Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Biliary Drainage Using a Fully Covered Metallic Stent after Failed Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography. Gastroenterol Res Pract. 2016;2016:9469472. [PMID: 27594881 PMCID: PMC4983388 DOI: 10.1155/2016/9469472]

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.

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.

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.

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.

Drainage Approach for Malignant Biliary Obstruction: A Changing Paradigm

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is the standard of care in the management of unresectable malignant biliary obstruction. However, endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided biliary drainage has become widely accepted over the past several years for complicated biliary drainage in cases when ERCP is unsuccessful or not feasible. Recent emerging evidence suggests EUS-guided hepaticogastrostomy and EUS-guided choledochoduodenostomy are noninferior, and possibly even superior to conventional ERCP for primary palliation of malignant biliary obstruction. This article reviews the procedural techniques and considerations of the different techniques as well as comparative literature on safety and efficacy between techniques.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Biliary Drainage

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography is the preferred procedure for biliary drainage in benign and malignant obstructions. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage is an emerging technique for when endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography fails. It is a highly versatile procedure with several options of access point, stent direction, and drainage route. Based on the current literature, the cumulative success rate is 88% to 93%, with an overall complication rate of 13% to 20%. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage seems to be an effective and valuable alternative technique after failed endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography when performed by highly skilled endoscopists.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided drainage of the biliary system: Techniques, indications and future perspectives

Over the last decade, endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) has evolved into a widely accepted alternative to the percutaneous approach in cases of biliary obstruction with failed endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreaticography (ERCP). The available evidence suggests that, in experienced hands, EUS-BD might even replace ERCP as the first-line procedure in specific situations such as malignant distal bile duct obstruction. The aim of this review is to summarize the available data on EUS-BD and propose an evidence-based algorithm clarifies the role of the different EUS-BD techniques in the management of benign and malignant biliary obstructive disease.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided choledochoduodenostomy using a lumen apposing metal stent for acute cholangitis

We present the case of a 51-year-old woman with a history of uterine cancer who presented to the emergency room with a clinical picture of acute cholangitis. An abdominal ultrasound and a computed tomography scan were performed, revealing a gigantic lymphadenopathy mass compressing the common bile duct and the duodenum. After failure to perform an endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) due to a modified anatomy, we performed an endoscopic ultrasound-guided choledochoduodenostomy (EUS-CDS) and placed a Hot AXIOS 10Fr/10 mm stent with efficient biliary drainage. In addition, we inserted a duodenal uncoated 120/22 mm expandable metallic stent. EUS-CDS presents a valid alternative in patients with failed ERCP and should be considered as an important option for rapid biliary decompression in patients with acute cholangitis.

EUS-guided Choledochoduodenostomy Versus Hepaticogastrostomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) has emerged as an alternative in cases of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) failure. Two types of EUS-BD methods for achieving biliary drainage when ERCP fails are choledochoduodenostomy (CDS) or hepaticogastrostomy (HGS). However, there is no consensus if one approach is better than the other. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate these 2 main EUS-BD methods.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane database, LILACS from inception through April 8, 2017, using the following search terms in various combinations: biliary drainage, biliary stent, transluminal biliary drainage, choledochoduodenostomy, hepaticogastrostomy, endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage. We selected studies comparing CDS and HGS in patients with malignant biliary obstruction with ERCP failure. Pooled odds ratio (OR) were calculated for technical success, clinical success, and adverse events and difference of means calculated for duration of procedure and survival after procedure.

RESULTS

A total of 10 studies with 434 patients were included in the meta-analysis: 208 underwent biliary drainage via HGS and the remaining 226 via CDS. The technical success for CDS and HGS was 94.1% and 93.7%, respectively, pooled OR=0.96 [95% confidence interval (CI)=0.39-2.33, I=0%]. Clinical success was 88.5% in CDS and 84.5% in HGS, pooled OR=0.76 (95% CI=0.42-1.35, I=17%). There was no difference for adverse events OR=0.97 (95% CI=0.60-1.56), I=37%. CDS was about 2 minutes faster with a pooled difference in means of was -2.69 (95% CI=-4.44 to -0.95).

CONCLUSION

EUS-CDS and EUS-HGS have equal efficacy and safety, and are both associated with a very high technical and clinical success. The choice of approach may be selected based on patient anatomy.

A multi-institution consensus on how to perform EUS-guided biliary drainage for malignant biliary obstruction

Background and Objectives:

EUS-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) was shown to be useful for malignant biliary obstruction (MBO). However, there is lack of consensus on how EUS-BD should be performed.

Methods:

This was a worldwide multi-institutional survey among members of the International Society of EUS conducted in February 2018. The survey consisted of 10 questions related to the practice of EUS-BD.

Results:

Forty-six endoscopists of them completed the survey. The majority of endoscopists felt that EUS-BD could replace percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage after failure of ERCP. Among all EUS-BD methods, the rendezvous stenting technique should be the First choice. Self-expandable metal stents (SEMSs) were recommended by most endoscopists. For EUS-guided hepaticogastrostomy (HGS), superiority of partially-covered SEMS over fully-covered SEMS was not in agreement. 6-Fr cystotomes were recommended for fistula creation. During the HGS approach, longer SEMS (8 or 10 cm) was recommended. During the choledochoduodenostomy approach, 6-cm SEMS was recommended. During the intrahepatic (IH) approach, the IH segment 3 was recommended.

Conclusion:

This is the first worldwide survey on the practice of EUS-BD for MBO. There were wide variations in practice, and randomized studies are urgently needed to establish the best approach for the management of this condition.

The Role of EUS-BD in the Management of Malignant Biliary Obstruction: The Indonesian Perspective

Aims

To evaluate the success rate and related factors of endoscopic ultrasound guided-biliary drainage (EUS-BD).

Material and Methods

We conducted a retrospective study among 24 patients with malignant biliary obstruction who underwent EUS-BD after failed ERCP from January 2015 to December 2016 in a tertiary health center. The bilirubin levels before and after the procedure were used to define the clinical success rate, while the stent deployment was used to define the technical success rate. We placed either transluminal biliary stents or transpapillary biliary stents.

Results

Among 24 patients, choledochoduodenostomy technique was conducted in 23 patients (95.8%) and hepaticogastrostomy technique in 1 patient (4.2%). Transluminal stent placement was conducted in 23 patients, while transpapillary stent placement was conducted in 1 patient. The clinical success rate was 78.2% (18) in choledochoduodenostomy route and 100% (1) in hepaticogastrostomy route. EUS-BD was 2.37 times and 2.11 times more likely to be successful in reducing the bilirubin level in patients with tumor of the head of pancreas and periampullary tumor, respectively, but not in cholangiocarcinoma.

Conclusions

EUS-BD is an effective and efficient procedure to achieve biliary drainage among patients with malignant biliary obstruction after ERCP failure.