The Role of EUS-BD in the Management of Malignant Biliary Obstruction: The Indonesian Perspective. Diagn Ther Endosc. 2017;2017:4856276. [PMID: 29180841 PMCID: PMC5664256 DOI: 10.1155/2017/4856276]

Efficacy and safety of endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) hepaticogastrostomy (HGS) versus choledochoduodenostomy (CDS) in ERCP-failed malignant biliary obstruction: A systematic review and META-analysis

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is the gold standard in managing malignant biliary obstruction. The success of ERCP has limitations, whereas surgical biliary bypass and percutaneous transhepatic approaches, as alternative modalities, come with significant costs, longer durations, and higher levels of mortality and morbidity. Endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS)-guided biliary drainage with two approaches, hepaticogastrostomy (EUS-HGS) and choledochoduodenostomy (EUS-CDS), is a favored and evolving alternative modality. This study aims to compare the efficacy and safety of EUS-HGS and EUS-CDS. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis by searching PubMed, ScienceDirect, Cochrane Library, and Scholar databases up to August 2023, based on the 2020 PRISMA guidelines. We identified randomized and nonrandomized studies comparing the efficacy and safety of EUS-HGS and EUS-CDS. Outcome measures included technical and clinical success, side effects, and mean procedure time. Nine nonrandomized studies and two randomized controlled trials involving 537 patients (225 EUS-HGS, 312 EUS-CDS) were analyzed. No difference was found in technical success (OR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.41-1.68; I 2 = 0%) and clinical success between the two procedures (OR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.51-1.81; I 2 = 9.94%). Side effects were significantly higher in EUS-HGS (OR, 2.01, 95% CI, 1.14-3.59; I 2 = 0%). No significant difference in mean procedure time was observed between the two procedures (0.13; 95% CI, -0.15-0.41; I 2 = 34.89%). There are differences in efficacy and safety between EUS-HGS and EUS-CDS. EUS-CDS has a faster procedure time, lower risk of side effects, and ease of puncture during the procedure.

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.

Role of interventional endoscopic ultrasound in a developing country

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) has become an essential diagnostic and therapeutic tool. EUS was introduced in 2013 in Indonesia and is considered relatively new. This study aimed to describe the current role of interventional EUS at our hospital as a part of the Indonesian tertiary health center experience.

METHODS

This retrospective study included all patients who underwent interventional EUS (n=94) at our center between January 2015 and December 2020. Patient characteristics, technical success, clinical success, and adverse events associated with each type of interventional EUS procedure were evaluated.

RESULTS

Altogether, 94 interventional EUS procedures were performed at our center between 2015 and 2020 including 75 cases of EUS-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD), 14 cases of EUS-guided pancreatic fluid drainage, and five cases of EUS-guided celiac plexus neurolysis. The technical and clinical success rates of EUS-BD were 98.6% and 52%, respectively. The technical success rate was 100% for both EUS-guided pancreatic fluid drainage and EUS-guided celiac plexus neurolysis. The adverse event rates were 10.6% and 7.1% for EUS-BD and EUS-guided pancreatic fluid drainage, respectively.

CONCLUSION

EUS is an effective and safe tool for the treatment of gastrointestinal and biliary diseases. It has a low rate of adverse events, even in developing countries.

