Hepaticogastrostomy or choledochoduodenostomy for distal malignant biliary obstruction after failed ERCP: is there any difference?

Biliary drainage in patients with malignant distal biliary obstruction: results of an Italian consensus conference

BACKGROUND

Malignant Distal Biliary Obstruction (MBDO) is a common event occurring along the natural history of both pancreatic cancer and cholangiocarcinoma. Epidemiological and biological features make MBDO one of the key elements of the clinical management of patients suffering for of pancreatic cancer or cholangiocarcinoma. The development of dedicated biliary lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMS) is changing the clinical work up of patients with MBDO. i-EUS is an Italian network of clinicians and scientists with a special interest in biliopancreatic endoscopy, EUS in particular.

METHODS

The scientific methodology was chosen in line with international guidance and in a fashion similar to those applied by broader scientific associations. PICO questions were elaborated and subsequently voted by a broad panel of experts within a simplified Delphi process.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

The manuscripts describes the results of a consensus conference organized by i-EUS with the aim of providing an evidence based-guidance for the appropriate use of the techniques in patients with MBDO.

Efficacy and safety of endoscopic ultrasound-guided hepaticogastrostomy: a meta-regression analysis

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided hepaticogastrostomy (EUS-HGS) is a valid option for EUS-guided biliary drainage that has been increasingly used in the last decade. The aims of this study were to provide a systematic review with meta-analysis and meta-regression of the features and outcomes of this procedure.

METHODS

The MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases were searched for literature pertinent to EUS-HGS. Meta-analysis of the proportions and meta-regression of potential modifiers of the main outcome measures were applied. The main outcome was technical success; secondary outcomes were clinical success and procedure-related adverse events (AEs).

RESULTS

33 studies, including 1644 patients, were included in the meta-analysis. Malignant biliary obstruction (MBO) was the underlying cause in almost all cases (99.6%); the main indications for EUS-HGS were duodenal/papillary invasion (34.8%), surgically altered anatomy (18.4%), and hilar stenosis (16.0%). The pooled technical success of EUS-HGS was 97.7% (95%CI 96.1%-99.0%; I 2 = 0%), the intention-to-treat clinical success rate was 88.1% (95%CI 84.7%-91.2%; I 2 = 33.9%), and procedure-related AEs occurred in 12.0% (95%CI 9.8%-14.5%; I 2 = 20.4%), with cholangitis/sepsis (2.8%) and bleeding (2.3%) the most frequent. The rate of procedure-related AEs was lower with the use of dedicated stents on univariable meta-regression analysis. Meta-regression showed that technical success and clinical success rates were modified by the centers' experience (>4/year).

CONCLUSIONS

EUS-HGS represents an effective and safe procedure for EUS-guided biliary drainage in patients with MBO. Future studies should address the impact of center experience, patient selection, and the use of dedicated stents to improve performance of this technique.

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

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

Is Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Hepaticogastrostomy Safe and Effective after Failed Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography?-A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background/Objectives: Endoscopic ultrasound-guided hepaticogastrostomy (EUS-HGS) has emerged as an alternative option for biliary drainage in cases of failed endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). Limited data exist on the safety and efficacy of EUS-HGS. In this comprehensive meta-analysis, we aim to study the safety and efficacy of EUS-HGS in cases of failed conventional ERCP. Methods: Embase, PubMed, and Web of Science databases were searched to include all studies that evaluated the efficacy and safety of EUS-HGS. Using the random effect model, the pooled weight-adjusted event rate estimate for clinical outcomes in each group were calculated with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The primary outcomes were technical and clinical success rates. Secondary outcomes included overall adverse events (AEs), rates of recurrent biliary obstruction (RBO), and rates or re-intervention. Results: Our analysis included 70 studies, with a total of 3527 patients. The pooled technical and clinical success rates for EUS-HGS were 98.1% ([95% CI, 97.5-98.7]; I2 = 40%) and 98.1% ([95% CI, 97.5-98.7]; I2 = 40%), respectively. The pooled incidence rate of AEs with EUS-HGS was 14.9% (95% CI, 12.7-17.1), with bile leakage being the most common (2.4% [95% CI, 1.7-3.2]). The pooled incidence of RBO was 15.8% [95% CI, 12.2-19.4], with a high success rate for re-intervention (97.5% [95% CI, 94.7-100]). Conclusions: Our analysis showed high technical and clinical success rates of EUS-HGS, making it a feasible and effective alternative to ERCP. The ongoing development of dedicated devices and techniques is expected to make EUS-HGS more accessible and safer for patients in need of biliary drainage.

Outcomes of partially covered self-expandable metal stents with different uncovered lengths in endoscopic ultrasound-guided hepaticogastrostomy: a Japanese retrospective study

BACKGROUND/AIMS

The optimal length of the uncovered portion of partially covered self-expandable metal stents (PCSEMSs) used in endoscopic ultrasound-guided hepaticogastrostomy (EUS-HGS) remains unclear. This study investigated the safety and efficacy of PCSEMSs with different uncovered lengths, with a focus on stent migration and time to recurrent biliary obstruction (RBO).

METHODS

Outcomes of patients undergoing EUS-HGS using PCSEMSs with 5-mm and 20-mm uncovered portions at our institution from January 2016 to December 2021 were compared.

RESULTS

Sixty-two patients underwent EUS-HGS using PCSEMS (5/20-mm uncovered portions: 32/30). Stent migration occurred only in the 5-mm group. There were no differences in RBO rates (28.1% vs. 40.0%) or median time to RBO (6.8 vs. 7.1 months) between the two groups. Median overall survival (OS) was longer in the 20-mm group (3.1 vs. 4.9 months, p=0.037) due to the higher number of patients that resumed chemotherapy after EUS-HGS (56.7% vs. 28.1%, p=0.029). Good performance status, absence of hepatic metastases, and chemotherapy after EUS-HGS were independent predictors of longer OS.

CONCLUSIONS

No migration was observed in patients treated with PCSEMS with 20-mm uncovered portions. Patients treated with PCSEMS with 20-mm uncovered portions performed at least as well as those treated with 5-mm uncovered portions in all material respects.

Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Biliary Drainage (EUS-BD)

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

Efficacy and safety of EUS-guided hepatogastrostomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

EUS-guided hepaticogastrostomy (EUS-HGS) is one of the preferred methods in biliary drainage where ERCP fails or is contraindicated. The clinical outcomes of EUS-HGS are not well studied because of variability in procedure technique. We conducted a search of multiple electronic databases and conference proceedings from inception through January 2023. The clinical outcomes studied were pooled technical success, clinical success, and adverse events. Standard meta-analysis methods were used using the random-effects model, and heterogeneity was studied by I 2 statistics. We analyzed 44 studies, which included 19 prospective and 25 retrospective studies. The pooled technical success rate of EUS-HGS was 94.4% (confidence interval [CI], 92.4%-95.9%; I 2 = 0%), and the pooled clinical success rate was 88.6% (CI, 83.7%-92.2%; I 2 = 0%). The pooled adverse outcomes with EUS-HGS were 23.8% (CI, 19.6%-28.5%; I 2 = 0%). The mild adverse event rate associated with HGS was 5.8% (4.2%-8.1%; I 2 = 0%), moderate adverse event rate was 12.1% (9.1%-15.8%; I 2 = 16%), and severe adverse event rate was 4.2% (3.0%-5.7%; I 2 = 61%), whereas fatal adverse event rate was 3.2% (1.9%-5.4%; I 2 = 62%). On subgroup analysis, the pooled rate of adverse events of EUS-guided hepaticogastrostomy with antegrade stenting was 13.3% (95% CI, 8.2%-21.0%). The pooled technical success with EUS-guided hepaticogastrostomy with antegrade stenting was 89.7% (95% CI, 82.6%-94.2%), and clinical success was 92.5% (95% CI, 77.9%-97.7%). On the basis of our analysis of EUS-HGS, the overall technical success was 94.4%, and the clinical success rate was 88.6%, and the overall adverse events were reported to be 23.8%. These data can also help improve the clinical benefits of EUS-HGS in the selected patients in whom it is performed.

Factors Associated With Difficult Endoscopic Ultrasonography-guided Biliary Drainage

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

When endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography-guided biliary drainage is challenging, endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) can be used as an alternate treatment; however, this method requires operator expertise. Therefore, this study aimed to clarify the factors that are associated with a difficult EUS-BD.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients who successfully underwent EUS-BD were enrolled in this study. The patients were divided into the easy group and difficult group depending on whether the procedural time was more than 60 minutes, which was the cutoff value elicited from past reports. Patient characteristics and procedural factors were compared between the two groups. The factors associated with difficult procedures were also investigated.

RESULTS

The patient characteristics were not significantly different between the easy group (n=22) and the difficult group (n=19). The diameter of the punctured bile duct was significantly different between the two groups. In the multivariate analysis, the diameter of the punctured bile duct was the only factor associated with a difficult EUS-BD (odds ratio 0.65, 95% confidence interval 0.46-0.91, P value=0.012). The cutoff value for the diameter of the punctured bile duct in predicting a difficult EUS-BD was 7.0 mm (area under the curve: 0.83, sensitivity 84.2%, specificity 86.4%).

CONCLUSIONS

A nondilated bile duct might be a predictive factor for a difficult EUS-BD. For beginners of EUS-BD, the cutoff value for the punctured bile duct diameter found in this study, 7.0 mm, might become a barometer for puncture point selection.

Controversies in Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Biliary Drainage

In this 14th document in a series of papers entitled "Controversies in Endoscopic Ultrasound" we discuss various aspects of EUS-guided biliary drainage that are debated in the literature and in practice. Endoscopic retrograde cholangiography is still the reference technique for therapeutic biliary access, but EUS-guided techniques for biliary access and drainage have developed into safe and highly effective alternative options. However, EUS-guided biliary drainage techniques are technically demanding procedures for which few training models are currently available. Different access routes require modifications to the basic technique and specific instruments. In experienced hands, percutaneous transhepatic cholangiodrainage is also a good alternative. Therefore, in this paper, we compare arguments for different options of biliary drainage and different technical modifications.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided hepaticogastrostomy versus choledochoduodenostomy for malignant biliary obstruction: A meta-analysis

Objectives

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided biliary drainage encompasses techniques such as EUS-guided hepaticogastrostomy (EUS-HGS) and EUS-guided choledochoduodenostomy (EUS-CDS). This meta-analysis compared the efficacy of EUS-CDS with that of EUS-HGS for the treatment of biliary obstruction.

Methods

A systematic meta-analysis of all relevant articles listed was performed by searching the Cochrane Library, PubMed, and Google Scholar databases. We used random effects or fixed effects models to compare success rates, adverse events, procedure times, and time to recurrent biliary obstruction after EUS-CDS and EUS-HGS.

Results

This meta-analysis included 18 eligible studies. There was no significant difference between EUS-CDS and EUS-HGS with respect to technical success rate (odds ratio [OR] 1.04; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.62-1.73) and clinical success rate (OR 0.66; 95% CI 0.43-1.04), or with respect to total procedure-related adverse events (OR 1.39; 95% CI 1.00-1.93). Subgroup analysis of adverse events revealed that the rate of recurrent biliary obstruction (RBO) was significantly higher for EUS-HGS (OR 2.95; 95% CI 1.54-5.64). There was no significant difference between the two methods with respect to time to recurrent biliary obstruction (mean difference -11.93 days; 95% CI -47.77-23.91). However, the procedure time was longer for EUS-HGS (mean difference, 3.21 min; 95% CI 1.24-5.19).

Conclusion

EUS-CDS and EUS-HGS are comparable in terms of technical success, clinical success, and rate of adverse events; however, EUS-CDS is superior with respect to procedure time and preventing RBO.

Comparison of long-term outcomes of endoscopic ultrasound-guided hepaticogastrostomy and choledochoduodenostomy for distal malignant biliary obstruction: a multicenter retrospective study

Background

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD), classified as choledochoduodenostomy (CDS) and hepaticogastrostomy (HGS), is a feasible and effective alternative for distal malignant biliary obstruction (MBO) in failed endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. However, the preferred technique for better outcomes has not yet been evaluated.

Objectives

We compared the long-term outcomes between the techniques.

Design

Retrospective comparative study.

Methods

We reviewed consecutive patients who underwent EUS-CDS or EUS-HGS with transmural stent placement for distal MBO between 2009 and 2022. The primary outcome was the stent patency. The secondary outcomes were technical and clinical success, adverse events (AEs) of each technique, and independent risk factors for stent dysfunction.

Results

In all, 115 patients were divided into EUS-CDS (n = 56) and EUS-HGS (n = 59) groups. Among them, technical success was achieved in 98.2% of EUS-CDS and 96.6% of EUS-HGS groups. Furthermore, clinical success was 96.4% in EUS-CDS and 88.1% in EUS-HGS groups, without significant difference (p = 0.200). The mean duration of stent patency for EUS-CDS was 770.3 days while that for EUS-HGS was 164.9 days (p = 0.010). In addition, the only independent risk factor for stent dysfunction was systematic treatment after EUS-BD [hazard ratio and 95% confidence interval 0.238 (0.066-0.863), p = 0.029]. The incidence of stent dysfunction of EUS-HGS was higher than EUS-CDS (35.1% versus 18.2%, 0.071), despite no significant differences even in late AEs.

Conclusion

In distal MBO, EUS-CDS may be better than EUS-HGS with longer stent patency and fewer AEs. Furthermore, systematic treatment after EUS-BD is recommended for the improvement of stent patency.

