Endoscopic papillary balloon dilation for stone extraction: if, when, and for how long?

The ballooning time in endoscopic papillary balloon dilation for removal of bile duct stones: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

So far, there was no consensus regarding balloon dilation time in endoscopic papillary balloon dilation (EPBD). Thus, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the stone removal and overall complication rates of dilation of short and long duration with EPBD.

METHODS

The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; Cochrane Library), Web of Science, EMBASE Databases, and PubMed were searched from their inception to December 1, 2019 for all articles regarding balloon dilation time in EPBD for removal of bile duct stones. The data were extracted and the methodology quality was assessed. Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan5.3 software.

RESULTS

Four studies involving a total of 1553 patients were included, 918 in the short dilation group and 635 in the long dilation group. The results of meta-analysis showed that there was no significant difference between the 2 different dilation groups in the complete stone removal in randomized controlled trails (RCTs) group (P = .10) and non-RCTs group (P = 0.45), mechanical lithotripsy requirement (RCTs: P = .92; non-RCTs: P = .47), pancreatitis (RCTs: P = .48; non-RCTs: P = .45), bleeding (RCTs: P = .95; non-RCTs: P = .60), infection of biliary (RCTs: P = .58; non-RCTs: P = .29), perforation (RCTs: P = .32; non-RCTs: P = .37).

CONCLUSION

This systematic review suggests that there no significant difference in the efficacy and safety of dilation of short and long duration for removal of bile duct stones with EPBD.

Comparison of the Efficacy and Safety of Three Endoscopic Methods to Manage Large Common Bile Duct Stones: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

Background: The optimal choice of endoscopic method between endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST), endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation (EPLBD), and EST plus EPLBD (endoscopic sphincterotomy and large balloon dilation [ESLBD]) for patients with large common bile duct stones is unclear. Methods: We systematically searched MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and ClinicalTrials.gov from August 1, 1990 to December 1, 2019. Randomized clinical trials comparing at least two of the following methods EST, ESLBD, or EPLBD were included in this study. The primary outcomes were the overall success rate and initial success rate of common bile duct stone removal. Results: We identified 13 trials comprising 1990 patients. Regarding the overall success rate and initial success rate, EPLBD had the highest probability of being the most successful (surface under the cumulative ranking curve [SUCRA] = 82.8% and 52.9%, respectively) and the lowest probability of bleeding (53.8%). ESLBD had the highest probability (SUCRA) of having the lowest morbidity (88.8%), requiring mechanical lithotripsy (54.9%), perforation (68%), and the lowest mortality (89.3%). EST had the least probability of postendoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis and cholangitis (SUCRA: 66.4% and 62.3%, respectively). Conclusions: EPLBD was most successful, and ESLBD was safest for large common bile duct stones. Postendoscopic pancreatitis after EST was less common than that after EPLBD and ESLBD. However, more high-quality trials are required.

Comparable Long-term Outcomes of 1-Minute vs 5-Minute Endoscopic Papillary Balloon Dilation for Bile Duct Stones

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Endoscopic papillary balloon dilation (EPBD) is an alternative to endoscopic sphincterotomy for choledocholithiasis. Unlike endoscopic sphincterotomy, EPBD preserves biliary sphincter function, reducing long-term risk of recurrent choledocholithiasis by 50%. Guidelines recommend that duration of EPBD exceeds 2 minutes, to adequately loosen the sphincter and reduce risks of failed stone extraction and post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis. However, it is unclear whether this long duration of EPBD impairs sphincter function and negates the long-term benefit of EPBD. We performed a randomized controlled trial to determine whether long-duration (>1 minute) EPBD increases the risk of subsequent choledocholithiasis and hepatobiliary complications compared with short-duration EPBD (<1 minute).

METHODS

We performed a prospective study of 170 adult patients who underwent ERCP for suspected choledocholithiasis from April 2007 through October 2008 at 2 centers in Taiwan. Patients were randomly assigned to groups that underwent 1-minute (n = 86) or 5-minute (n = 84) EPBD for choledocholithiasis; patients were followed through June 2015. One month after the initial ERCP, patients were examined and liver function tests and abdominal sonographies were performed. Patients were then examined every 3-6 months over a median follow-up period of approximately 7 years. The primary outcome was recurrent choledocholithiasis or acute cholangitis and the secondary outcome was overall hepatobiliary complications. We assessed the effects of EPBD duration by Cox regression.

RESULTS

Thirteen patients (15.1%) developed recurrent choledocholithiasis or acute cholangitis after 1-minute EPBD, and 10 patients (11.9%) developed recurrent choledocholithiasis or acute cholangitis after 5-minute EPBD (P = .352). There was no significant difference between groups in number of hepatobiliary complications (P = .154). Compared with 1-minute EPBD, 5-minute EPBD did not increase risk of the primary outcome (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.76; 95% confidence interval, 0.32-1.82) or the secondary outcome (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.65; 95% confidence interval, 0.31-1.40). Mechanical lithotripsy, performed for failed stone extraction with EPBD at initial ERCP, was a risk factor for primary and secondary outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

In a randomized controlled trial, we found that the risk of recurrent choledocholithiasis and hepatobiliary complications did not increase with long-duration EPBD (>1 minute), but was increased with mechanical lithotripsy.

