Combination of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography and endoscopic ultrasonography-guided biliary drainage in malignant hilar biliary obstruction

Safety of endoscopic ultrasound-guided hepaticogastrostomy in patients with malignant biliary obstruction and ascites

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided hepaticogastrostomy (EUS-HGS) is useful for patients with biliary cannulation failure or inaccessible papillae. However, it can lead to serious complications such as bile peritonitis in patients with ascites; therefore, development of a safe method to perform EUS-HGS is important. Herein, we evaluated the safety of EUS-HGS with continuous ascitic fluid drainage in patients with ascites.

METHODS

Patients with moderate or severe ascites who underwent continuous ascites drainage, which was initiated before EUS-HGS and terminated after the procedure at our institution between April 2015 and December 2022, were included in the study. We evaluated the technical and clinical success rates, EUS-HGS-related complications, and feasibility of re-intervention.

RESULTS

Ten patients underwent continuous ascites drainage, which was initiated before EUS-HGS and terminated after completion of the procedure. Median duration of ascites drainage before and after EUS-HGS was 2 and 4 days, respectively. Technical success with EUS-HGS was achieved in all 10 patients (100%). Clinical success with EUS-HGS was achieved in 9 of the 10 patients (90 %). No endoscopic complications such as bile peritonitis were observed.

CONCLUSION

In patients with ascites, continuous ascites drainage, which is initiated before EUS-HGS and terminated after completion of the procedure, may prevent complications and allow safe performance of EUS-HGS.

Bile liquid biopsy in biliary tract cancer

Biliary tract cancers are heterogeneous in etiology, morphology and molecular characteristics thus impacting disease management. Diagnosis is complex and prognosis poor. The advent of liquid biopsy has provided a unique approach to more thoroughly understand tumor biology in general and biliary tract cancers specifically. Due to their minimally invasive nature, liquid biopsy can be used to serially monitor disease progression and allow real-time monitoring of tumor genetic profiles as well as therapeutic response. Due to the unique anatomic location of biliary tract cancer, bile provides a promising biologic fluid for this purpose. This review focuses on the composition of bile and the use of these various components, ie, cells, extracellular vesicles, nucleic acids, proteins and metabolites as potential biomarkers. Based on the disease characteristics and research status of biliary tract cancer, considerable effort should be made to increase understanding of this disease, promote research and development into early diagnosis, develop efficient diagnostic, therapeutic and prognostic markers.

The Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography and Endoscopic Ultrasound Connection: Unity Is Strength, or the Endoscopic Ultrasonography Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography Concept

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) are both crucial for the endoscopic management of biliopancreatic diseases: the combination of their diagnostic and therapeutic potential is useful in many clinical scenarios, such as indeterminate biliary stenosis, biliary stones, chronic pancreatitis and biliary and pancreatic malignancies. This natural and evident convergence between EUS and ERCP, which by 2006 we were calling the "Endoscopic ultrasonography retrograde colangiopancreatography (EURCP) concept", has become a hot topic in the last years, together with the implementation of the therapeutic possibilities of EUS (from EUS-guided necrosectomy to gastro-entero anastomoses) and with the return of ERCP to its original diagnostic purpose thanks to ancillary techniques (extraductal ultrasound (EDUS), intraductal ultrasound (IDUS), cholangiopancreatoscopy with biopsies and probe-based confocal laser endomicroscopy (pCLE)). In this literary review, we retraced the recent history of EUS and ERCP, reported examples of the clinical applicability of the EURCP concept and explored the option of performing the two procedures in only one endoscopic session, with its positive implications for the patient, the endoscopist and the health care system. In the last few years, we also evaluated the possibility of combining EUS and ERCP into a single endoscopic instrument in a single step, but certain obstacles surrounding this approach remain.

Safety and efficacy of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in previously treated liver cancer patients: a survival analysis

Background and Aim

The prognosis and medication response for liver malignancies are both dismal and highly heterogeneous. For this diverse malignancy, multimodality therapies such as drugs, surgical management, and/or l+iver transplantation are available. Biliary complications remain a major problem after liver cancer treatment especially in those patients who undergo liver transplantation for their end stage liver disease. Although, most biliary complications can be successfully managed with endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. However, biliary complications still considered an important factor influencing long-term results in liver cancer treatment patients. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of biliary complications on the overall patient's survival rate after the endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography.

