Efficacy of a dedicated plastic stent in endoscopic ultrasound-guided hepaticogastrostomy during the learning curve: cumulative multi-center experience

Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Treatments for Pancreatic Cancer: Understanding How Endoscopic Ultrasound Has Revolutionized Management of Pancreatic Cancer

Pancreatic cancer is associated with high rates of morbidity and mortality. Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided biopsy has become the standard diagnostic modality per the guidelines. The use of EUS has been growing for providing various treatments in patients with pancreatic cancers: biliary and gallbladder drainage for those with malignant biliary obstruction, gastroenterostomy for malignant gastric outlet obstruction, celiac plexus/ganglia neurolysis for pain control, radiofrequency ablation, placement of fiducial markers, and injection of local chemotherapeutic agents. In this review, we explore the recent clinical studies evaluating the EUS-guided treatments in pancreatic cancer.

Long-term outcomes of endoscopic ultrasound-guided hepaticogastrostomy in patients with malignant biliary obstruction

BACKGROUND

Hepaticogastrostomy drainage through endoscopic ultrasound (EUS-HGS) has emerged in the 2010s as a new technique for biliary decompression in cases of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) failure for malignant biliary obstruction (MBO). Substantial technical and procedural progress in performing EUS-HGS has been achieved, allowing high technical and clinical success and an acceptable risk of adverse events in studies mainly focusing on short-term outcomes. However, the long-term effects of EUS-HGS and the risk of recurrent biliary obstruction (RBO) have not been fully evaluated.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the long-term effects of EUS-HGS and the risk of RBO.

METHODS

Data from 211 patients undergoing technically successful EUS-HGS in three academic centers were retrospectively collected. Clinical success, adverse events, RBO, and reinterventions were evaluated.

RESULTS

In total, 198 patients underwent technically successful EUS-HGS for MBO. The median overall survival was 144 days [108, 2011] after the procedure. Mean patient age was 69.39 (12.91) years. The cause of MBO was pancreatic cancer (n = 98, 49.5%) followed by cholangiocarcinoma (n = 29, 14.6%). The location of MBO was distal in 27.6% of cases and proximal in 68.4%. Adverse events were observed during the follow-up in 65 patients (33%). On multivariate analysis, the use of partially covered self-expandable metal stents (PCSEMS) was associated with a lower risk of RBO (HR = 0.47 [0.24-0.95], p = 0.034). Additionally, patients with distal stenoses had a trend toward better stent patency (HR = 0.06[0-0.77], p = 0.031). RBO developed in 38 cases (19.1%) mainly due tumor ingrowth (36.8%) with a high success rate of endoscopic management.

CONCLUSIONS

While RBO occurred in a notable proportion of patients, the primary cause of mortality was progression of the underlying malignancy rather than stent dysfunction. The efficiency of stents, particularly PCSEMS, and the high success rate of endoscopic management for RBO underscore the effectiveness and reliability of these treatments in managing biliary complications.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary interventions

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

Feasibility and safety of EUS-guided biliary drainage in inexperienced centers: a multicenter study in southwest Japan

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

EUS-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) has shown promising procedural outcomes in high-volume centers. Although inferior procedural outcomes were reported in inexperienced centers during the early days of EUS-BD, the current outcomes are unknown. This study aimed to clarify the feasibility and safety of EUS-BD in centers that recently introduced EUS-BD.

METHODS

This multicenter retrospective study was conducted at 22 centers that introduced EUS-BD between 2017 and 2022. A maximum of 20 initial EUS-BD cases at each center were evaluated. The clinical outcomes and experience of 84 endoscopists who performed these procedures were examined. Primary outcomes were the rate of technical success and adverse events (AEs), whereas secondary outcomes were risk factors associated with technical failure and procedure-related AEs.

