Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Versus Percutaneous Transhepatic Biliary Drainage in Patients With Malignant Biliary Obstruction: Which Is the Optimal Cost-Saving Strategy After Failed ERCP?

Comparative efficacy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage versus endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography as first-line palliation in malignant distal biliary obstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Malignant distal biliary obstruction (MDBO) is a challenging clinical condition commonly managed with endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). However, endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) has emerged as an alternative, especially in complex cases where ERCP fails or is deemed risky. This study aimed to compare the efficacy, safety and cost-effectiveness of EUS-BD vs. ERCP in the palliation of MDBO.

Methods

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis, following PRISMA guidelines. Three databases were searched up to December 2023, including MEDLINE/PubMed, OVID and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, for studies comparing EUS-BD with ERCP. Primary outcomes were technical and clinical success rates, while secondary outcomes included procedural times, hospital stay duration, 30-day mortality, reintervention rates, and adverse events such as pancreatitis.

Results

Seven studies involving 1245 patients met the inclusion criteria. The meta-analysis revealed that EUS-BD had a technical success rate of 92%, compared to 85% for ERCP. Clinical success rates were similar for both EUS-BD and ERCP, at approximately 89%. EUS-BD was associated with a significantly lower incidence of pancreatitis (2% vs. 10% for ERCP).

Conclusions

EUS-BD offers a viable and potentially superior alternative to ERCP for the primary palliation of MDBO, particularly in terms of technical success and a lower risk of pancreatitis. These findings support the adoption of EUS-BD in clinical settings equipped to perform this technique, though future research should focus on long-term outcomes and further economic analysis to solidify these recommendations.

Safety and effectiveness of consecutive 191 endoscopic ultrasonography-guided biliary drainage procedures: a single-center experience

<b>Introduction:</b> The development of endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) has enabled extra-anatomical transmural access to the bile ducts, thus making it possible to perform endoscopic biliary anastomoses with the gastrointestinal (GI) tract and obtain extra-anatomical transpapillary access. EUS provides an alternative to the existing methods of biliary drainage (BD) for cases in which endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is ineffective.<b>Aim:</b> This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of extraanatomical endoscopic biliary access methods for the treatment of benign and malignant biliary strictures.<b>Material and methods:</b> This retrospective analysis included treatment results of all patients with obstructive jaundice and biliary strictures who were treated endoscopically in our department between 2016 and 2023. The study group comprised patients in whom EUS-guided transmural access was used during ERCP because of biliary strictures and the lack of transpapillary access.<b>Results:</b> Twenty-eight patients (14.66%) underwent endoscopic transpapillary biliary stenting via a transmural approach under EUS guidance. The remaining 163 patients (85.34%) underwent extraanatomical transmural biliodigestive anastomosis. Technical success was achieved in 186 of 191 (97.38%) patients. Clinical success was achieved in 170 of 191 (89.01%) patients. Complications were reported for 32 of 191 (16.75%) patients, including fatal complications for 6 of 191 (3.14%) patients.<b>Conclusions:</b> Advanced endoscopic techniques involving EUS-guided transmural access are effective and safe for biliary strictures. They provide an alternative to other drainage techniques when ERCP is ineffective and improve the quality of life of patients undergoing palliative treatment for biliary strictures with unresectable cancer of the biliopancreatic area.

Endoscopic Management of Malignant Biliary Obstruction

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is commonly used for managing malignant biliary obstruction; however, it is impossible if the endoscope cannot reach the ampulla of Vater, and it carries a risk of procedure-related pancreatitis. Percutaneous approach is a traditional rescue method when ERCP fails and can be useful in advanced malignant hilar biliary obstruction; however, it is invasive and carries risks of tube dislodgement, recurrent infection, and tract seeding. Endoscopic ultrasound approach may be attempted if ERCP fails and is free from the risk of pancreatitis; however, it is only possible in limited centers, and training is still difficult. Malignant biliary obstruction should be managed by leveraging the complementary strengths of these methods.

EUS-guided hepaticogastrostomy versus percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage after failed ERCP: A propensity score-matched analysis

Background and study aims Percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD) is the traditional second-line option after unsuccessful endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). Endoscopic ultrasound-guided hepaticogastrostomy (EUS-HG) is a viable alternative to PTBD. Our study aimed to compare outcomes of EUS-HG and PTBD for benign and malignant biliary diseases following failed ERCP. Patients and methods This single-center study retrospectively analyzed patients undergoing EUS-HG and PTBD for benign and malignant biliary disorders. A propensity score-matched analysis was performed using age, sex, and Charlson Comorbidity Index. The primary outcome was clinical success, which we defined as a decrease in total bilirubin by ≥ 50% at 2 weeks for malignant disease and resolution of the biliary disorder for benign disease. Results In total, 41 patients underwent EUS-HG and 138 patients underwent PTBD. After propensity score matching in a 1:2 ratio, 32 EUS-HG patients were matched with 64 PTBD. Technical success was achieved in 29 of 32 (91%) for EUS-HG and 63 of 64 (98%) for PTBD ( P =0.11). Clinical success was 100% for EUS-HG and 75% for PTBD ( P =0.0021). EUS-HG was associated with a lower adverse event rate (EUS-HG 13% vs. PTBD 58%, P <0.0001), shorter procedure duration (median 60 vs. 115 minutes, P <0.0001), shorter post-procedure length of stay (median 2 vs. 4 days, P <0.0001), and fewer reinterventions (median 1 vs. 3, P <0.0001). Conclusions Our results suggest that EUS-HG is superior to PTBD in the treatment of benign and malignant biliary disorders after failed ERCP.