The Role of Endoscopy in the Palliation of Pancreatico-Biliary Cancers: Biliary Drainage, Management of Gastrointestinal Obstruction, and Role in Relief of Oncologic Pain

Therapeutic endoscopy permits many and various treatments for cancer palliation in patients with bilio-pancreatic cancers, enabling different options, supporting patients during their route to oncologic treatments, and trying to improve their quality of life. Therefore, both endoscopic and endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided techniques are performed in this scenario. We performed a literature review focusing on the role of endoscopy in the palliation of those advanced pancreatic and biliary cancers developing malignant biliary obstruction (MBO), gastric outlet obstruction (GOO), and pain unresponsive to medical therapies. Therefore, we explored and focused on the clinical outcomes of endoscopic procedures in this scenario. In fact, the endoscopic treatment is based on achieving biliary drainage in the case of MBO through endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) or EUS-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD), while GOO is endoscopically treated through the deployment of an enteral stent or the creation of EUS-guided gastro-entero-anastomosis (EUS-GEA). Furthermore, untreatable chronic abdominal pain is a major issue in patients unresponsive to high doses of painkillers, so EUS-guided celiac plexus neurolysis (CPN) or celiac ganglia neurolysis (CGN) helps to reduce dosage and have better pain control. Therefore, therapeutic endoscopy in the palliative setting is an effective and safe approach for managing most of the clinical manifestations of advanced biliopancreatic tumors.

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.

Utility of interventional endoscopic ultrasound in pancreatic cancer

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) has an important role in the management algorithm of patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), typically for its diagnostic utilities. The past two decades have seen a rapid expansion of the therapeutic capabilities of EUS. Interventional EUS is now one of the more exciting developments within the field of endoscopy. The local effects of PDAC tend to be in anatomical areas which are difficult to target and endoscopy has cemented itself as a key role in managing the clinical sequelae of PDAC. Interventional EUS is increasingly utilized in situations whereby conventional endoscopy is either impossible to perform or unsuccessful. It also adds a different dimension to the host of oncological and surgical treatments for patients with PDAC. In this review, we aim to summarize the various ways in which interventional EUS could benefit patients with PDAC and aim to provide a balanced commentary on the current evidence of interventional EUS in the literature.

Therapeutic Endoscopic Ultrasound: Current Indications and Future Perspectives

The transcendence of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) from diagnostic to therapeutic tool has revolutionized management options in the field of gastroenterology. Through EUS-guided methods, pancreaticobiliary obstruction can now be utilized as an alternative to surgical and percutaneous approaches. This modality also allows for gallbladder drainage in patients who are not ideal operative candidates. By utilizing its unique imaging capabilities, EUS also allows for drainage access points in cases of gastric outlet obstruction as well as windows to ablate pancreatic cystic lesions. As technical progress continues to evolve, interventional gastroenterology continues to push the envelope of minimally invasive therapeutic procedures in a multidisciplinary setting. In this comprehensive review, we set out to describe current indications and innovations through EUS.

Prospective clinical trial of EUS-guided choledochoduodenostomy without fistula dilation for malignant distal biliary obstruction

Background and Objectives

During EUS-guided choledochoduodenostomy (EUS-CDS), fistula dilation before stent insertion is associated with adverse events (AEs), such as bile leakage and peritonitis. We hypothesized that EUS-CDS without fistula dilation using a novel self-expandable metal stent (SEMS) with a thin delivery system could overcome this problem, and we conducted this study to evaluate its feasibility and safety.

Methods

This was an open-label, single-arm, phase II study at a single institution. We planned EUS-CDS without fistula dilation using a fully covered SEMS with a 5.9-Fr delivery system for unresectable malignant distal biliary obstruction. The primary outcome was overall technical success. Secondary outcomes were technical success without fistula dilation, procedure time, functional success, time to recurrent biliary obstruction, and AEs. The planned sample size was 25 patients.

Results

In total, 24 patients were included in this study. In 21 patients, EUS-CDS was performed as primary drainage. The overall technical success rate was 100% (24 of 24 patients). The technical success rate without fistula dilation was 96% (23 of 24). The median procedure time was 16 min (range, 10-66 min). The functional success rate was 96% (23 of 24). The median time to recurrent biliary obstruction was 148 days (95% confidence interval, 29-266 days). There were no procedure-related AEs. Furthermore, computed tomography immediately after the procedure showed no leakage of contrast medium into the abdominal cavity in any patient.

Conclusions

EUS-guided choledochoduodenostomy without fistula dilation using a fully covered SEMS with a 5.9-Fr delivery system is feasible with a high probability and can be achieved quickly while effectively preventing bile leakage and peritonitis.

Loop technique for guidewire manipulation during endoscopic ultrasound-guided hepaticogastrostomy

Background and Aim

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided hepaticogastrostomy (EUS-HGS) is widely used in the management of biliary obstructions; however, literature on guidewire manipulation is lacking. This study aimed to assess the utility and optimal conditions of the loop technique for guidewire manipulation during EUS-HGS.

Methods

Consecutive patients who underwent EUS-HGS between April 2015 and January 2022 were included in this study. Patient characteristics and procedural details were retrospectively analyzed. Guidewire manipulations were classified as conventional technique or loop technique, based on the shape of the guidewire tip.

Results

A total of 52 patients (Median age: 73 years, 38 male and 14 female) underwent EUS-HGS. The median guidewire insertion time was 49 s and the median overall procedure time was 20.5 min. The initial guidewire direction was toward the peripheral side in 23 patients (44%). Technical success rate of the EUS-HGS was 100%. Twenty patients (38%) underwent the procedure using the loop technique and 32 (62%) with the conventional technique. In the logistic regression analysis, an angle between the bile duct and needle of >70° was independently associated with use of the loop technique (OR 9.84; 95% CI: 2.24-43.13; P <0.01).

Conclusion

This study revealed the utility of the loop technique in EUS-HGS. This technique is recommended if the bile duct is punctured at an angle >70°.

Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Biliary Drainage

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD) are currently first- and second-line therapeutic options, respectively, for the relief of biliary obstruction. In recent years, however, endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) has become an established alternative therapy for biliary obstruction. There are multiple different techniques for EUS-BD, which can be distinguished based on the access point within the biliary tree (intrahepatic versus extrahepatic) and the location of stent placement (transenteric versus transpapillary). The clinical and technical success rates of biliary drainage for EUS-BD are similar to both ERCP and PTBD, and complication rates are favorable for EUS-BD relative to PTBD. As EUS-BD becomes more widely practiced and endoscopic tools continue to advance, the outcomes will likely improve, and the breadth of indications for EUS-BD will continue to expand.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage: a literature review

Neoplasms of the biliopancreatic confluence may present with obstruction of the bile tract, leading to jaundice, pruritus and cholangitis. In these cases drainage of the bile tract is imperative. Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) with placement of a choledochal prosthesis is an effective treatment in about 90% of cases, even in experienced hands. In cases of ERCP failure, therapeutic options traditionally include surgical bypass by hepaticojejunostomy (HJ) or percutaneous transparietohepatic drainage (DPTH). In recent years, endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage techniques have gained space because they are less invasive, effective and have an acceptable incidence of complications. Endoscopic echo-guided drainage of the bile duct can be performed through the stomach (hepatogastrostomy), duodenum (choledochoduodenostomy) or by the anterograde drainage technique. Some services consider ultrasound-guided drainage of the bile duct the procedure of choice in the event of ERCP failure. The objective of this review is to present the main types of endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage and compare them with other techniques.

