasonography

The last decade has seen a dramatic rise in the possibilities of therapeutic endoscopic ultrasound (EUS). From EUS fine needle aspiration of cancerous lesion to pseudocyst drainage, it has now not only replaced some of the percutaneous techniques but has permitted to bypass all together laparoscopic approach for patient with altered anatomy or malignant gastric outlet obstruction. This review will emphasize the novel therapeutic EUS procedures added to our arsenal.

Management of delayed stenosis of pancreatico-enteric anastomosis following pancreatoduodenectomy

Stenosis of the pancreatico-enteric anastomosis following pancreatoduodenectomy (PD), a late post-operative complication that is seen mainly after PD for diseases with good prognosis, has been reported in less than 3% of cases in the literature. Most often asymptomatic, pancreatic-enteric anastomotic stenosis can lead to pancreatitis, pain or pancreatic insufficiency. Symptomatic stenosis is difficult to treat and its management is not standardized. Magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography is the best investigation to confirm the diagnosis of stenosis. The Endoscopic UltraSonography (EUS) « rendezvous » technique, associating an endoscopic approach and EUS-guided puncture of the main pancreatic duct, has been available since 2010. Of note, however, the failure rate of the EUS series is as high as 25%, leading to repeat procedures. Surgical reconstruction of the anastomosis has been reported with good results in terms of morbidity. Surgical re-do of the pancreatico-enteric anastomosis for stenosis following PD carries a low risk of pancreatic fistula (around 5%) and an overall morbidity rate of around 20%.

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

AIMS

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Endoscopic Ultrasonography-Guided Techniques for Accessing and Draining the Biliary System and the Pancreatic Duct

When endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) fails to decompress the biliary system or the pancreatic duct, endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS)-guided biliary or pancreatic access and drainage can be used. Data show a high success rate and acceptable adverse event rate for EUS-guided biliary drainage. The outcomes of EUS-guided biliary drainage seem equivalent to percutaneous drainage and ERCP, whereas only retrospective studies are available for pancreatic duct drainage. In this article, revision of the technical and clinical status and the current evidence of interventional EUS-guided biliary and pancreatic duct access and drainage are presented.

Percutaneous Image-Guided Pancreatic Duct Drainage: Technique, Results and Expected Benefits

PURPOSE

The aim of this study is to provide a technical detail and feasibility of percutaneous image-guided pancreatic duct (PD) drainage and to discuss its subtleties in a series of patients with obstructed PD.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Thirty patients presenting with PD obstruction from pancreatic head tumour or pancreatitis were subjected to percutaneous image-guided PD drainage under a guidance of ultrasound or computed tomography. Following the successful puncture of PD, a locking loop drainage catheter was placed using conventional guidewire techniques under real-time fluoroscopy guidance.

RESULTS

The percutaneous drainage of obstructed PD was completed in 29 (96.7%) patients as an independent therapeutic intent or as a bridge to further percutaneous procedures. Clinical improvement following drainage was documented by the gradual reduction in clinical symptoms, including pain, nausea and fever and improved blood test results, showing the significant decrease of amylase concentration. The amount of pancreatic fluid drained post procedure was between 300 and 900 mL/day. No major procedure-related complications were observed. Subsequently, 14 of 29 patients underwent further procedures, including endoluminal placement of metal stent with or without radiofrequency ablation, balloon assisted percutaneous descending litholapaxy (BAPDL), endoluminal biopsy and balloon dilatation using the same drainage tract.

CONCLUSION

The percutaneous PD drainage appears to be a safe and effective procedure. It should be considered in patients with obstructed PD secondary to malignancy, pancreatitis etc., where endoscopic retrograde cannulation has been failed or impracticable. The procedure can also be contemplated either as an independent treatment option or as an initial step for the subsequent therapeutic endoluminal procedures.

Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Pancreatic Duct Intervention

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

An international multicenter study comparing EUS-guided pancreatic duct drainage with enteroscopy-assisted endoscopic retrograde pancreatography after Whipple surgery

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Endoscopic management of post-Whipple pancreatic adverse events (AEs) with enteroscopy-assisted endoscopic retrograde pancreatography (e-ERP) is associated with high failure rates. EUS-guided pancreatic duct drainage (EUS-PDD) has shown promising results; however, no comparative data have been done for these 2 modalities. The goal of this study is to compare EUS-PDD with e-ERP in terms of technical success (PDD through dilation/stent), clinical success (improvement/resolution of pancreatic-type symptoms), and AE rates in patients with post-Whipple anatomy.

METHODS

This is an international multicenter comparative retrospective study at 7 tertiary centers (2 United States, 2 European, 2 Asian, and 1 South American). All consecutive patients who underwent EUS-PDD or e-ERP between January 2010 and August 2015 were included.

RESULTS

In total, 66 patients (mean age, 57 years; 48% women) and 75 procedures were identified with 40 in EUS-PDD and 35 in e-ERP. Technical success was achieved in 92.5% of procedures in the EUS-PDD group compared with 20% of procedures in the e-ERP group (OR, 49.3; P < .001). Clinical success (per patient) was attained in 87.5% of procedures in the EUS-PDD group compared with 23.1% in the e-ERP group (OR, 23.3; P < .001). AEs occurred more commonly in the EUS-PDD group (35% vs 2.9%, P < .001). However, all AEs were rated as mild or moderate. Procedure time and length of stay were not significantly different between the 2 groups.

CONCLUSIONS

EUS-PDD is superior to e-ERP in post-Whipple anatomy in terms of efficacy with acceptable safety. As such, EUS-PDD should be considered as a potential first-line treatment in post-pancreaticoduodenectomy anatomy when necessary expertise is available.

EUS-guided pancreatic drainage for pancreatic strictures after failed ERCP: a multicenter international collaborative study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Endoscopic retrograde pancreatography (ERP) is considered first-line therapy for management of symptomatic pancreatic duct obstruction. Technical failure with ERP occurs when the main pancreatic duct cannot be cannulated. EUS-guided drainage of the pancreatic duct is a minimally invasive alternative to surgery for failed conventional ERP. We present an international, multicenter study on the safety and efficacy of EUS-guided pancreatic drainage (EUS-PD) for patients who fail conventional endoscopic therapy.

METHODS

Between January 2006 and December 2015, 80 patients underwent EUS-PD at 4 academic centers in 3 countries. Patient demographics, medical history, procedure data, and follow-up clinical data were collected. Technical success was defined as successful pancreatic duct drainage with stent placement. Clinical success was defined as resolution or improvement of symptoms or improvement on postprocedure imaging.

RESULTS

Eighty patients (62.5% men; mean age, 58.2 ± 15.5 years) were included. All patients had attempted ERP and/or extracorporeal lithotripsy if needed before EUS-PD. Technical success was achieved in 89% of patients (n = 71). Clinical success was achieved in 81% of patients overall (65/80) and in 92% of patients who achieved technical success (65/71). Immediate adverse events occurred in 20% of patients (n = 16) and delayed adverse events occurred in 11% of patients (n = 9).

CONCLUSIONS

With appropriate endoscopic expertise, EUS-PD offers a minimally invasive, more effective, and safer alternative to some surgical PD procedures. Prospective studies are needed to evaluate long-term outcomes. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT01522573.).

Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Pancreatobiliary Endoscopy in Surgically Altered Anatomy

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) has become the mainstay of therapy for pancreatobiliary diseases. While ERCP is safe and highly effective in the general population, the procedure remains challenging or impossible in patients with surgically altered anatomy (SAA). Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) allows transmural access to the bile or pancreatic duct (PD) prior to ductal drainage using ERCP-based techniques. Also known as endosonography-guided cholangiopancreatography (ESCP), the procedure provides multiple advantages over overtube-assisted enteroscopy ERCP or percutaneous or surgical approaches. However, the procedure should only be performed by endoscopists experienced in both EUS and ERCP and with the proper tools. In this review, various EUS-guided diagnostic and therapeutic drainage techniques in patients with SAA are examined. Detailed step-by-step procedural descriptions, technical tips, feasibility, and safety data are also discussed.

