Endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage with placement of a fully covered metal stent for malignant biliary obstruction

Controversies in Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Biliary Drainage

In this 14th document in a series of papers entitled "Controversies in Endoscopic Ultrasound" we discuss various aspects of EUS-guided biliary drainage that are debated in the literature and in practice. Endoscopic retrograde cholangiography is still the reference technique for therapeutic biliary access, but EUS-guided techniques for biliary access and drainage have developed into safe and highly effective alternative options. However, EUS-guided biliary drainage techniques are technically demanding procedures for which few training models are currently available. Different access routes require modifications to the basic technique and specific instruments. In experienced hands, percutaneous transhepatic cholangiodrainage is also a good alternative. Therefore, in this paper, we compare arguments for different options of biliary drainage and different technical modifications.

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.

A retrospective multicenter study comparing the punctures to B2 and B3 in endoscopic ultrasound-guided hepaticogastrostomy

Objectives

In recent years, endoscopic ultrasound-guided hepaticogastrostomy (EUS-HGS) has been performed as an important salvage option for failed endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography for biliary drainage. However, technical issues, such as puncture site (bile duct of segment 3 [B3] or bile duct of segment 2 [B2]), dilation method, stent selection, and procedural safety, need to be resolved for the optimization of EUS-HGS. The present study was to compare the safety, difficulty, and technical and functional success between biliary access via B2 and B3 during EUS-HGS.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective investigation of 161 consecutive EUS-HGS cases across a total of 6 facilities, including those at our hospital. The patients were divided into two groups according to the successful drainage route: the puncture to B2 (P-B2) or the puncture to B3 (P-B3). We compared the technical and functional success rates, technical difficulty, and adverse events between the two groups. We also conducted a subgroup analysis to show the factors related to the procedure time.

Results

There were 92 cases in the P-B2 group and 69 cases in the P-B3 group. There were no significant differences in the technical success, functional success, or adverse events between the groups; however, the procedure time was significantly shorter in P-B2 cases than in P-B3 cases. The multivariate analysis showed that the puncture site was the only factor related to the procedure time.

Conclusions

Based on these findings, P-B2 appears useful and safe. P-B2 is as effective as P-B3 and was able to be performed in a shorter period of time. The B2 approach can be considered a useful option for EUS-HGS.

Efficacy and safety of EUS-guided gallbladder drainage for rescue treatment of malignant biliary obstruction: A systematic review and meta-analysis

ERCP is the first line of treatment for malignant biliary obstruction and EUS-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) is usually used for patients who have failed ERCP. EUS-guided gallbladder drainage (EUS-GBD) has been suggested as a rescue treatment for patients who fail EUS-BD and ERCP. In this meta-analysis, we have evaluated the efficacy and safety of EUS-GBD as a rescue treatment of malignant biliary obstruction after failed ERCP and EUS-BD. We reviewed several databases from inception to August 27, 2021, to identify studies that evaluated the efficacy and/or safety of EUS-GBD as a rescue treatment in the management of malignant biliary obstruction after failed ERCP and EUS-BD. Our outcomes of interest were clinical success, adverse events, technical success, stent dysfunction requiring intervention, and difference in mean pre- and postprocedure bilirubin. We calculated pooled rates with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for categorical variables and standardized mean difference (SMD) with 95% CI for continuous variables. We analyzed data using a random-effects model. We included five studies with 104 patients. Pooled rates (95% CI) of clinical success and adverse events were 85% (76%, 91%) and 13% (7%, 21%). Pooled rate (95% CI) for stent dysfunction requiring intervention was 9% (4%, 21%). The postprocedure mean bilirubin was significantly lower compared to preprocedure bilirubin, SMD (95% CI): -1.12 (-1.62--0.61). EUS-GBD is a safe and effective option to achieve biliary drainage after unsuccessful ERCP and EUS-BD in patients with malignant biliary obstruction.

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.