Contemporary advances in the endoscopic management of cholangiocarcinoma: a review of accomplished milestones and prospective opportunities

INTRODUCTION

Cholangiocarcinoma, a primary malignancy of epithelial cells of the bile ducts, has been shown to have increasing incidence rates globally. Many of the current advances aim to improve the accuracy of differentiation between benign biliary strictures and cholangiocarcinoma, which include endoscopic techniques, devices, image processing, and the use of genomic sequencing in acquired specimens.

AREAS COVERED

In this review, the authors explore the historical timeline of changes leading to modern management of cholangiocarcinoma, with special emphasis on endoscopic modalities and novel therapeutic interventions. The authors also expand on the strengths and shortcomings of endoscopic diagnostics and techniques in biliary drainage and finally discuss potential areas to focus for future research and development.

EXPERT OPINION

Despite the advances in diagnosis and management of cholangiocarcinoma, there remain multiple tasks that are still awaiting to be completed. Next-generation sequencing in the diagnosis of cholangiocarcinoma needs to be further tested, validated, and easily obtainable. Other innovative diagnostic modalities, such as the use of artificial intelligence in cholangioscopy, may provide an effective complementary modality to existing techniques. A consensus on biliary drainage needs to be defined and account for longevity and patient convenience.

Drenagem biliar endoscópica ecoguiada: revisão da literatura

RESUMO Neoplasias da confluência biliopancreática podem cursar com obstrução da via biliar, levando a icterícia, prurido e colangite. Nesses casos a drenagem da via biliar é imperativa. A colangiopancreatografia endoscópica retrógrada (CPER) com colocação de prótese coledociana constitui tratamento eficaz em cerca de 90% dos casos mesmo em mãos experientes. Nos casos de insucesso da CPER, tradicionalmente as opções terapêuticas incluem a derivação cirúrgica por hepaticojejunostomia (HJ) ou drenagem percutânea transparietohepática (DPTH). Nos últimos anos as técnicas endoscópicas ecoguiadas de drenagem biliar ganharam espaço por serem menos invasivas, eficazes e apresentarem incidência aceitável de complicações. A drenagem endoscópica ecoguiada da via biliar pode ser realizada pelo estômago (hepatogastrostomia), duodeno (coledocoduodenostomia) ou pela técnica de drenagem anterógrada. Alguns serviços consideram a drenagem ecoguiada da via biliar o procedimento de escolha no caso de insucesso da CPER. O objetivo desta revisão é apresentar os principais tipos de drenagem biliar endoscópica ecoguiada e confrontá-los com outras técnicas.

Feasibility and Efficacy of Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Hepaticogastrostomy Without Dilation: A Propensity Score Matching Analysis

BACKGROUND

Recently, endoscopic ultrasound-guided hepaticogastrostomy (EUS-HGS) procedures have been gradually established; nonetheless, some adverse events (AEs) have been reported. Dilation procedures using a non-cautery or cautery device increase the incidence of AEs in EUS-HGS.

AIMS

We evaluated EUS-HGS procedures without dilation and the factors associated with dilation.

METHODS

We enrolled 79 patients who underwent EUS-HGS between July 2015 and March 2021 at two centers, 72 of whom had technical success (72/79, 91%). During the EUS-HGS procedures, we defined patients without dilation procedures as the dilation (-) group. We divided the patients into two groups: the dilation (+) (35 patients) and dilation (-) (37 patients) groups. We performed a propensity score matching analysis to adjust for confounding bias between the two groups. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was conducted to identify factors associated with dilation.

RESULTS

There was no difference in clinical success rate between the dilation (+) and dilation (-) groups (91% vs. 95%, P = 0.545). The AE rate (P = 0.013) and long procedure time (P = 0.017) were significantly higher in the dilation (+) group than in the dilation (-) group before and after propensity score matching. Factors associated with dilation were plastic stent placement (odds ratio [OR], 6.96; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.68-28.7; P = 0.007) and puncture angle of ≤ 90° (OR, 44.6; 95% CI, 5.1-390; P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

A dilation procedure in EUS-HGS may not always be necessary. However, patients with an angle of ≤ 90° between the needle and intrahepatic biliary tract or plastic stent deployment require dilation procedures.

Endoscopic ultrasound guided biliary interventions

Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), even in expert hands, may fail in 5-10% of cases, especially in cases of papillary infiltration, malignant gastric outlet obstruction, or surgically altered anatomy. Percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD) has represented the traditional rescue therapy, despite associated with high rate of adverse events, need for re-interventions and an inferior quality of life. The evolution of Endoscopic Ultrasound (EUS) from a diagnostic to a therapeutic tool offers an effective and safe alternative for internal biliary drainage (BD) into the stomach or the duodenum. EUS-BD is reported to have similar or even improved efficacy and increased safety when compared to PTBD and can be performed in the same session of a failed ERCP. This review summarizes technical aspects of intra-hepatic and extra-hepatic EUS-BD (including hepatico-gastrostomy, choledocho-duodenostomy and rendezvous) together with current evidence and future perspectives that steadily cements EUS-BD's place in multidisciplinary management of bilio-pancreatic diseases.

Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Hepaticogastrostomy with Antegrade Stenting Without Dilation Device Application for Malignant Distal Biliary Obstruction in Pancreatic Cancer

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided hepaticogastrostomy with antegrade stenting (EUS-HGAS) is a promising therapeutic option for malignant distal biliary obstruction (MDBO) in the event of transpapillary approach failure. Eliminating the fistula dilation step may further decrease the incidence of adverse events (AE) and simplify the procedure.

AIMS

This study focused on MDBO associated with pancreatic cancer and aimed to examine the utility of EUS-HGAS without the use of any dilation devices.

METHODS

This retrospective study investigated consecutive patients in whom the transpapillary approach had failed or was difficult, and who underwent EUS-HGAS without dilation device usage, using a tapered small-diameter catheter, ultrathin delivery system, and tapered dedicated plastic stent. The outcomes of this study included the technical success, clinical success, AE incidence, and recurrent biliary obstruction (RBO) associated with the procedure.

RESULTS

During the study period, EUS-HGAS without dilation device usage was attempted for 57 patients with MDBO due to pancreatic cancer. The technical and clinical success rates were 91.2% (52/57) each. The median procedural time was 25 min. The rates of early and late AE besides RBO were 3.5% (2/57) and 1.9% (1/52), respectively. The incidence rate of RBO was 30.8% (16/52), and the median time to RBO was 245 days. The rate of successful endoscopic reintervention for RBO via the fistula was 100% (16/16).

CONCLUSIONS

EUS-HGAS without the use of dilation devices showed good technical feasibility with a low AE rate. It may be a useful option for MDBO associated with pancreatic cancer when the transpapillary approach is difficult.

Endoscopic palliation of malignant biliary obstruction

Malignant biliary obstruction often presents with challenges requiring the endoscopist to assess the location of the lesion, the staging of the disease, the eventual resectability and patient preferences in term of biliary decompression. This review will focus on the different modalities available in order to offer the most appropriate palliation, such as conventional endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, endoscopic ultrasound guided biliary drainage as well as ablative therapies including photodynamic therapy or radiofrequency ablation.