Endoscopic characteristics and usefulness of endoscopic dilatation of anastomotic stricture following pancreaticojejunostomy: case series and a review of the literature

The incidence of pancreatitis induced by anastomotic stricture following pancreaticodigestive tract anastomosis as a late-onset adverse event has been reported to be 3% or lower, but some cases repeatedly relapse and are difficult to treat. Endoscopic identification and treatment of the anastomotic site are considered to be difficult, and only a small number of cases have been reported. We present three cases with recurrent pancreatitis induced by anastomotic stricture following pancreaticojejunostomy applied after pancreaticoduodenectomy. We successfully identified the anastomotic site and performed endoscopic dilatation of the anastomotic stricture, and pancreatitis has not recurred. We characterized endoscopic features of the anastomotic site, understanding of which is essential to identify the site, and investigated useful techniques to identify the site and perform cannulation for pancreatography. Furthermore, we showed the safety and usefulness of endoscopic dilatation for anastomotic stricture following pancreaticojejunostomy according to our three cases and a review of the literature.

Complications of diagnostic and therapeutic Endoscopic Ultrasound

Endoscopic Ultrasound (EUS) provides the unique opportunity to visualize, interrogate and intervene gastrointestinal (GI) luminal, mural or peri-luminal structures and pathology with negligible adverse effects. Diagnostic, upper GI and rectal EUS is feasible, extremely safe, and efficacious. Most EUS guided interventions are safe, effective and minimally invasive, compared to peers in the percutaneous radiological or surgical procedures. As with any endoscopic procedure, EUS and its guided interventions may be accompanied by adverse events. EUS related complications are generally infrequent in expert hands, and mainly include bleeding and perforation. However, the nature and severity of adverse events associated with each EUS guided procedure are unique. Hence, it is paramount for endosonographer to have sufficient knowledge of the indications, techniques, and potential risks involved before contemplating any given procedure. Most common intervention with EUS is transmural fine needle aspiration (FNA), which is an extremely safe procedure. EUS guided drainage procedures are rapidly evolving with newer devices and methods being employed. Among them, EUS guided drainage of pancreatic fluid collection-pseudocyst or walled off necrosis (WON), has largely replaced other methods (surgical, percutaneous or non-EUS endoscopic) with acceptable complications. Currently, dedicated metal stents are more widely used compared to plastic stents for drainage of PFC, especially WON. EUS has made a definite impact in biliary access and drainage of obstructed biliary system, in patients where ERCP has failed or is technically not possible, closely competing with percutaneous biliary drainage. In spite of some complications, recent improvement in devices for bilio-enteric fistula creation and stent designs, has added to its safety and efficacy. EUS guided pancreatic duct drainage remains the most challenging of EUS guided interventions where in-roads are being made.

A comparison between endoscopic ultrasound-guided rendezvous and percutaneous biliary drainage after failed ERCP for malignant distal biliary obstruction

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS

Selective biliary cannulation is unsuccessful in 5 % to 10 % of patients undergoing endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) for malignant distal biliary obstruction (MDBO). Percutaneous biliary drainage (PBD) has been the gold standard, but endoscopic ultrasound guided rendezvous (EUSr) have been increasingly used for biliary decompression in this patient population. Our aim was to compare the initial success rate, long-term efficacy, and safety of PBD and EUSr in relieving MDBO after failed ERC Patients and methods: A retrospective study involving 50 consecutive patients who had an initial failed ERCP for MDBO. Twenty-five patients undergoing EUSr between 2008 - 2014 were compared to 25 patients who underwent PBD immediately prior to the introduction of EUSr at our center (2002 - 2008). Comparisons were made between the two groups with regard to technical success, duration of hospital stay and adverse event rates after biliary decompression.

RESULTS

The mean age at presentation was 66.5 (± 12.6 years), 28 patients (54.9 %) were female. The etiology of MDBO was pancreaticobiliary malignancy in 44 (88 %) and metastatic disease in 6 (12 %) cases. Biliary drainage was technically successful by EUSr in 19 (76 %) cases and by PBD in 25 (100 %) (P = 0.002). Median length of hospital stay after initial drainage was 1 day in the EUSr group vs 5 days in PBD group (P = 0.02). Repeat biliary intervention was required for 4 patients in the EUSr group and 15 in the PBD group (P = 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Initial technical success with EUSr was significantly lower than with PBD, however when EUSr was successful, patients had a significantly shorter post-procedure hospital stay and required fewer follow-up biliary interventions. Meeting presentations: Annual Digestive Diseases Week 2015.

