Endoscopic ultrasound-guided gallbladder and bile duct drainage with lumen apposing metal stent: A large multicenter cohort (with videos)

Adverse events in endoscopic ultrasound-guided choledochoduodenostomy with lumen-apposing metal stents: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Several meta-analyses have analyzed the technical and clinical success of endoscopic ultrasound-guided choledochoduodenostomy (EUS-CDS) by using lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMS) in malignant biliary obstruction, but those concerning adverse events (AEs) are scarce. The current systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the AEs after EUS-CDS with LAMS.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search of PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library was conducted for studies reporting the outcomes of EUS-CDS with LAMS. The main endpoints were the incidence of overall and specific AEs. Moreover, the stent dysfunction, and reintervention rates were evaluated independently.

RESULTS

A total of 21 studies (n = 1438) were included in the final meta-analysis. The pooled rate of technical and clinical success was 93.5% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 91.3-95.1) and 88.0% (95% CI: 83.9-91.1), respectively. After EUS-CDS with LAMS, the pooled incidence of overall AEs was 20.1% (95% CI: 16.0-24.9). The estimated rate of early AEs was 10.6% (95% CI: 7.9-14.2), and late AEs was 11.2% (95% CI: 8.2-15.2). Infection/cholangitis was the commonest AE, with a pooled incidence of 6.1% (95% CI: 3.7-10.1). The estimated incidence of stent dysfunction and reintervention was 10.5% (95% CI: 7.5-14.4), and 12.1% (95% CI: 9.3-15.7), respectively.

CONCLUSION

Despite with a high technical and clinical success rate, EUS-CDS with LAMS may be associated with overall AEs and stent dysfunction in one-fifth and one-tenth of cases, respectively. Further efforts are required to optimize its safety and long-term stent patency.

Outcomes of endoscopic ultrasound-guided gastro-enterostomy for gastric outlet obstruction in a two-centre Australian Cohort (with video)

PURPOSE

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided gastro-enterostomy (EUS-GE) is a relatively novel technique that has been shown to require less re-intervention than standard endoscopic enteral stenting for gastric outlet obstruction and is less invasive, quicker, and more cost-effective than surgery. This study evaluated the outcomes and safety of EUS-GE in patients treated for gastric outlet obstruction across two Australian centers.

METHODS

Retrospective data on demographics, presenting symptoms, disease, endoscopic and clinical outcomes, and safety were collected on all patients who underwent EUS-GE from 2021 to 2022. Descriptive statistics were used to evaluate outcomes and safety and survival were calculated using Kaplan-Meier analysis.

RESULTS

Eleven patients underwent EUS-GE during the defined period, 10 of whom had a malignant etiology (median age 73 years, interquartile range [IQR] 13; 63.6% male). Technical success was 90.9%. Of those patients, clinical success (the ability to tolerate at least a full liquid diet during follow-up) was 100%. The median length of hospital stay post-procedure was 6 days (IQR 14 days). No severe adverse events occurred, and one patient (10%) required a repeat endoscopy. Median survival post-EUS-GE was 298 days (95% confidence interval 0-730.1 days) CONCLUSION: EUS-GE is an effective, safe, and durable therapy for patients with gastric outlet obstruction. This study presents Australian data on outcomes and safety that is comparable to international literature. EUS-GE should be considered for patients where local expertise allows.

Lumen-apposing-metal stent misdeployment in endoscopic ultrasound-guided drainages: A systematic review focusing on issues and rescue management

BACKGROUND

The introduction of lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMS) for endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided drainages has marked a turning point in the field of interventional ultrasound and it is gathering worldwide diffusion in different clinical settings. Nevertheless, the procedure may conceal unexpected pitfalls. LAMS misdeployment is the most frequent cause of technical failure and it can be considered a procedure-related adverse event when it hampers the conclusion of the planned procedure or results in significant clinical consequences. Stent misdeployment can be managed successfully by endoscopic rescue maneuvers to allow the completion of the procedure. To date, no standardized indication is available to guide an appropriate rescue strategy depending on the type of procedure or of misdeployment.

AIM

To evaluate the incidence of LAMS misdeployment during EUS-guided choledochoduodenostomy (EUS-CDS), gallbladder drainage (EUS-GBD) and pancreatic fluid collections drainage (EUS-PFC) and to describe the endoscopic rescue strategies adopted under the circumstance.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of the literature on PubMed by searching for studies published up to October 2022. The search was carried out using the exploded medical subject heading terms “lumen apposing metal stent”, “LAMS”, “endoscopic ultrasound” and “choledochoduodenostomy” or “gallbladder” or “pancreatic fluid collections”. We included in the review on-label EUS-guided procedures namely EUS-CDS, EUS-GBD and EUS-PFC. Only those publications reporting EUS-guided LAMS positioning were considered. The studies reporting a technical success rate of 100% and other procedure-related adverse events were considered to calculate the overall rate of LAMS misdeployment, while studies not reporting the causes of technical failure were excluded. Case reports were considered only for the extraction of data regarding the issues of misdeployment and rescue techniques. The following data were collected from each study: Author, year of publication, study design, study population, clinical indication, technical success, reported number of misdeployment, stent type and size, flange misdeployed and type of rescue strategy.

RESULTS

The overall technical success rate of EUS-CDS, EUS-GBD and EUS-PFC was 93.7%, 96.1%, and 98.1% respectively. Significant rates of LAMS misdeployment have been reported for EUS-CDS, EUS-GBD and EUS-PFC drainage, respectively 5.8%, 3.4%, and 2.0%. Endoscopic rescue treatment was feasible in 86.8%, 80%, and 96.8% of cases. Non endoscopic rescue strategies were required only in 10.3%, 16% and 3.2% for EUS-CDS, EUS-GBD, and EUS-PFC. The endoscopic rescue techniques described were over-the-wire deployment of a new stent through the created fistula tract in 44.1%, 8% and 64.5% and stent-in-stent in 23.5%, 60%, and 12.9%, respectively for EUS-CDS, EUS-GBD, and EUS-PFC. Further therapeutic option were endoscopic rendezvous in 11.8% of EUS-CDS and repeated procedure of EUS-guided drainage in 16.1% of EUS-PFC.

CONCLUSION

LAMS misdeployment is a relatively common adverse event in EUS-guided drainages. There is no consensus on the best rescue approach in these cases and the choice is often made by the endoscopist relying upon the clinical scenario, anatomical characteristics, and local expertise. In this review, we investigated the misdeployment of LAMS for each of the on-label indications focusing on the rescue therapies used, with the aim of providing useful data for endoscopists and to improve patient outcomes.

Endoscopic ultrasound in the management of acute cholecystitis

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided gallbladder drainage (EUS-GBD) is increasingly utilised for patients with acute cholecystitis who are high-risk candidates for surgery. The technique to perform EUS-GBD has evolved and matured over the last two decades since EUS-GBD was first described in 2007 using a nasobiliary catheter. Compared to percutaneous gallbladder drainage (PT-GBD), EUS-GBD offers benefits of shorter hospitalisation stay and lesser procedural pain and need for reintervention. The purpose of this review is to provide an updated review of the equipment and techniques available for EUS-GBD, outcomes of the procedure and how it compares against endoscopic transpapillary drainage (ET-GBD), PT-GBD and laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Controversies surrounding the procedure will also be discussed.