How to perform EUS-guided biliary drainage

EUS-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) has recently gained widespread acceptance as a minimally invasive alternative method for biliary drainage. Even in experienced endoscopy centers, ERCP may fail due to inaccessibility of the papillary region, altered anatomy (particularly postsurgical alterations), papillary obstruction, or neoplastic gastric outlet obstruction. Biliary cannulation fails at first attempt in 5%-10% of cases even in the absence of these factors. In such cases, alternative options for biliary drainage must be provided since biliary obstruction is responsible for poor quality of life and even reduced survival, particularly due to septic cholangitis. The standard of care in many centers remains percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD). However, despite the high technical success rate with experienced operators, the percutaneous approach is more invasive and associated with poor quality of life. PTBD may result in long-term external catheters for biliary drainage and carry the risk of serious adverse events (SAEs) in up to 10% of patients, including bile leaks, hemorrhage, and sepsis. PTBD following a failed ERCP also requires scheduling a second procedure, resulting in prolonged hospital stay and additional costs. EUS-BD may overcome many of these limitations and offer some distinct advantages in accessing the biliary tree. Current data suggest that EUS-BD is safe and effective when performed by experts, although SAEs have been also reported. Despite the high number of clinical reports and case series, high-quality comparative studies are still lacking. The purpose of this article is to report on the current status of this procedure and to discuss the tools and techniques for EUS-BD in different clinical scenarios.

Current endoscopic approaches to biliary strictures

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

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

RECENT FINDINGS

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

SUMMARY

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

Methods for Drainage of Distal Malignant Biliary Obstruction after ERCP Failure: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

There is scarce evidence on the comparison between different methods for the drainage of distal malignant biliary obstruction (DMBO) after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) failure. Therefore, we performed a network meta-analysis to compare the outcomes of these techniques. We searched main databases through September 2021 and identified five randomized controlled trials. The primary outcome was clinical success. The secondary outcomes were technical success, overall and serious adverse event rate. Percutaneous trans-hepatic biliary drainage was found to be inferior to other interventions (PTBD: RR 1.01, 0.88–1.17 with EUS-choledochoduodenostomy (EUS-CD); RR 1.03, 0.86–1.22 with EUS-hepaticogastrostomy (EUS-HG); RR 1.42, 0.90–2.24 with surgical hepaticojejunostomy). The comparison between EUS-HG and EUS-CD was not significant (RR 1.01, 0.87–1.17). Surgery was not superior to other interventions (RR 1.40, 0.91–2.13 with EUS-CD and RR 1.38, 0.88–2.16 with EUS-HG). No difference in any of the comparisons concerning adverse event rate was detected, although PTBD showed a slightly poorer performance on ranking analysis (SUCRA score 0.13). In conclusion, all interventions seem to be effective for the drainage of DMBO, although PTBD showed a trend towards higher rates of adverse events.

Relief of jaundice in malignant biliary obstruction: When should we consider endoscopic ultrasonography-guided hepaticogastrostomy as an option?

BACKGROUND

Since it was first described in 2001, endoscopic ultrasonography-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) has emerged as an alternative procedure for achieving an endoscopic internal drainage in case of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) failure. Biliary drainage can be achieved by either a transduodenal extrahepatic approach through EUS-guided choledochoduodenostomy (EUS-CDS), or a transgastric intrahepatic approach, namely EUS-guided hepaticogastrostomy (EUS-HGS) which already holds a remarkable place in the treatment of patients with malignant biliary obstruction.

DATA SOURCES

For this review we did a comprehensive search of PubMed/MEDLINE from inception to May 31, 2021 for papers with a significant sample size (at least 20 patients enrolled) dealing with EUS-HGS. Data on technical success, clinical success and rate of adverse events were collected.

RESULTS

A total of 22 studies with different design, comprising 874 patients, were included. Technical success was achieved in about 96% of cases (ranging from 65% to 100%). Clinical success was obtained in almost 91% of cases (ranging from 76% to 100%). Overall rate of adverse events was 19% (ranging from 0% to 35%). Abdominal pain, self-limiting pneumoperitoneum, bile leak, cholangitis, bleeding, perforation and intraperitoneal migration of the stent were the most common.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite both safety and efficacy profile, at the moment HGS still remains a challenging procedure at every single step and must therefore be conducted by a very experienced endoscopist in interventional EUS and ERCP procedures, who is able to deal with the possible severe adverse events of this procedure. A rapid introduction in clinical practice of dedicated devices is desiderable.

Usefulness of the laser-cut fully covered self-expandable metallic stent for endoscopic ultrasound-guided hepaticogastrostomy

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided hepaticogastrostomy (EUS-HGS) has many associated adverse events. We evaluated the clinical efficacy and safety of the laser-cut fully covered self-expandable metallic stent (FCSEMS) for this procedure.

METHODS

This single-center, retrospective study included cases where EUS-HGS with a laser-cut FCSEMS was performed for malignant biliary obstruction. Technical and clinical success, time to recurrent biliary obstruction (TRBO), procedure time, adverse events, and re-interventions were evaluated.

RESULTS

There were 95 eligible cases. Technical and clinical success rates were 100.0% and 95.8%, respectively. Median TRBO was 398 days. RBO causes were hyperplasia (7.4%), debris (3.2%), and migration (4.2%). Adverse events occurred in nine cases (9.5%). Non-occlusion and focal cholangitis occurred in four cases (4.2%) each. Nineteen patients (20%) underwent combined EUS-HGS (CH) procedures: antegrade stenting, bridging methods, plastic stent anchoring in SEMS, and EUS-hepaticoduodenostomy. The solely EUS-HGS (SH) group had significantly longer median TRBO than the CH group (398 vs. 246 days; P=0.04). There were no significant differences in adverse events between the two groups. Re-intervention was performed in 29 cases (technical success rate: 100.0%).

CONCLUSIONS

Laser-cut FCSEMS can be safely placed in the bile duct and easily applied during re-intervention, making it useful in EUS-HGS.

When ERCP Fails: EUS-Guided Access to Biliary and Pancreatic Ducts

Pancreaticobiliary (PB) endotherapy continues to progress in the era of therapeutic endosonography. Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) remains the primary method for PB access in native and altered anatomy. In altered anatomy, PB access can be obtained via enteroscopy-assisted ERCP (e-ERCP) or laparoscopy-assisted ERCP; however, both approaches have significant limitations. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary and pancreatic duct drainage (EUS-BPD) are increasingly becoming the preferred alternative when ERCP fails, with advantages over percutaneous drainage. EUS-BPD continues to evolve with better feasibility, safety and efficacy as dedicated procedural equipment continues to improve. In this article, we discuss the role of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) when ERCP fails and their indications, technique, and outcomes.