Percutaneous biliary drainage for obstructive jaundice in patients with inoperable, malignant biliary obstruction

Aim of the study

Most of the malignancies leading to obstructive jaundice are diagnosed too late when they are already advanced and inoperable, with palliation being the only treatment option left. Due to progressing hyperbilirubinaemia with its consequent adverse effects, biliary drainage must be established even in advanced malignancies. This study aims to investigate and analyse factors that affect clinical outcomes of percutaneous trans-hepatic biliary drainage (PTBD) in patients with obstructive jaundice due to advanced inoperable malignancy, and identify potential predictors of patient survival. Study design: Observational retrospective cohort study.

Material and methods

Baseline variables and clinical outcomes were evaluated in 108 consecutive patients treated with PTBD. The study’s primary endpoints were significant bilirubin level decrease and survival rates. Secondary endpoints included periprocedural major and minor complication rates and catheter primary and secondary patency rates.

Results

PTBD was technically successful and bile ducts were successfully drained in all 108 patients. Median serum bilirubin level, which was 282 (171-376) µmol/l before drainage, decreased significantly, to 80 (56-144) µmol/l, 15 days after stent placement (p < 0.001). Patient survival ranged from 3 to 597 days and the overall (median) survival time following PTBD was 168 days (90-302). The 1, 3, 6, 12 and 18-month survival rates were 96.3%, 75.9%, 48.1%, 8.3% and 1.9%, respectively. Multivariate analysis revealed that liver metastases and alkaline phosphatase were significantly associated with mortality. The overall complication rate was 9.3%.

Conclusions

PTBD is a safe and effective method to relieve jaundice caused by advanced inoperable malignant disease. Careful patient selection is necessary when introducing PTBD in order to avoid invasive procedures in patients with a poor prognosis.

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.

Efficacy of lumen-apposing metal stents or self-expandable metal stents for endoscopic ultrasound-guided choledochoduodenostomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided biliary drainage is becoming an option for palliation of malignant biliary obstruction. Lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMS) are replacing self-expandable metal stents (SEMS). The aim of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of LAMS and SEMS for EUS-guided choledochoduodenostomy (EUS-CDS).

METHODS

A meta-analysis was performed using PRISMA protocols. Electronic databases were searched for studies on EUS-CDS. The primary outcome was clinical success. Secondary outcomes were technical success, reintervention, and adverse events. We used the random effects model with the DerSimonian-Laird estimation, and the results were depicted using forest plots. Subgroup analyses were also performed with data stratified by selected variable.

RESULTS

Overall, 31 studies (820 patients) were included. The pooled rates of clinical and technical success were 93.6 % (95 % confidence interval [CI] 88.6 %-96.5 %) and 94.8 % (95 %CI 90.2 %-97.3 %) for LAMS, and 91.7 % (95 %CI 88.1 %-94.2 %) and 92.7 % (95 %CI 89.9 %-94.9 %) for SEMS, respectively. The pooled rates of adverse events were 17.1 % (95 %CI 12.5 %-22.8 %) for LAMS and 18.3 % (95 %CI 14.3 %-23.0 %) for SEMS. The pooled rates of reintervention were 10.9 % (95 %CI 7.7 %-15.3 %) for LAMS and 13.9 % (95 %CI 9.6 %-19.7 %) for SEMS. Subgroup analyses confirmed these results.

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis showed that LAMS and SEMS are comparable in terms of efficacy for EUS-CDS. Clinical and technical success, post-procedure adverse events, and reintervention rates were similar between LAMS and SEMS use; however, adverse events require further investigation.

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.