Percutaneous Pancreatic Stent Placement for Postoperative Pancreaticojejunostomy Stenosis: A Case Report

Stenosis of the pancreatico-enteric anastomosis is one of the major complications of pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD). Endoscopic stent placement, has limited success rate as a nonsurgical treatment due to altered gastrointestinal anatomy. Percutaneous treatment is rarely attempted due to the technical difficulty in accessing the pancreatic duct. We reported a case of pancreaticojejunostomy stenosis after PD, in which a pancreatic stent was successfully placed using a rendezvous technique with a dual percutaneous approach.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided pancreaticobiliary intervention in patients with surgically altered anatomy and inaccessible papillae: A review of current literature

The management of pancreaticobiliary disease in patients with surgically altered anatomy is a growing problem for gastroenterologists today. Over the years, endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) has emerged as an important diagnostic and therapeutic modality in the treatment of pancreaticobiliary disease. Patient anatomy has become increasingly complex due to advances in surgical resection of pancreaticobiliary disease and EUS has emerged as the therapy of choice when endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography failed cannulation or when the papilla is inaccessible such as in gastric obstruction or duodenal obstruction. The current article gives a comprehensive review of the current literature for EUS-guided intervention of the pancreaticobiliary tract in patients with altered surgical anatomy.

EUS-guided methylene blue cholangiopancreatography for benign biliopancreatic diseases after failed ERCP

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

When ERCP fails, EUS-guided interventional techniques may be an alternative. The aim of this study was to evaluate the general outcomes and safety of EUS-guided methylene blue cholangiopancreatography in patients with failed ERCP in benign biliopancreatic diseases.

METHODS

Patients with benign biliopancreatic diseases and failed ERCP were included. EUS-guided cholangiopancreatography plus injection of methylene blue was performed, and then ERCP using coloring agent flow as an indicator of papilla orifice was performed. Procedures were prospectively collected in this observational, single-center study. Technical success, clinical success, and adverse events were analyzed retrospectively.

RESULTS

Eleven patients were included (10 choledocholithiasis, 1 pancreatic stricture). The main reason for failed ERCP was an unidentifiable papilla. EUS-guided ductal access with cholangiopancreatography and papilla orifice identification was obtained in all cases. Technical success and clinical success rates of 91% were achieved, with successful biliopancreatic drainage in 10 patients. Adverse events included 1 peripancreatic abscess attributed to a precut, which was successfully treated. No adverse events were related to the first EUS-guided stage.

CONCLUSION

EUS-guided cholangiopancreatography with methylene blue injection seems to be a feasible and helpful technique for treatment in patients with benign biliopancreatic diseases with previous failed ERCP because of an undetectable papilla.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided interventions in special situations

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) was introduced in 1982 and has since become a popular advanced procedure for diagnosis and therapeutic intervention. Initially, EUS was most commonly used for the diagnosis of pancreatobiliary diseases and tissue acquisition. EUS was first used for guided cholangiography in 1996, followed by EUS-guided biliary drainage in 2001. Advancements in equipment and endoscopic accessories have led to an expansion of EUS-guided procedures, which now include EUS-guided drainage of intra-abdominal abscesses or collections, intra-vascular treatment of refractory variceal and nonvariceal bleeding, transmural pancreatic drainage, common bile duct stone clearance, enteral feeding tube placement and entero-enteric anastomosis. Patients with surgically altered upper gastrointestinal anatomies have greatly benefited from EUS also. This systematic review describes and discusses EUS procedures performed in uncommon diseases and conditions, as well as applications on more vulnerable patients such as young children and pregnant women. In these cases, routine approaches do not always apply, and thus may require the use of innovative and unconventional techniques. Increased knowledge of such special applications will help increase the success rates of these procedures and provide a foundation for additional advances and utilizations of the technique.