RESULTS

Two hundred fifty-five patients were enrolled. The technical success rate was 91.4% (233/255). Among 22 technical failure cases, guidewire manipulation failure was the most common cause (n = 12) followed by tract dilation failure (n = 5). The AE rate was 10.2% (26/255). Multivariate analysis identified a puncture target diameter of <5 mm (odds ratio, 3.719; 95% CI, 1.415-9.776; P = .008) and moderate ascites extending to the liver surface (odds ratio, 3.25; 95% CI, 1.195-8.653; P = .021) as independent risk factors for technical failure and procedure-related AEs, respectively. Endoscopists' procedural experience was not a risk factor for technical failure or procedure-related AEs.

CONCLUSIONS

The feasibility and safety of EUS-BD were maintained during the induction phase at inexperienced centers. These data will be helpful to better understand the current status of EUS-BD. (Clinical trial registration number: UMIN 000053615.).

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.

Spontaneous migration of a dedicated plastic stent after endoscopic ultrasound-guided hepaticogastrostomy in a patient with surgically altered anatomy: a case report

Objective: We report a case of spontaneous migration of a dedicated plastic stent after endoscopic ultrasound-guided hepaticogastrostomy (EUS-HGS) in a patient with surgically altered anatomy. Patient: The patient was a male in his 70s. He underwent EUS-HGS with the successful insertion of a dedicated plastic stent and had no obvious postprocedural complications. However, nine days after the procedure, the patient visited our hospital because of abdominal pain, fever, and stent excretion. We performed EUS-HGS with antegrade stenting, after which the patient had no further complications. Conclusion: Stent migration is considered a complication requiring caution when performing EUS-HGS in patients with surgically altered anatomy.

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.

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.

Complete migration of a fully covered self-expandable metallic stent after endoscopic ultrasound-guided hepaticogastrostomy: A case report

A male patient underwent gastrojejunal bypass surgery in 2017. In 2020, he was referred to our hospital for suspected obstructive jaundice. Subsequently, he was diagnosed with cholangiocarcinoma, and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography was attempted via balloon-assisted enteroscopy. However, the endoscope did not reach the duodenal papilla owing to the abdomen-small intestine adhesion. Therefore, endoscopic ultrasound-guided hepaticogastrostomy was performed using a dedicated plastic stent. After stent placement, obstructive jaundice and cholangitis promptly improved. However, we replaced the plastic stent with a fully covered self-expandable metal stent because stent occlusions occurred frequently. Two months after fully covered self-expandable metal stent placement, the patient developed cholangitis again. Notably, during the endoscopic procedure, the stent was found to be completely migrated. Nevertheless, the fistula was still open, and the patient was successfully retreated with the maintained fistula of endoscopic ultrasound-guided hepaticogastrostomy.

Complications of biliary stenting versus T-tube insertion after common bile duct exploration: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Complications following the insertion T-tube or stent after common bile duct exploration (CBDE) remain problematic in nowadays surgical era. Based on our knowledge, we did not find any meta-analysis intentionally evaluating the complications between both groups. At this moment, we aimed to analyze and compare both procedures' complications, efficacy, efficiency, and feasibility.

METHODS

We searched literature from four databases (EuroPMC, PubMed, Scopus, and ClinicalTrials.gov) up to June 2022 to compile the randomized controlled trials and pro-/retrospective cohort studies. Review Manager 5.4 was used to statistically analyze each outcome measured between biliary stenting and T-tube insertion.

RESULTS

Sixteen studies with 1,080 patients (534 biliary stents and 546 T-tube) were included for qualitative and quantitative analysis. The pooled risk ratio (RR) of the overall postoperative complications rate was significantly lower in the biliary stent group compared to the T-tube group 0.43 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.23-0.80, p = 0.007]. In terms of the operation time, length of hospital stay, and readmission rate was also decreased in stenting as biliary drainage over T-tube placement 1.02 minutes [95% CI -1.53, -0.52, p < 0.0001], 1.96 days [95% CI -2.63, -1.29, p < 0.00001], and RR 0.39 [95% CI 0.15-0.97, p = 0.04], respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Stenting as biliary drainage after CBDE was superior to T-tube insertion. A shorter operation time and hospital stay in biliary drainage resulted in a lower overall postoperative complication rate. Other influences, including the complexity and shorter learning curve, might also affect the superiority of biliary stenting.