Twenty-Second versus Sixty-Second Dilation Duration in Endoscopic Papillary Balloon Dilation for the Treatment of Small Common Bile Duct Stones: A Prospective Randomized Controlled Multicenter Trial

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Endoscopic papillary balloon dilation (EPBD) has been advocated as an alternative therapy to endoscopic sphincterotomy for the treatment of common bile duct (CBD) stones. However, there is no established consensus on the optimal balloon dilation duration (BDD). We prospectively evaluated the efficacy and post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) complications between the 20- and 60-second EPBD groups.

METHODS

A total of 228 patients with small CBD stones (≤12 mm) were randomly assigned to undergo EPBD with a 20- or 60-second duration at six institutions. We evaluated baseline patient characteristics, endoscopic data, clinical outcomes, and procedure-related complications. In addition, we analyzed risk factors for postprocedural pancreatitis.

RESULTS

CBD stones were removed successfully in 107 of 109 patients (98.1%) in the 20-second group and in 112 of 119 patients (94.1%) in the 60-second group (p=0.146). Post-ERCP pancreatitis developed in seven patients (6.4%) in the 20-second group and nine patients (7.5%) in the 60-second group (p=0.408). In multivariate analysis, contrast dye injection into the pancreatic duct is a significant risk factor for post-EPBD pancreatitis.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the data showing that there were no significant differences in safety and efficacy between the two BDD groups, 20 seconds of BDD may be adequate for treatment of small CBD stones with EPBD.

Advances in the endoscopic management of common bile duct stones

Extraction of common bile duct stones by endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography generally involves biliary sphincterotomy, endoscopic papillary balloon dilation or a combination of both. Endoscopic papillary large-balloon dilation after sphincterotomy has increased the safety of large stone extraction. Cholangioscopically directed electrohydraulic and laser lithotripsy using single-operator mother-daughter systems or direct peroral cholangioscopy using ultraslim endoscopes are increasingly utilized for the management of refractory stones. In this Review, we focus on advances in endoscopic approaches and techniques, with a special emphasis on management strategies for 'difficult' common bile duct stones.

Comparison of endoscopic papillary balloon dilation and sphincterotomy in young patients with CBD stones and gallstones

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Endoscopic biliary sphincterotomy (EBS) results in permanent loss of sphincter function and its long-term complications are unknown. Endoscopic papillary balloon dilation (EPBD) is an alternative procedure that preserves sphincter function, although it is associated with a higher risk of pancreatitis than is EBS. The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and outcomes of EPBD with limited indications for removal of common bile duct (CBD) stones combined with gallstones in patients younger than 40 years.

METHODS

Young (age < 40 years) patients who had CBD stones combined with gallstones on imaging studies were enrolled in this study. A total of 132 patients were randomly divided into the EPBD group (n = 62) or the EBS group (n = 70) for extraction of CBD stones. The ballooning size of EPBD ranged from 6 to 10 mm.

RESULTS

Complete bile duct clearance was achieved in 98.4 % (61/62) of the EPBD group and 100 % (70/70) of the EBS group. Mechanical lithotripsy was required in 8.1 % (5/62) of the EPBD group and 8.6 % (6/70) of the EBS group. The early complication rates were 8.1 % (5/62) (five pancreatitis) in the EPBD group and 11.4 % (8/70) (five [7.1 %] pancreatitis, two bleeding and one perforation) in the EBS group. The recurrence rates of CBD stones were 1.6 % (1/62) in the EPBD group and 5.7 % (4/70) in the EBS group.

CONCLUSIONS

EPBD with limited indications was safe and effective as EBS for removal of CBD stones combined with gallstones in young patients who had a longer life expectancy.

Endoscopic sphincterotomy plus large-balloon dilation vs endoscopic sphincterotomy for choledocholithiasis: A meta-analysis

AIM: To perform a meta-analysis of large-balloon dilation (LBD) plus endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) vs EST alone for removal of bile duct stones.

METHODS: Databases including PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, the Science Citation Index, and important meeting abstracts were searched and evaluated by two reviewers independently. The main outcome measures included: complete stone removal, stone removal in the first session, use of mechanical lithotripsy, procedure time, and procedure-related complications. A fixed-effects model weighted by the Mantel-Haenszel method was used for pooling the odds ratio (OR) when heterogeneity was not significant among the studies. When a Q test or I² statistic indicated substantial heterogeneity, a random-effects model weighted by the DerSimonian-Laird method was used.