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.

Endoscopic Ultrasound-guided Versus Percutaneous Transhepatic Biliary Drainage After Failed ERCP: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) may fail to achieve biliary drainage in 5% to 10% of cases. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) and percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD) are alternative therapeutic options in such cases. The present meta-analysis aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of EUS-BD and PTBD for biliary decompression after failed ERCP.

METHODS

A comprehensive search of literature from inception to September 2022 was done of 3 databases for studies comparing EUS-BD and PTBD for biliary drainage after failed ERCP. Odds ratios (ORs) with 95% CIs were calculated for all the dichotomous outcomes. Continuous variables were analyzed using mean difference (MD).

RESULTS

A total of 24 studies were included in the final analysis. Technical success was comparable between EUS-BD and PTBD (OR=1.12, 0.67-1.88). EUS-BD was associated with a higher clinical success rate (OR=2.55, 1.63-4.56) and lower odds of adverse events (OR=0.41, 0.29-0.59) compared with PTBD. The incidence of major adverse events (OR=0.66, 0.31-1.42) and procedure-related mortality (OR=0.43, 0.17-1.11) were similar between the groups. EUS-BD was associated with lower odds of reintervention with an OR of 0.20 (0.10-0.38). The duration of hospitalization (MD: -4.89, -7.73 to -2.05) and total treatment cost (MD: -1355.46, -2029.75 to -681.17) were significantly lower with EUS-BD.

CONCLUSIONS

EUS-BD may be preferred over PTBD in patients with biliary obstruction after failed ERCP where appropriate expertise is available. Further trials are required to validate the findings of the study.

Comparison of EUS-guided ablation and surgical resection for nonfunctioning small pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors: a propensity score-matching study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Treatment strategies for small pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (PNETs) <2 cm in size are still under debate. The feasibility and safety of EUS-guided ethanol ablation (EUS-EA) have been demonstrated. However, sample sizes in previous studies were small with no comparative studies on surgery. Therefore, we aimed to compare the safety and long-term outcomes of EUS-EA with those of surgery for the management of nonfunctioning small PNETs.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed patients with PNETs who were managed by EUS-EA (from 2011 to 2018) and surgery (from 2000 to 2018) at Asan Medical Center. Propensity score matching (PSM) was performed to increase comparability. The primary outcome was early and late major adverse events (Clavien-Dindo grade ≥III) after treatment. Secondary outcomes were 10-year overall (OS) and disease-specific survival (DSS) rates, length of hospital stay, and development of endocrine pancreatic insufficiency.

RESULTS

Of all patients, 97 and 188 patients were included in the EUS-EA and surgery groups, respectively. PSM created 89 matched pairs. EUS-EA was associated with a significantly lower rate of early major adverse events (0% vs 11.2%, P = .003). Late major adverse events occurred more frequently after surgery, with no significant difference between groups (3.4% vs 10.1%, P = .07). Both treatment modalities showed comparable 10-year OS and DSS rates. The length of hospital stay was significantly shorter in the EUS-EA group (4 days vs 14.1 days, P < .001), and endocrine pancreatic insufficiency was less common after EUS-EA than after surgery (33.3% vs 48.6%, P = .121).

CONCLUSIONS

EUS-EA had fewer adverse events and a shorter hospital stay with similar OS and DSS rates compared with surgery, suggesting that EUS-EA may be a preferred alternative to surgical resection in selected patients with nonfunctioning small PNETs.

The value of endoscopic ultrasonography for differential diagnosis in obstructive jaundice of the distal common bile duct

INTRODUCTION

Obstructive jaundice is a common clinical disease of great significance; however, diagnosing it according to etiology, especially in patients with distal obstructive jaundice is difficult. The development of endoscopic ultrasonography has improved diagnostic methods. Endoscopic ultrasonography not only improves the accuracy of conventional endoscopic ultrasound technology in etiological diagnosis, but also offers several special endoscopic ultrasound technologies for diagnosing distal obstructive jaundice of the common bile duct. What's more, endoscopic ultrasonography can be used to treat distal obstructive jaundice of common bile duct.

AREAS COVERED

This review discusses the diagnostic value and applications of endoscopic ultrasonography for obstructive jaundice of the distal common bile duct.

EXPERT OPINION

This article summarizes the value of endoscopic ultrasonography in the etiological diagnosis, relevant treatment applications of distal obstructive jaundice and the limitations of endoscopic ultrasonography in some etiologies due to the lack of clear comparison with other imaging methods. We also provide new data for the future research direction of endoscopic ultrasonography in distal obstructive jaundice.