Efficacy and Safety of EUS-Guided Choledochoduodenostomy Using Electrocautery-Enhanced Lumen-Apposing Metal Stents (ECE-LAMS) in the Treatment of Biliary Obstruction: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background. Electrocautery-enhanced lumen-apposing metal stents (ECE-LAMS) have been newly developed to perform EUS-guided choledochoduodenostomy (EUS-CDS), but its benefits and harms remain obscure. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of EUS-CDS using ECE-LAMS. Method. In the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA), we searched PubMed, Embase, and Scopus databases through January 1, 2001, and April 27, 2020. The primary outcomes of the pooled analysis were to determine the technical success, clinical success, and overall adverse events rates. The secondary outcomes were pooled rates of short-term and long-term adverse events. Results. Six studies with 270 patients were finally included in this meta-analysis. The pooled rates of technical, clinical success, and adverse events were 95.1% (95% CI = 90.6–97.5%, I2 = 25%), 93.3% (95% CI = 87.4–96.5%, I2 = 28%), and 15.3% (95% CI = 10.6–21.6%, I2 = 13%), respectively. The pooled rates of short-term and long-term adverse events were 3.6% (95% CI = 1.3–9.6%, I2 = 0%) and 11.3% (95% CI = 7.6–16.5%, I2 = 0%), respectively. Conclusion. EUS-CDS using ECE-LAMS provides favorable outcomes in patients with biliary obstruction. It has been associated with a higher success rate and a lower rate of adverse events when compared with the biliary drainage approaches previously used. Large and randomized controlled observational studies are required to further refine the findings in the present analysis.

Feasibility of EUS-guided hepaticogastrostomy for inoperable malignant hilar biliary strictures

Background and Objectives

EUS-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) has emerged as a complementary technique for primary drainage or as a rescue technique after failed endoscopic retrograde cholangiography. The objective of this study was to demonstrate the feasibility of EUS-BD for malignant hilar stenosis (MHS), both as an initial and rescue procedure.

Patients and Methods

This study was a retrospective work based on a prospective registry of patients with malignant drainage stenosis of the hilum. For this analysis, only patients who underwent EUS-BD drainage were included. The drainage procedure could be performed by EUS-BD alone or in combination with another technique, for initial drainage or reintervention.

Results

Between January 2015 and September 2018, 20 patients were included. The mean patient age was 68 years. Seven patients had primary liver tumors and 13 had obstructions caused by metastasis. Four patients had Type II stenosis, 7 had Type IIIA, 2 had Type IIIb, and 7 had Type IV stenosis. Sixteen patients underwent EUS-guided hepaticogastrostomy (EUS-HGS) for initial drainage and four as reintervention. For initial drainage, 2 patients underwent EUS-HGS alone and 14 underwent EUS-HGS in combination with another technique: 11 combined with endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), 2 with percutaneous transhepatic drainage, and 1 with ERCP and percutaneous transhepatic drainage. The technical success rate for EUS-HGS in the drainage of MHS was 100%, and the clinical success rate was 95%. The mean percentage of liver drained was 84%, with an average 1.7 endoscopic sessions and an average 2.7 protheses. The early complication rate was 35% and the mortality rate was 5%. Five EUS-HGS/ERCP combination drainage procedures were performed in one session and six were performed in two sessions with similar complication rates and percentages of liver segments drained.

Conclusion

EUS-BD is a feasible and safe technique for initial drainage and for reintervention procedures. The EUS-HGS/ERCP combination seemed to be useful in cases of complex stenosis and could be performed during the same session or in two sessions.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided hepaticogastrostomy using a partially covered metal stent in patients with malignant biliary obstruction after failed Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography

BACKGROUND AND AIM

The advent of endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) has provided an inimitable alternative for gaining biliary access in patients who fail conventional endoscopic drainage. The antimigratory features of the partially covered metal stent (PCMS), namely, the flange head and uncovered portion of the stent, makes it a valuable option in patients undergoing EUS-guided hepaticogastrostomy (EUS-HGS). The aim of the study is to evaluate the clinical outcome of EUS-BD via the hepaticogastrostomy approach using PCMS in patients with malignant biliary obstruction after failed ERCP.

METHODS

This is a single-center retrospective observational study of patients with malignant biliary obstruction undergoing EUS-HGS after failed ERCP between January 2018 and May 2019. The end-point of the study was to assess the technical and clinical success rate, as well as the stent- and procedure-related complications.