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

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

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

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

Comparison of Choledochoduodenostomy and Hepaticogastrostomy for EUS-Guided Biliary Drainage: A Meta-Analysis

Background

Although endoscopic ultrasound-guided choledochoduodenostomy (EUS-CDS) or hepaticogastrostomy (EUS-HGS) has emerged as an option for patients of failed endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), there has no agreement on which approach is preferred. Therefore, a meta-analysis was performed to examine the two methods.

Methods

We performed a comprehensive search in databases of PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane library to find relevant studies reporting the efficacy and safety of the two EUS-guided biliary drainage methods.

Results

In total, 12 studies with 623 patients (EUS-CDS: 303 and EUS-HGS: 320) were included. The cumulative technical success and clinical success for EUS-CDS and EUS-HGS was 95.0% (288/303), 93.1% (268/288), and 96.6% (309/320), 91.3% (282/309), respectively. Compared with EUS-HGS, the pooled odds ratio (OR) was 0.74 (95% CI 0.33–1.65; p = 0.46) for EUS-CDS technical success and 0.94 (95% CI 0.56–1.59; p = 0.83) for clinical success. The pooled difference in means of procedure time of EUS-CDS and EUS-HGS was −2.68 (95% CI −5.12 to −0.24; p = 0.03). The cumulative early adverse events for EUS-CDS and EUS-HGS was 12.2% (37/303) and 17.5% (56/320), respectively. Compared with EUS-HGS, the pooled OR of early adverse events for EUS-CDS was 0.58 (95% CI: 0.36–0.93; p = 0.02).

Conclusion

This meta-analysis further suggests EUS-CDS and EUS-HGS have equal high technical and clinical success, but EUS-CDS with a slightly short procedure time and with less early adverse events compared to EUS-HGS.

Extrapancreatic Advanced Endoscopic Interventions

As the field of interventional endoscopy advances, conditions that were once treated with surgery are increasingly being treated with advanced endoscopy. Endoscopy is now used for treatment of achalasia, bariatric procedures for obesity; resection of early-stage malignancies in the gastrointestinal tract; and placement of lumen-apposing metal stents in the treatment of biliary obstruction, gastric outlet obstruction, cholecystitis, and drainage of nonpancreatic-related fluid collections or abscesses. Knowledge of the novel terminology, procedural details, expected postintervention imaging findings, and potential complications is vital for radiologists because these procedures are rapidly becoming more mainstream in daily practice. These procedures include peroral endoscopic myotomy for the treatment of achalasia and other esophageal motility disorders; endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty and placement of an intragastric balloon for weight loss; endoscopic submucosal dissection in the resection of tumors of the gastrointestinal tract; and therapeutic endoscopic-guided procedures for the treatment of biliary obstruction, gastric outlet obstruction, acute cholecystitis, and drainage of nonpancreatically related fluid collections. Patients benefit from these minimally invasive procedures, with potential improvement in morbidity and mortality rates, decreased length of hospital stay, and decreased health care costs when compared with the surgical alternative. Complications of these procedures include leaks or perforations, infections or abscesses, fistulas, and occlusion and migration of stents. An invited commentary by Pisipati and Pannala is available online. ^©RSNA, 2022.

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

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

Safety and efficacy of a novel electrocautery-enhanced lumen-apposing metal stent in interventional EUS procedures (with video)

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Electrocautery-tip lumen-apposing metal stents (EC-LAMSs) have extended the indications of therapeutic EUS. We aimed to retrospectively evaluate safety and technical and clinical success of a newly developed EC-LAMS, the Hot-Spaxus (Taewoong Medical Co, Gimpo, Korea), for various EUS-guided procedures.

METHODS

We included and retrospectively analyzed consecutive patients at 8 tertiary care referral centers who had undergone EUS interventional procedures using the Hot-Spaxus between October 2018 and February 2021.

RESULTS

Of 58 included patients (male-to-female, 36:22; mean age, 63.5 ± 14.9 years), 29 had undergone pancreatic fluid collection drainage (50%), 22 (37.9%) biliary drainage for malignant distal obstruction, 3 (5.1%) gallbladder drainage for acute cholecystitis, 3 gastroenteroanastomoses, and 1 (1.7%) pelvic collection drainage. Technical success was achieved in 54 of 58 patients (93.1%) and clinical success in all 58. Adverse events occurred in 6 patients (11.1%): 2 early (3.7%), 1 late (1.8%), and 3 long term (5.6%). The outcomes were similar to those observed in a control group of patients treated with the Hot-Axios (Boston Scientific, Marlborough, Mass, USA), the other available EC-LAMS.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study showed that the novel EC-LAMS has high technical and clinical success rates for various interventional EUS indications. Future multicenter prospective studies will better clarify the role of this new EC-LAMS for different indications.

Endoscopic biliary drainage for malignant distal biliary obstruction: Which is better - endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography or endoscopic ultrasound?

Presently, following endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided biopsy, an endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) with transpapillary stenting is performed for palliation of malignant distal biliary obstruction (MDBO). However, technical failure and postprocedure pancreatitis are limitations to ERCP. Endoscopic ultrasonography-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) after a failed ERCP has a 90% technical success rate and has been shown to be superior when compared to percutaneous methods, making EUS an increasingly recognized option for biliary drainage. Supporting this approach, findings from recently concluded randomized trials suggest that the safety profile and technical outcomes for EUS-BD are comparable or even superior to that of ERCP for primary biliary decompression in patients with MDBO. Also, EUS-BD is increasingly being utilized in patients with altered surgical anatomy in lieu of percutaneous techniques and balloon-assisted enteroscopy. A growing body of evidence supports the notion that, in the future, EUS may become the primary modality by which biliary decompression is undertaken in the majority of patients with MDBO. The roadmap to this eventuality may require further optimization of procedural techniques, technological innovations, and cost reduction.

Managing adverse events after endoscopic ultrasound-guided drainage of the biliary tract and pancreatic fluid collections: Narrative review (with video)

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided therapeutic procedures have become increasingly common in clinical practice. The development of EUS-guided fine needle aspiration cytology led to the concept of interventional EUS. However, it carries a considerable risk of adverse events (AEs), which occur in approximately 23% of the procedures performed for the drainage of pancreatic fluid collections and 2.5-37.0% of those performed for drainage of the biliary tract. Although the vast majority of AEs occurring after EUS-guided drainage are mild, a deep understanding of such events is necessary for their appropriate management. Because EUS-guided drainage is a novel procedure, there have been few studies of the topic. To our knowledge, this is the first narrative review that focuses on the management and resolution of AEs occurring after EUS-guided drainage of pancreatic fluid collections or the biliary tract. We also include an explanatory video.

Single session endoscopic ultrasound-guided double bypass (hepaticogastrostomy and gastrojejunostomy) for concomitant duodenal and biliary obstruction: A case series

BACKGROUND

Concomitant malignant biliary and gastric outlet obstruction can be difficult to manage endoscopically with traditional endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and luminal stenting. Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided hepaticogastrostomy (HG) and gastrojejunostomy (GJ) are novel techniques that can relieve both obstructions in a single session. This study aims to describe the outcomes of combined, single session EUS-HG and EUS-GJ.