Patients and Methods

We retrospectively analyzed data of consecutive patients who were treated for liver cancer at our tertiary care hospital from January 2015 to July 2020. We focused on the biliary complications and procedural data, including post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography complications, survival rate, and complementary or alternative treatments to endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography.

Results

We identified 967 cases (mean age 49; range 11-75), 84% men. During the mean follow up of 25 months (range 1 to 66 months), 102 patients developed biliary complications; 68/102 underwent 141 therapeutics endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography procedures. The rest 34/102 patients were managed with percutaneous transhepatic cholangiography, conservative management, and/or surgery. Post- endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography complications occurred in 79.4%, including anastomotic strictures in 25, non-anastomotic strictures in 5, stones in 5, cholangitis in 4, post-sphinctretomy bleeding in 3, pancreatitis in 2, and bile leakage in 1 patient. Seven (13.0%) patients died after ERCP due to multiple organ dysfunction syndrome. Although the survival rate of patients who underwent ERCP and those without ERCP was similar, patients with biliary complications fared significant worse.

Conclusion

Although endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography is useful for the management of post liver cancer treatment biliary complications; the need for multiple rounds of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography and even post endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography complications is relatively high, and often results in increased mortality. However, the survival following endoscopic or surgical therapy in liver cancer treatment patients is similar.

Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy of India Consensus Guidelines on Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Biliary Drainage: Part I (Indications, Outcomes, Comparative Evaluations, Training)

Endoscopic management of bile duct obstruction is a key aspect in gastroenterology practice and has evolved since the first description of biliary cannulation by McCune et al in 1968. Over many decades, the techniques and accessories have been refined and currently, the first-line management for extrahepatic biliary obstruction is endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreaticography (ERCP). However, even in expert hands the success rate of ERCP reaches up to 95%. In almost 4 to 16% cases, failure to cannulate the bile duct may necessitate other alternatives such as surgical bypass or more commonly percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD). While surgery is associated with high morbidity and mortality, PTBD has a very high reintervention and complication rate (∼80%) and poor quality of life. Almost parallelly, endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) has come a long way from a mere diagnostic tool to a substantial therapeutic option in various pancreatico-biliary diseases. Biliary drainage using EUS-guidance (EUS-BD) has gained momentum since the first report published by Giovannini et al in 2001. The concept of accessing the bile duct through a different route than the papilla, circumventing the shortcomings of PTBD and sometimes bypassing the actual obstruction have enthused a lot of interest in this novel strategy. The three key methods of EUS-BD entail transluminal, antegrade, and rendezvous approach. Over the past decade, with growing experience, EUS-BD has been found to be equivalent to ERCP or PTBD for malignant obstruction with better success rates.

EUS-BD, albeit, is not devoid of adverse events and can carry fatal adverse events. However, neither the technique of EUS-BD, nor the accessories and stents for EUS-BD have been standardized.

Additionally, different countries and regions have different availability of the accessories making generalizability a difficult task. Thus, technical aspects of this evolving therapy need to be outlined. For these reasons, the Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy India deemed it appropriate to develop technical consensus statements for performing safe and successful EUS-BD.

Long-term outcomes and predictors of adverse events of EUS-guided hepatico-gastrostomy for malignant biliary obstruction: Multicenter, retrospective study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided hepaticogastrostomy (HGS) may be a feasible and useful alternative in patients with malignant biliary obstruction (MBO) after failed endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). To date, the risk factors for adverse events (AEs) and long-term outcomes of EUS-HGS have not been fully explored according to stent type. Therefore, we evaluated potential risk factors for AEs and long-term outcomes of EUS-HGS.

METHODS

In total, 120 patients who underwent EUS-HGS were retrospectively reviewed. A multivariate analysis through Cox proportional hazard and logistic regression model was used to identify the risk factors for stent dysfunction and AEs, respectively. Stent patency and patient survival were evaluated using Kaplan-Meier plots with a log-rank test for each stent.