RESULTS: Six randomized controlled trials involving 835 patients were analyzed. There was no significant heterogeneity for most results; we analyzed these using a fixed-effects model. Meta-analysis showed EST plus LBD caused fewer overall complications than EST alone (OR = 0.53, 95%CI: 0.33-0.85, P = 0.008); subcategory analysis indicated a significantly lower risk of perforation in the EST plus LBD group (Peto OR = 0.14, 95%CI: 0.20-0.98, P = 0.05). Use of mechanical lithotripsy in the EST plus LBD group decreased significantly (OR = 0.26, 95%CI: 0.08-0.82, P = 0.02), especially in patients with a stone size larger than 15 mm (OR = 0.15, 95%CI: 0.03-0.68, P = 0.01). There were no significant differences between the two groups regarding complete stone removal, stone removal in the first session, post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis, bleeding, infection of biliary tract, and procedure time.

CONCLUSION: EST plus LBD is an effective approach for the removal of large bile duct stones, causing fewer complications than EST alone.

Balloon dilation with adequate duration is safer than sphincterotomy for extracting bile duct stones: a systematic review and meta-analyses

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) is the standard treatment for choledocholithiasis. Endoscopic papillary balloon dilation (EPBD) has a lower risk for bleeding than EST, but EPBD is reserved for patients with bleeding diathesis because some studies reported that it increases the risk for pancreatitis. A short dilation time (≤1 minute) is therefore recommended to reduce pancreatitis. However, there is evidence for an inverse relationship between EPBD duration and pancreatitis, prompting reevaluation of the optimal duration and relative safety of EPBD vs EST.

METHODS

We systematically reviewed randomized controlled trials to compare long EPBD (>1 minute), short EPBD (≤1 minute), and EST regarding pancreatitis and overall complications. In addition to pairwise meta-analyses, Bayesian network meta-analysis was undertaken to compare the 3 procedures together. Relation between duration and outcome was also analyzed by meta-regression.

RESULTS

Compared with EST, short EPBD had a higher risk for pancreatitis (odds ratio [OR] by traditional analysis, 3.87; 95% confidence interval, 1.08-13.84 and OR by network meta-analysis, 4.14; 95% credible interval, 1.58-12.56), but long EPBD did not pose a higher risk than EST (1.14, 0.56-2.35 and 1.07, 0.38-2.76). Long EPBD had a lower overall rate of complications than EST (0.61, 0.36-1.04 and 0.54, 0.20-1.36). In network meta-analysis, probabilities of being the safest treatment for long EPBD/short EPBD/EST regarding pancreatitis and overall complications were 43.9%/0.2%/55.9% and 90.3%/1.3%/8.4%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Duration of EPBD is inversely associated with pancreatitis risk. Currently recommended ≤1-minute dilation actually increases pancreatitis. EPBD with adequate duration may be preferred over EST because of comparable pancreatitis but lower overall complication rates.

Comparison of endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation and endoscopic sphincterotomy for retrieval of choledocholithiasis: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) is the most frequently used technique for removal of stones from the bile duct. In recent years, endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation (EPLBD) has been shown to be a safe and effective technique for the removal of large or difficult common bile duct stones. However, comparison of EPLBD and EST for effectiveness in bile duct stone removal has given inconsistent results. The present meta-analysis was carried out to compare the effect of EPLBD and EST in retrieval of choledocholithiasis.

METHODS

A literature search was performed using Medline, PubMed, EMBase and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) for relevant articles published in English. A meta-analysis was performed on the retrieved studies.

RESULTS

Seven randomized controlled trials and 790 patients were involved. EPLBD compared with EST resulted in similar outcomes for overall successful clearance rates of bile duct stones (97.35 vs. 96.35%, OR 1.28, 95% CI 0.58-2.82, P = 0.54), stone clearance in the first ERCP session (87.87 vs. 84.15%, OR 1.31, 95% CI 0.81-2.11, P = 0.21) and removal of large sized stones (OR 1.08, 95% CI 0.21-5.64, P = 0.49). EPLBD performed with either a short or a long ballooning time did not increase the bile duct stone clearance rate. EPLBD decreased overall usage of mechanical lithotripsy in the bile duct stone removal process (OR 0.51, 95% CI 0.30-0.86, P = 0.01). However, no significant difference was found between EPLBD and EST in the use of mechanical lithotripsy for the removal of large sized stones (OR 0.67, 95% CI 0.34-1.28, P = 0.22). Compared with EST, EPLBD did not show a short ERCP duration (WMD -0.75, 95% CI -1.57 to 0.08, P = 0.08). EPLBD was associated with fewer overall complications than EST (5.8 vs. 13.1%, OR 0.41, 95% CI 0.24-0.68, P = 0.0007). Hemorrhage occurred less frequently with EPLBD than with EST (OR 0.15, 95% CI 0.04-0.50, P = 0.002). There was no significant difference in post-ERCP pancreatitis, perforation and cholangitis.

CONCLUSIONS

EPLBD is an effective and safe method for the removal of large or difficult common bile stones. EPLBD should be considered as an alternative to EST for patients in whom EST could not be routinely performed. Based on EPLBD causing fewer cases of hemorrhaging, EPLBD is also recommended for removal of large or difficult common bile duct stones in patients with an underlying coagulopathy or need for anticoagulation following ERCP. The long-term prognosis of EPLBD need to be further investigated.