METHODS

This is a two-center retrospective study of consecutive patients who underwent same session EUS-HG and EUS-GJ. The primary outcome was technical success. Secondary outcomes included adverse events (AE), reduction in total serum bilirubin, length of hospital stay (LOS), and re-intervention rates.

RESULTS

A total of 23 patients underwent EUS-HG and EUS-GJ (12 males, mean age 66.4 years). Twenty-one were performed for malignant obstruction. Technical success was 100% and 95.6% for HG and GJ, respectively. All patients subsequently tolerated a soft diet and 72.7% (16/22) of patients had a 50% reduction in bilirubin post-procedure. The median LOS for the 17 patients who were not discharged home immediately following the procedure was 2 (range 1-20) days. There were five AEs (2 mild, 3 moderate). Only three patients required reintervention (interventional radiology-guided biliary drainage, stent exchange for a benign biliary stricture, and placement of a second stent through an occluded distal common bile duct stent) over a median follow-up of 78 days. One patient with pancreatic cancer underwent successful tumor resection.

CONCLUSION

Single session EUS-guided double bypass (HG and GJ) is technically feasible and safe when conducted by experienced endosonographers. Larger, comparative studies are needed.

Outcomes of Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Biliary Drainage in a General Hospital for Patients with Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography-Difficult Transpapillary Biliary Drainage

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) has been developed as an alternative treatment for percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage for patients with bile duct stenosis. At specialized hospitals, the high success rate and effectiveness of EUS-BD as primary drainage has been reported. However, the procedure is highly technical and difficult, and it has not been generally performed. In this study, we retrospectively examined the effectiveness of EUS-BD in ERCP-difficult patients with distal bile duct stenosis. We retrospectively examined 24 consecutive cases in which EUS-BD was performed at our hospital for distal bile duct stenosis from October 2018 to December 2020. EUS-guided choledochoduodenostomy (EUS-CDS) was selected for cases that could be approached from the duodenal bulb, and EUS-HGS was selected for other cases. In the EUS-CDS and EUS-HGS groups, the technical success rates were 83.3% (10/12] and 91.7% (11/12], respectively. An adverse event occurred in one case in the EUS-CDS group, which developed severe biliary peritonitis. The stent patency period was 91 and 101 days in the EUS-CDS and EUS-HGS groups, respectively. EUS-BD for ERCP-difficult patients with distal bile duct stenosis is considered to be an effective alternative for biliary drainage that can be performed not only in specialized hospitals but also in general hospitals.

Hepaticogastrostomy versus choledochoduodenostomy: An international multicenter study on their long-term patency

Background and Objectives:

EUS-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) offers minimally invasive decompression when conventional endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography fails. Stents can be placed from the intrahepatic ducts into the stomach (hepaticogastrostomy [HG]) or from the extrahepatic bile duct into the small intestine (choledochoduodenostomy [CCD]). Long-term patency of these stents is unknown. In this study, we aim to compare long-term patency of CCD versus HG.

Methods:

Consecutive patients from 12 centers were included in a registry over 14 years. Demographics, procedure info, adverse events, and follow-up data were collected. Student's t-test, Chi–square, and logistic regression analyses were conducted. Only patients with at least 6-month follow-up or who died within 6-month postprocedure were included.

Results:

One-hundred and eighty-two patients were included (93% male; mean age: 70; HG n = 95, CCD n = 87). No significant difference in indication, diagnosis, dissection instrument, or stent type was seen between the two groups. Technical success was 92% in both groups. Clinical success was achieved in 75/87 (86%) in the HG group and 80/80 (100%) in the CCD group. A trend toward higher adverse events was seen in the CCD group. A total of 25 patients out of 87 needed stent revision in the HG group (success rate 71%), while eight out of 80 were revised in the CCD group (success rate 90%). Chi square shows CCD success higher than HG (90% vs. 71%, P = 0.010). After adjusting for diagnosis, jaundice or cholangitis presentation, instrument used for dissection, and gender, CCD was 4.5 times more likely than HG to achieve longer stent patency or manage obstruction (odds ratio 4.5; 95% 1.1548–17.6500, P = 0.0302).

Conclusion:

CCD is associated with superior long-term patency than HG but with a trend toward higher adverse events. This is particularly important in patients with increased survival. Additional studies are required before recommending a change in practice.

Choledochoduodenostomy Versus Hepaticogastrostomy in Endoscopic Ultrasound-guided Drainage for Malignant Biliary Obstruction: A Meta-analysis and Systematic Review

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to estimate the safety and efficacy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided choledochoduodenostomy (EUS-CDS) and endoscopic ultrasound-guided hepaticogastrostomy (EUS-HGS) for malignant biliary obstruction.

METHODS

We conducted a literature search using PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov. Studies that compared EUS-CDS and EUS-HGS were included in this study.

RESULTS

Thirteen studies were eligible for inclusion. The technical [odds ratio (OR): 0.95; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.51-1.74) and clinical (OR: 1.13; 95%CI: 0.66-1.94) success rates of EUS-CDS were comparable to those of EUS-HGS. However, EUS-CDS had less reintervention (OR: 0.31; 95%CI: 0.16-0.63) and stent obstruction (OR: 0.48; 95%CI: 0.21-0.94) than EUS-HGS. Both groups had similar adverse events (OR: 1.00; 95%CI: 0.70-1.43) and overall survival (hazard ratio: 1.07; 95%CI: 0.58-1.97).

CONCLUSIONS

EUS-CDS and EUS-HGS have comparable technical and clinical success rates, adverse events, and overall survival. However, EUS-CDS has less reintervention and stent obstruction.

Relief of biliary obstruction: choosing between endoscopic ultrasound and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) was originally devised as a novel diagnostic technique to enable endoscopists to stage malignancies and acquire tissue. However, it rapidly advanced toward therapeutic applications and has provided gastroenterologists with the ability to effectively treat and manage advanced diseases in a minimally invasive manner. EUS-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) has gained considerable attention as an approach to provide relief in malignant and benign biliary obstruction for patients when endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) fails or is not feasible. Such instances occur in those with surgically altered anatomy, gastroduodenal obstruction, periampullary diverticulum or prior transampullary duodenal stenting. While ERCP remains the gold standard, a multitude of studies are showing that EUS-BD can be used as an alternative modality even in patients who could successfully undergo ERCP. This review will shed light on recent EUS-guided advancements and techniques in malignant and benign biliary obstruction.

[Palliative endoscopy]

Endoscopy is the leading method in the diagnostics of gastrointestinal malignancies. With the increasing incidences of various tumor entities, a palliative treatment situation is already present in many patients despite an increasing number of screening strategies. Palliative endoscopy can make an essential contribution to alleviation of tumor-related symptoms, such as dysphagia, malnutrition, cholestasis, ileus and pain. Various approaches can be offered to safeguard the nutrition, e.g. percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) and percutaneous endoscopic jejunostomy (PEJ), for maintenance of the gastrointestinal passage (stents) and secretion drainage or to drain congested hollow organs. Furthermore, in cases of inaccessibility or impassability of stenoses due to tumors, endosonographically assisted punctures offer the possibility to guarantee new drainage options or continuities by stent placement. In all interventions possible contraindications and complications must be taken into account.

Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Hepaticogastrostomy: Technical Review and Tips to Prevent Adverse Events

Most patients who require biliary drainage can be treated by endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP)-guided procedures. However, ERCP can be challenging in patients with complications, such as malignant duodenal obstruction, or a surgically-altered anatomy, such as a Roux-en-Y anastomosis, which prevent advancement of the duodenoscope into the ampulla of Vater. Recently, endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided biliary drainage via transhepatic or transduodenal approaches has emerged as an alternative means of biliary drainage. Typically, EUS-guided gallbladder drainage or choledochoduodenostomy can be performed via both approaches, as can EUS-guided hepaticogastrostomy (HGS). EUS-HGS, because of its transgastric approach, can be performed in patients with malignant duodenal obstruction. Technical tips for EUS-HGS have reached maturity due to device and technical developments. Although the technical success rates of EUS-HGS are high, the rate of adverse events is not low, with stent migration still being reported despite many preventive efforts. In this review, we described technical tips for EUS-HGS related to bile duct puncture, guidewire insertion, fistula dilation, and stent deployment, along with a literature review. Additionally, we provided technical tips to improve the technical success of EUS-HGS.

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

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Biliary drainage using endoscopic ultrasound (EUS-BD) has been developed as a novel technique to obtain biliary access and drainage when ERCP fails. Numerous studies have demonstrated its safety and efficacy specifically pertaining to those with malignant distal biliary obstruction or altered foregut anatomy. The aim of this study is to evaluate the safety and efficacy of EUS-BD in benign indications in patients with normal foregut anatomy.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective comparative study from 5 academic medical centers (2008-2018) involving patients with benign biliary obstruction and native foregut anatomy who had an initial failed ERCP with subsequent attempt at biliary decompression via EUS-BD or by repeating ERCP.

RESULTS

36 patients (mean age 61.6 ± 2.2, 38.9% female) who underwent attempted EUS-BD following initial failed ERCP were compared to 50 patients (mean age 62.7 ± 2.3, 73.5% female) who underwent repeat ERCP following an initial failed cannulation. EUS-BD was technically successful in 28 (77.8%) patients with rendezvous being the most common approach (86.1%). A higher level of pre-procedural bilirubin was found to be associated with technical success of EUS-BD (3.65 ± 0.63 versus 1.1 ± 0.4, p value 0.04). Success of repeat ERCP following failed cannulation was 86%. Adverse events were significantly more frequent in the EUS-BD cohort when compared to the repeat ERCP (10 (27.8%) versus 4 (8.0%), p = 0.02, OR 4.32.

CONCLUSIONS

EUS-BD remains a viable therapeutic option in the setting of benign biliary disease, with success rates of 77.8%. Adverse events were significantly more common with EUS-BD vs. repeat ERCP, emphasizing the need to perform in expert centers with appropriate multidisciplinary support and to strongly consider the urgency of biliary decompression before considering same session EUS-BD after failed initial biliary access.

EUS-guided intrahepatic biliary drainage: a large retrospective series and subgroup comparison between percutaneous drainage in hilar stenoses or postsurgical anatomy

Background and study aims  Endoscopic ultrasound-guided intrahepatic biliary drainage (EUS-IBD) struggles to find a place in management algorithms, especially compared to percutaneous drainage (PTBD). In the setting of hilar stenoses or postsurgical anatomy data are even more limited. Patients and methods  All consecutive EUS-IBDs performed in our tertiary referral center between 2012 - 2019 were retrospectively evaluated. Rendez-vous (RVs), antegrade stenting (AS) and hepatico-gastrostomies (HGs) were compared. The predefined subgroup of EUS-IBD patients with proximal stenosis/surgically-altered anatomy was matched 1:1 with PTBD performed for the same indications. Efficacy, safety and events during follow-up were compared. Results  One hundred four EUS-IBDs were included (malignancies = 87.7 %). These consisted of 16 RVs, 43 ASs and 45 HGs. Technical and clinical success rates were 89.4 % and 96.2 %, respectively. Any-degree, severe and fatal adverse events (AEs) occurred in 23.3 %, 2.9 %, and 0.9 % respectively. Benign indications were more common among RVs while proximal stenoses, surgically-altered anatomy, and disconnected left ductal system among HGs. Procedures were shorter with HGs performed with specifically designed stents (25 vs . 48 minutes, P  = 0.004) and there was also a trend toward less dysfunction with those stents (6.7 % vs . 30 %, P  = 0.09) compared with previous approaches. Among patients with proximal stenosis/surgically-altered anatomy, EUS-IBD vs. PTBD showed higher rates of clinical success (97.4 % vs. 79.5 %, P  = 0.01), reduced post-procedural pain (17.8 % vs. 44.4 %, p = 0.004), shorter median hospital stay (7.5 vs 11.5 days, P  = 0.01), lower rates of stent dysfunction (15.8 % vs. 42.9 %, P  = 0.01), and the mean number of reinterventions was lower (0.4 vs. 2.8, P  < 0.0001). Conclusions  EUS-IBD has high technical and clinical success with an acceptable safety profile. HGs show comparable outcomes, which are likely to further improve with dedicated tools. For proximal strictures and surgically-altered anatomy, EUS-IBD seems superior to PTBD.

Comparison of endoscopic ultrasound-guided hepaticogastrostomy and the antegrade technique in the management of unresectable malignant biliary obstruction: study protocol for a prospective, multicentre, randomised controlled trial

Background

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) is used after failed endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. Based on existing studies, intrahepatic (IH) approaches are preferred in patients with dilated IH bile ducts. Both ultrasound-guided hepaticogastrostomy (EUS-HGS) and ultrasound-guided antegrade treatment (EUS-AG) are appropriate for patients with unreachable papillae. Nevertheless, there have been no direct comparisons between these two approaches. Therefore, we aim to evaluate and compare the safety and efficiency of EUS-HGS and EUS-AG in patients with an unreachable papilla.

Methods

This is a prospective, randomised, controlled, multicentre study with two parallel groups without masking. One hundred forty-eight patients from three hospitals who met the inclusion criteria will be randomly assigned (1:1) to undergo either EUS-HGS or EUS-AG for relief of malignant biliary obstruction. The final study follow-up is scheduled at 1 year postoperatively. The primary endpoint is efficiency, described by technical and clinical success rates of EUS-HGS and EUS-AG in patients with unreachable papillae. The secondary endpoints include stent patency, overall survival rates, complication rates, length of hospital stays, and hospitalisation expenses. The chi-square test, Kaplan–Meier methods, log-rank test, and Cox regression analysis will be used to analyse the data.

Discussion

To our knowledge, this is the first study to compare these two EUS-BD approaches directly using a multicentre, randomised, controlled trial design. The clinical economic indexes will also be compared, as they may also affect the patient’s choice. The result may contribute to establishing a strategic guideline for choosing IH EUS-BD approaches.

Trial registration

Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR) ChiCTR1900020737. Registered on 15 January 2019