RESULTS

The technical and clinical success rates were 96.2% (102/106) and 83.0% (88/106). The median duration of stent patency was longer in self-expandable metal stents (SEMS) compared to plastic stents (PS) (158 vs. 108 days). Kaplan-Meier analysis indicated that the type of stent was not associated with stent patency (Hazard ratios [HR] 0.997, 95% confidence interval [CI] [0.525-1.896]) or overall survival. In addition, multivariate analysis indicated that hilar MBO significantly associated with stent dysfunction (HR, 2.340; 95% CI, 1.028-5.326, p = 0.043) and late AEs.

CONCLUSIONS

Given the lower incidence of AEs and better long-term outcomes of EUS-HGS, it can be considered a safe alternative to ERCP or percutaneous approaches regardless of which stent is used. Furthermore, hilar MBO was established as a potential risk factor for stent dysfunction and late AEs.

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.

Endoscopic management of perihilar cholangiocarcinoma

Endoscopic management for perihilar cholangiocarcinoma (PHCC) is evolving toward more accurate diagnosis and safer drainage. In imaging, it is important to diagnose the entire lesion using multidetector-row computed tomography to determine resectability and optimal surgical planning, followed by local diagnosis using endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. Video peroral cholangioscopy and probe-based confocal laser endomicroscopy have been newly introduced as diagnostic imaging methods and are being applied clinically. In transpapillary forceps biopsy for PHCC diagnosis, the location in the bile duct (for mapping biopsy) and the number of biopsy samples should be determined depending on resectability, the morphological type, and future surgical planning. Preoperative drainage has shifted from percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage to endoscopic nasobiliary drainage given the possibility of seeding metastasis. In addition, considering potential patient discomfort from a nasal tube, the usefulness of the placement of a plastic stent above the papilla (inside stent) as a bridging therapy for surgery has been reported. For drainage of unresectable PHCC, the improved prognosis due to advances in chemotherapy has necessitated a strategy that accounts for reintervention. Thus, in addition to uncovered self-expandable metallic stents (SEMS), exchangeable slim fully covered SEMS and inside stents have started to be used. In addition to the conventional transpapillary approach, an endoscopic ultrasonography-guided approach has been introduced, and a combination of both methods has also been proposed. To improve the quality of life and prognosis of PHCC patients, endoscopists need to understand and be able to use the various methods of endoscopic management for PHCC.

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 radiation exposure between endoscopic ultrasound-guided drainage and transpapillary drainage by endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography for pancreatobiliary diseases

OBJECTIVES

The transpapillary drainage by endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP-D) cannot be performed without fluoroscopy, and there are many situations in which fluoroscopy is required even in endoscopic ultrasound-guided drainage (EUS-D). Previous studies have compared the efficacy, but not the radiation exposure of EUS-D and ERCP-D. While radiation exposure in ERCP-D has been previously evaluated, there is a paucity of information regarding radiation doses in EUS-D. This study aimed to assess radiation exposure in EUS-D compared with that in ERCP-D.

METHODS

This retrospective single-center cohort study included consecutive patients who underwent EUS-D and ERCP-D between October 2017 and March 2019. The air kerma (AK, mGy), kerma-area product (KAP, Gycm² ), fluoroscopy time (FT, min), and procedure time (PT, min) were assessed. The invasive probability weighting method was used to qualify the comparisons.

RESULTS

We enrolled 372 and 105 patients who underwent ERCP-D and EUS-D, respectively. The mean AK, KAP, and FT in the EUS-D group were higher by 53%, 28%, and 27%, respectively, than those in the ERCP-D group, whereas PT was shorter by approximately 11% (AK, 135.0 vs. 88.4; KAP, 28.1 vs. 21.9; FT, 20.4 vs. 16.0; PT, 38.7 vs. 43.5). The sub-analysis limited to biliary drainage cases showed the same trend (AK, 128.3 vs. 90.9; KAP, 27.0 vs. 22.2; FT, 16.4 vs. 16.1; PT, 32.5 vs. 44.4).

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first study to assess radiation exposure in EUS-D compared with that in ERCP-D. Radiation exposure was significantly higher in EUS-D than in ERCP-D, despite the shorter procedure time.

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.

Comparison of EUS-guided choledochoduodenostomy and percutaneous drainage for distal biliary obstruction: A multicenter cohort study

Background and Objectives:

Percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD) and EUS-guided choledochoduodenostomy (EUS-CD) are alternate therapies to endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography with stent placement for biliary decompression. The primary outcome of this study is to compare the technical and clinical success of PTBD to EUS-CD in patients with distal biliary obstruction. Secondary outcomes were adverse events (AEs), need for reintervention, and survival.