Endoscopic ultrasonography-guided drainage for patients with symptomatic obstruction and enlargement of the pancreatic duct

AIM: To evaluate the use of translumenal pancreatography with placement of endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS)-guided drainage of the pancreatic duct.

METHODS: This study enrolled all consecutive patients between June 2002 and April 2014 who underwent EUS-guided pancreatography and subsequent placement of a drain and had symptomatic retention of fluid in the pancreatic duct after one or more previous unsuccessful attempts at endoscopic retrograde cannulation of the pancreatic duct. In all, 94 patients underwent 111 interventions with one of three different approaches: (1) EUS-endoscopic retrograde drainage with a rendezvous technique; (2) EUS-guided drainage of the pancreatic duct; and (3) EUS-guided, internal, antegrade drainage of the pancreatic duct.

RESULTS: The mean duration of the interventions was 21 min (range, 15-69 min). Mean patient age was 54 years (range, 28-87 years); the M:F sex ratio was 60:34. The technical success rate was 100%, achieving puncture of the pancreatic duct including pancreatography in 94/94 patients. In patients requiring drainage, initial placement of a drain was successful in 47/83 patients (56.6%). Of these, 26 patients underwent transgastric/transbulbar positioning of a stent for retrograde drainage; plastic prostheses were used in 11 and metal stents in 12. A ring drain (antegrade internal drainage) was placed in three of these 26 patients because of anastomotic stenosis after a previous surgical intervention. The remaining 21 patients with successful drain placement had transpapillary drains using the rendezvous technique; the majority (n = 19) received plastic prostheses, and only two received metal stents (covered self-expanding metal stents). The median follow-up time in the 21 patients with transpapillary drainage was 28 mo (range, 1-79 mo), while that of the 26 patients with successful transgastric/transduodenal drainage was 9.5 mo (range, 1-82 mo). Clinical success, as indicated by reduced or absence of further pain after the EUS-guided intervention was achieved in 68/83 patients (81.9%), including several who improved without drainage, but with manipulation of the access route.

CONCLUSION: EUS-guided drainage of the pancreatic duct is a safe, feasible alternative to endoscopic retrograde drainage when the papilla cannot be reached endoscopically or catheterized.

Uncommon complications of therapeutic endoscopic ultrasonography: What, why, and how to prevent

There is an increasing role for endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided interventions in the treatment of many conditions. Although it has been shown that these types of interventions are effective and safe, they continue to be considered only as alternative treatments in some situations. This is in part due to the occurrence of complications with these techniques, which can occur even when performed by experienced endosonographers. Although common complications have been described for many procedures, it is also crucial to be aware of uncommon complications. This review describes rare complications that have been reported with several EUS-guided interventions. EUS-guided biliary drainage is accepted as an alternative treatment for malignant biliary obstruction. Most of the uncommon complications related to this procedure involve stent malfunction, such as the migration or malposition of stents. Rare complications of EUS-guided pancreatic pseudocyst drainage can result from air embolism and infection. Finally, a range of uncommon complications has been reported for EUS-guided celiac plexus neurolysis, involving neural and vascular injuries that can be fatal. The goal of this review is to identify possible complications and promote an understanding of how they occur in order to increase general awareness of these adverse events with the hope that they can be avoided in the future.

Endoscopic ultrasound guided interventional procedures

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

Endoscopic ultrasonography guided drainage: summary of consortium meeting, May 21, 2012, San Diego, California

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is the preferred procedure for biliary and pancreatic drainage. While ERCP is successful in about 95% of cases, a small subset of cases are unsuccessful due to altered anatomy, peri-ampullary pathology, or malignant obstruction. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided drainage is a promising technique for biliary, pancreatic and recently gallbladder decompression, which provides multiple advantages over percutaneous or surgical biliary drainage. Multiple retrospective and some prospective studies have shown endoscopic ultrasound-guided drainage to be safe and effective. Based on the currently reported literature, regardless of the approach, the cumulative success rate is 84%-93% with an overall complication rate of 16%-35%. endoscopic ultrasound-guided drainage seems a viable therapeutic modality for failed conventional drainage when performed by highly skilled advanced endoscopists at tertiary centers with expertise in both echo-endoscopy and therapeutic endoscopy.