RESULTS

There were 20 subjects in this study. The average age was 71.8 ± 7.6 years. Most patients were male, 16 (80%). Inaccessible papillae was the most common indication for this procedure, 16 (80%). Technical success was achieved in all patients. The average procedural time was 39.9 ± 1.3 min. Mean preprocedural bilirubin levels were 348.6 ± 28.8 and subsequently decreased to 108.94 ± 37.1 μmol/L at 2 weeks postprocedure. The clinical success rate was 95% (19/20), with one patient requiring percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD). There were no stent- or procedure-related complications reported in this study.

CONCLUSION

EUS-HGS with PCMS is a feasible, effective, and safe alternative for biliary decompression in patients with failed endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP).

Palliative Endoscopic Ultrasound Biliary Drainage for Advanced Malignant Biliary Obstruction: Should It Replace the Percutaneous Approach?

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD) are the standard of care in malignant biliary obstruction cases. Recently, endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) has been widely used after unsuccessful ERCP. However, the patient's clinical impact of EUS-BD over PTBD is still not obvious. Therefore, this case series study aims to evaluate the clinical outcomes of patients with advanced malignant biliary obstruction who underwent EUS-BD after failed ERCP. A retrospective database study was performed between January 2016 and June 2018 in patients with advanced malignant biliary obstruction. Patients were consecutively enrolled without randomization. Treatment options consisted of ERCP and PTBD or EUS-BD if ERCP failed. Based on 144 biliary obstruction cases, 38 patients were enrolled; 24 (63.2%) were men. The patients' mean age was 66.8 ± 12.36 years. The most common cause of malignant biliary obstruction was pancreatic cancer (44.7%). Biliary drainage was achieved by ERCP (39.5%), PTBD (39.5%), and EUS-BD (21.1%). The technical success rate was 86.7% by PTBD and 87.5% by EUS-BD (p = 1.000), while the clinical success rate was 93.3% by PTBD and 62.5% by EUS-BD (p = 0.500). The median survival in patients who underwent PTBD versus those wo underwent EUS-BD was 11 versus 3 months (log-rank p = 0.455). In conclusion, there is no significant advantage of EUS-BD when compared to PTBD in terms of clinical success and survival benefit in advanced malignant biliary obstruction.

Efficacy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography-guided biliary drainage for malignant biliary obstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided (EUS) biliary drainage was used as an alternative method for patients who failed endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). In recent years, an increasing number of patients was treated with EUS-biliary drainage (BD), but lack of data was available to value the efficacy and safety between EUS and ERCP. Therefore, a review was needed to evaluate the similarities and differences between the two methods and explored whether EUS-guided biliary drainage could be considered as first-line treatment.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

We searched the Pubmed/Medline, Embase, Web of science, Google scholar, the Cochrane Library and Clinical trials of electronic databases till October 2018 for all English language. Primary outcomes to comparison included technical success, clinical success and adverse events. Secondary outcomes consisted of stent dysfunction requiring reintervention and procedure duration, Data from selected studies were collected to calculate the odds ratios (OR) and standard mean difference (SMD).

EVIDENCE SINTHESIS

We searched 469 studies and at last identified 4 eligible trials. These included a total of 428 patients, 215 in the EUS group and 213 in the ERCP group. There was no difference in technical success (OR, 0.95; 95% CI: 0.45-2.02; I2=0%), clinical success (OR, 0.87; 95% CI: 0.42-1.79; I2=0%) and adverse events between 2 procedures (OR, 0.76; 95% CI: 0.29-2.00; I2=55%) but EUS-BD consisted of lower rate of reintervention (OR, 0.30; 95% CI: 0.14-0.63; I2=0%),and fewer procedure-related adverse events in pancreatitis and cholangitis (OR, 0.14; 95% CI: 0.04-0.51; I2=0%).There was no difference in length of procedure duration, with a pooled standard mean difference of 0.26 (95% CI: -0.15 to 0.66).

CONCLUSIONS

EUS-BD and ERCP-BD in terms of relief of malignant biliary obstruction presented the similarity rate of technical success, clinical success and there is no significant difference in adverse events of two procedures. EUS-BD could be used as a substitute for ERCP-BD, even considered as first-line treatment.

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.