Methods:

A multicenter retrospective cohort study from three different centers was performed. Cox regression was used to compare time to reintervention and survival and logistic regression to compare technical and clinical success and AE rates. Subgroup analysis was performed in patients with malignant biliary obstruction (MBO).

Results:

A total of 86 patients (58 PTBD and 28 EUS-CD) were included. The two groups were similar with respect to age, gender, and cause of biliary obstruction, with malignancy being the most common etiology (80.2%). EUS-CD utilized lumen-apposing metal stents in 15 patients and self-expandable metal biliary stents in 13 patients. Technical success was similar been EUS-CD (100%) and PTBD (96.6%; P = 0.3). EUS-CD was associated with higher clinical success compared to PTBD (84.6% vs. 62.1%; P = 0.04). There was a trend toward lower rates of AEs with EUS-CD 14.3% versus PTBD 29.3%, odds ratio: 0.40 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.12–1.33, P = 0.14). The need for reintervention was significantly lower among patients who underwent EUS-CD (10.7%) compared to PTBD (77.6%) (hazard ratio: 0.07, 95% CI: 0.02–0.24; P < 0.001). A sensitivity analysis of only patients with MBO demonstrated similar rate of reintervention between the groups in individuals who survived 50 days or less after the biliary decompression. However, reintervention rates were lower for EUS-CD in those with longer survival.

Conclusion:

EUS-CD is a technically and clinically highly successful procedure with a trend toward lower AEs compared to PTBD. EUS-CD minimizes the need for reintervention, which may enhance end-of-life quality in patients with MBO and expected survival longer than 50 days.

Utility of dedicated bougie dilator for a 0.018-inch guidewire during EUS-guided biliary drainage: A multi-center retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

During endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD), a combination of a 19-gauge needle and a 0.025-inch guidewire is generally used. However, a 19-gauge needle has poor maneuverability because of their stiffness and rigidity and might have poor penetrability in non-dilated bile ducts because of their large bore. In contrast, the application of a 22-gauge needle is expected to have improved maneuverability. However, only a 0.018-inch guidewire, which has less supportability, is applicable in the subsequent guidewire selection. This study aimed to evaluate the feasibility and safety of a dedicated bougie dilator for a 0.018-inch guidewire.

METHODS

From September 2019 to May 2020, 26 patients underwent fistula dilation using the dilator after accessing the bile duct using a 22-gauge needle and a 0.018-inch guidewire during EUS-BD. The success and adverse event rates of EUS-BD were evaluated.

RESULTS

Biliary access with a combination of a 22-gauge needle and a 0.018-inch guidewire was successful in all with a median bile duct diameter of 5 mm. Dilation of the fistula using the dedicated dilator was also successful in all cases. Subsequently, the dilator was successfully exchanged to an ERCP catheter that allowed for exchange to a 0.025-inch guidewire, except in one case where the catheter did not cross the fistula and a dilation balloon was inserted for an exchange to a 0.025-inch guidewire. The technical success rate of the EUS-BD was 100%. The adverse event rate was 19%.

CONCLUSION

The application of the dedicated dilator for a 0.018-inch guidewire was considered feasible and safe for EUS-BD.

Extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: Current status of endoscopic approach and additional therapies

The prognosis of patients with advanced or unresectable extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma is poor. More than 50% of patients with jaundice are inoperable at the time of first diagnosis. Endoscopic treatment in patients with obstructive jaundice ensures bile duct drainage in preoperative or palliative settings. Relief of symptoms (pain, pruritus, jaundice) and improvement in quality of life are the aims of palliative therapy. Stent implantation by endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography is generally preferred for long-term palliation. There is a vast variety of plastic and metal stents, covered or uncovered. The stent choice depends on the expected length of survival, quality of life, costs and physician expertise. This review will provide the framework for the endoscopic minimally invasive therapy in extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. Moreover, additional therapies, such as brachytherapy, photodynamic therapy, radiofrequency ablation, chemotherapy, molecular-targeted therapy and/or immunotherapy by the endoscopic approach, are the nonsurgical methods associated with survival improvement rate and/or local symptom palliation.

