Prospective comparison study between 19-gauge needle with .025-inch guidewire and 22-gauge needle with novel .018-inch guidewire during EUS-guided transhepatic biliary drainage (with video)

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.

ERCP using balloon-assisted endoscopes versus EUS-guided treatment for common bile duct stones in Roux-en-Y gastrectomy

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

We compared ERCP using a balloon-assisted endoscope (BE-ERCP) with EUS-guided antegrade treatment (EUS-AG) for removal of common bile duct (CBD) stones in patients with Roux-en-Y (R-Y) gastrectomy.

METHODS

Consecutive patients who had previous R-Y gastrectomy undergoing BE-ERCP or EUS-AG for CBD stones in 16 centers were retrospectively analyzed.

RESULTS

BE-ERCP and EUS-AG were performed in 588 and 59 patients, respectively. Baseline characteristics were similar, except for CBD diameter and angle. The technical success rate was 83.7% versus 83.1% (P = .956), complete stone removal rate was 78.1% versus 67.8% (P = .102), and early adverse event rate was 10.2% versus 18.6% (P = .076) in BE-ERCP and EUS-AG, respectively. The mean number of endoscopic sessions was smaller in BE-ERCP (1.5 ± .8 vs 1.9 ± 1.0 sessions, P = .01), whereas the median total treatment time was longer (90 vs 61.5 minutes, P = .001). Among patients with biliary access, the complete stone removal rate was significantly higher in BE-ERCP (93.3% vs 81.6%, P = .009). Negative predictive factors were CBD diameter ≥15 mm (odds ratio [OR], .41) and an angle of CBD <90 degrees (OR, .39) in BE-ERCP and a stone size ≥10 mm (OR, .07) and an angle of CBD <90 degrees (OR, .07) in EUS-AG. The 1-year recurrence rate was 8.3% in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Effectiveness and safety of BE-ERCP and EUS-AG were comparable in CBD stone removal for patients after R-Y gastrectomy, but complete stone removal after technical success was superior in BE-ERCP.

Adverse events with EUS-guided biliary drainage: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Multiple meta-analyses have evaluated the technical and clinical success of EUS-guided biliary drainage (BD), but meta-analyses concerning adverse events (AEs) are limited. The present meta-analysis analyzed AEs associated with various types of EUS-BD.

METHODS

A literature search of MEDLINE, Embase, and Scopus was conducted from 2005 to September 2022 for studies analyzing the outcome of EUS-BD. The primary outcomes were incidence of overall AEs, major AEs, procedure-related mortality, and reintervention. The event rates were pooled using a random-effects model.

RESULTS

One hundred fifty-five studies (7887 patients) were included in the final analysis. The pooled clinical success rates and incidence of AEs with EUS-BD were 95% (95% confidence interval [CI], 94.1-95.9) and 13.7% (95% CI, 12.3-15.0), respectively. Among early AEs, bile leak was the most common followed by cholangitis with pooled incidences of 2.2% (95% CI, 1.8-2.7) and 1.0% (95% CI, .8-1.3), respectively. The pooled incidences of major AEs and procedure-related mortality with EUS-BD were .6% (95% CI, .3-.9) and .1% (95% CI, .0-.4), respectively. The pooled incidences of delayed migration and stent occlusion were 1.7% (95% CI, 1.1-2.3) and 11.0% (95% CI, 9.3-12.8), respectively. The pooled event rate for reintervention (for stent migration or occlusion) after EUS-BD was 16.2% (95% CI, 14.0-18.3; I2 = 77.5%).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite a high clinical success rate, EUS-BD may be associated with AEs in one-seventh of the cases. However, major AEs and mortality incidence remain less than 1%, which is reassuring.

Endoscopic ultrasound guided biliary 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.