Personalized Endoscopy in Complex Malignant Hilar Biliary Strictures

Malignant hilar biliary obstruction (HBO) represents a complex clinical condition in terms of diagnosis, surgical and medical treatment, endoscopic approach, and palliation. The main etiology of malignant HBO is hilar cholangiocarcinoma that is considered an aggressive biliary tract's cancer and has still today a poor prognosis. Endoscopy plays a crucial role in malignant HBO from the diagnosis to the palliation. This technique allows the collection of cytological or histological samples, direct visualization of the suspect malignant tissue, and an echoendoscopic evaluation of the primary tumor and its locoregional staging. Because obstructive jaundice is the most common clinical presentation of malignant HBO, endoscopic biliary drainage, when indicated, is the preferred treatment over the percutaneous approach. Several endoscopic techniques are today available for both the diagnosis and the treatment of biliary obstruction. The choice among them can differ for each clinical scenario. In fact, a personalized endoscopic approach is mandatory in order to perform the proper procedure in the singular patient.

Unilateral versus Bilateral Endoscopic Nasobiliary Drainage and Subsequent Metal Stent Placement for Unresectable Malignant Hilar Obstruction: A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial

(1) Background: Endoscopic management of hilar biliary obstruction is still challenging. Compared with unilateral drainage, bilateral drainage could preserve larger functional liver volume and potentially improve clinical outcomes. To evaluate the effectiveness of bilateral drainage, we conducted this multicenter randomized controlled study. (2) Methods: Patients with unresectable malignant hilar biliary obstruction were assigned to unilateral or bilateral group. At first, patients underwent endoscopic nasobiliary drainage (ENBD), and subsequently underwent self-expandable metallic stent (SEMS) deployment. Primary outcomes were the functional success rate of ENBD and time to recurrent biliary obstruction (TRBO) after SEMS deployment. (3) Results: During the study period, 38 and 39 patients were enrolled in the unilateral and bilateral groups. The functional success rate was similar in the uni- and bi-ENBD group (57% vs. 56%; p = 0.99), but the rate of additional drainage was higher in uni-ENBD group. Although TRBO and overall survival time after SEMS deployment were not different between the groups (p = 0.11 and 0.78, respectively), the incidence of early adverse events tended to be higher in the bi-SEMS group (5.3% vs. 28%; p = 0.11). (4) Conclusions: Our study failed to demonstrate the superiority of bilateral over unilateral biliary drainage in terms of functional success rate and TRBO.

EUS-guided biliary drainage for malignant hilar biliary obstruction: A concise review

EUS-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) has emerged as an alternative to ERCP for distal biliary obstruction in expert hands. Various routes for EUS-guided access in distal biliary obstruction include EUS choledochoduodenostomy, EUS-guided rendezvous, and EUS-antegrade (EUS-AG) stent placement. While percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage and ERCP are established modalities in management of malignant hilar biliary obstruction, the role of EUS-BD is emerging. Various methods of drainage in hilar obstruction include EUS hepaticogastrostomy, EUS hepaticoduodenostomy, EUS-guided bridging stent placement, and combined ERCP and EUS-guided biliary drainage. In this review, we discuss the role of EUS-BD in malignant hilar biliary obstruction with the currently available evidence, along with the limitations and challenges to the use of this modality in management of these patients.

ERCP plus endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage versus percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage for malignant hilar biliary obstruction: a multicenter observational open-label study

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) may not provide complete biliary drainage in patients with Bismuth III/IV malignant hilar biliary obstruction (MHBO). Complete biliary drainage is accomplished by adding percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD). We prospectively compared recurrent biliary obstruction (RBO) rates between combined ERCP and endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) vs. bilateral PTBD.

METHODS

Patients with MHBO undergoing endoscopic procedures (group A) were compared with those undergoing bilateral PTBD (group B). The primary outcome was the 3-month RBO rate.

RESULTS

36 patients were recruited into groups A (n = 19) and B (n = 17). Rates of technical and clinical success, and complications of group A vs. B were 84.2 % (16/19) vs. 100 % (17/17; P = 0.23), 78.9 % (15/19) vs. 76.5 % (13/17; P > 0.99), and 26.3 % (5/19) vs. 35.3 % (6/17; P = 0.56), respectively. Within 3 and 6 months, RBO rates of group A vs. group B were 26.7 % (4/15) vs. 88.2 % (15/17; P  = 0.001) and 22.2 % (2/9) vs. 100 % (9/9; P = 0.002), respectively. At 3 months, median number of biliary reinterventions in group A was significantly lower than in group B (0 [interquartile range] 0-1 vs. 1 [1-2.5]), respectively (P < 0.001). Median time to development of RBO was longer in group A than in group B (92 [56-217] vs. 40 [13.5-57.8] days, respectively; P  =  0.06).

CONCLUSIONS

Combined ERCP and EUS procedures provided significantly lower RBO rates at 3 and 6 months vs. bilateral PTBD, with similar complication rates and no significant mortality difference.

The placement of multiple plastic stents still has important roles in candidates for chemotherapy for unresectable perihilar cholangiocarcinoma

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE

Placement of uncovered self-expandable metallic stents (U-SEMSs) of patients with unresectable perihilar cholangiocarcinoma (UPHC) is recommended as the treatment of first choice to address bile stasis. The aim of this study was to determine which of the following two endoscopic stents might be the stent of first choice for the treatment of biliary stasis in patients with UPHC: plastic stents (PSs) or U-SEMSs.

METHODS

U-SEMSs, deployed as a stent-in-stent, were selected as the stents of first choice from 2013 and 2014, while PSs began to be selected as the stents of first choice from 2015 onward.

RESULTS

The median time to recurrent biliary obstruction were 66 days in the PS group (N = 38) and 105 days in the U-SEMS group (N = 37; P = .04). Emergency endoscopy was necessitated in 76.3% (29/38) of patients of the PS group and 54.1% (20/37) of patients of the U-SEMS group (P = .0434). The success rate of the first reintervention was 96.5% (27/29) in the PS group and 55% (11/20) in the U-SEMS group (P = .0002). Sustainable chemotherapy could be carried out in 55.2% of patients in the PS group and 32.4% of patients in the U-SEMS group (P = .0472). Multivariate analysis identified selection of U-SEMS as the stent of first choice as the only independent factor predictive of successful reintervention (P = .0016, odds ratio = 0.058). However, the stent selection was not an independent factor for feasible chemotherapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Plastic stent placement could enhance the success rate of reintervention in patients with UPHC and might be facilitated by sustainable chemotherapy. However, stent selection might not have an influence on the prognosis.

Efficacy and safety of EUS biliary drainage in malignant distal and hilar biliary obstruction: A comprehensive review of literature and algorithm

Malignant biliary obstruction (MBO) encompasses a variety of malignancies arising from the pancreaticobiliary system. This can be divided into malignant hilar biliary obstruction (MHBO) or malignant distal biliary obstruction (MDBO) biliary obstruction to which clinical outcomes and technical considerations of various biliary drainage methods may differ. EUS biliary drainage (EUS-BD) has been increasingly influential in the management of MBO together with other familiar biliary drainage methods such as ERCP and percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD). Conventionally, ERCP has always been the primary choice of endoscopic biliary drainage in both MHBO and MDBO and that PTBD or EUS-BD is used as a salvage method when ERCP fails for which current guidelines recommends PTBD, especially for MHBO. This review was able to show that with today's evidence, EUS-BD is equally efficacious and possesses a better safety profile in the management of MBO and should be on the forefront of endoscopic biliary drainage. Therefore, EUS-BD could be used either as a primary or preferred salvage biliary drainage method in these cases.

Biliary stenting for hilar malignant biliary obstruction

Although endoscopic intervention is the mainstay for palliation of malignant biliary obstruction, a percutaneous approach has been preferred, particularly in patients with advanced high-grade hilar malignant biliary obstruction, because of the technical difficulty and risk of complications. However, recently, primary endoscopic palliation using plastic or metal stents has had higher technical and clinical success with fewer adverse events than the percutaneous approach. Endoscopic interventions are being done more and more frequently because of advances in metal stents, accessories, and techniques. However, several concerns, such as optimal stent type, number, and deployment method, remain to be resolved. Therefore, we reviewed the literature in order to identify the optimal biliary stenting strategy for patients with hilar malignant biliary obstruction, focusing on stent type (plastic vs metal), number (unilateral [single] vs bilateral [multiple]), and deployment method (stent-in-stent vs stent-by-stent).