EUS-guided biliary drainage: A systematic review and meta-analysis

ERCP is the current procedure of choice for patients with jaundice caused by biliary obstruction. EUS-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) has emerged as an alternative to ERCP in patients requiring biliary drainage. The aim of the study was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to report the overall efficacy and safety of EUS-BD. We conducted a comprehensive search of several databases including PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and LILACS databases (earliest inception to June 2018) to identify studies that reported EUS-BD in patients. The primary outcome was to look at the technical and clinical success of the procedure. The secondary analysis focused on calculating the pooled rate of re-interventions and all adverse-events, along with the commonly reported adverse-event subtypes. Twenty-three studies reporting on 1437 patients were identified undergoing 1444 procedures. Majority of the patient population were male (53.86%), with an average age of 67.22 years. The pooled technical success rates and clinical success rates were 91.5% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 87.7-94.2, I^[2] = 76.5) and 87% (95% CI: 82.3-90.6, I^[2] = 72.4), respectively. The total adverse event rates were 17.9% (95% CI: 14.3-22.2, I^[2] = 69.1). Subgroup analysis of three major individual adverse events was bile leak: 4.1% (2.7-6.2, I^[2] = 46.7), stent migration: 3.9% (2.5-6.2, I^[2] = 43.5), and infection: 3.8% (2.8-5.1, I^[2] = 0) Substantial heterogeneity was noted in the analysis. EUS-BD has high technical and clinical success rate and hence a very effective procedure. Concerns about publication bias exist. Careful consideration should be given to the adverse events and weighing the risks and benefits of the alternative nonsurgical/surgical approaches.

Outcomes and limitations: EUS-guided hepaticogastrostomy

One of the major roles of interventional EUS is biliary decompression as an alternative to ERCP or percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage. Among EUS-guided biliary drainage, EUS-guided hepaticogastrostomy with transmural stenting (EUS-HGS) may be the most promising procedure since this procedure can overcome the limitation of ERCP. However, EUS-HGS has disadvantages, and the safety issue is still not resolved. In this review, the clinical outcomes and limitations of EUS-HGS will be discussed.

Clinical practice guidelines for safe performance of endoscopic ultrasound/ultrasonography-guided biliary drainage: 2018

Endoscopic ultrasound/ultrasonography‐guided biliary drainage (EUS‐BD) is a relatively new modality for biliary drainage after failed or difficult transpapillary biliary cannulation. Despite its clinical utility, EUS‐BD can be complicated by severe adverse events such as bleeding, perforation, and peritonitis. The aim of this paper is to provide practice guidelines for safe performance of EUS‐BD as well as safe introduction of the procedure to non‐expert centers. The guidelines comprised patient–intervention–comparison–outcome‐formatted clinical questions (CQs) and questions (Qs), which are background statements to facilitate understanding of the CQs. A literature search was performed using the PubMed and Cochrane Library databases. Statement, evidence level, and strength of recommendation were created according to the GRADE system. Four committees were organized: guideline creation, expert panelist, evaluation, and external evaluation committees. We developed 13 CQs (methods, device selection, supportive treatment, management of adverse events, education and ethics) and six Qs (definition, indication, outcomes and adverse events) with statements, evidence levels, and strengths of recommendation. The guidelines explain the technical aspects, management of adverse events, and ethics of EUS‐BD and its introduction to non‐expert institutions.

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.

Stent placement by EUS or ERCP for primary biliary decompression in pancreatic cancer: a randomized trial (with videos)

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Studies on EUS-guided transmural biliary drainage (EUS-BD) have evaluated its efficacy as a rescue technique after failed ERCP. We performed a single-center, single-blind, randomized trial to compare EUS-BD and ERCP as primary treatment for distal biliary obstruction in pancreatic cancer.

METHODS

Patients underwent EUS-BD (n = 33) or ERCP (n = 34). The primary endpoint was the rate of adverse events. Secondary endpoints were technical success, treatment success (defined as decline in serum bilirubin by 50% at a 2-week follow-up), reinterventions, and intraoperative technical outcome, when applicable. Follow-up was until death or a minimum of 6 months.

RESULTS

The rates of adverse events were 21.2% (6.1% moderate severity; others mild severity) in the EUS-BD group and 14.7% (5.9% moderate severity; others mild severity) in the ERCP group (risk ratio, .69; 95% confidence interval, .24-1.97; P = .49). There were no procedure-related deaths. There was no significant difference in the rates of technical success (90.9% vs 94.1%, P = .67), treatment success (97% vs 91.2%, P = .61), or reinterventions (3.0% vs 2.9%, P = .99) between EUS-BD and ERCP cohorts, respectively. The endoscopic interventions did not impede subsequent pancreaticoduodenectomy that was performed in 5 of 33 patients (15.2%) in the EUS-BD and 5 of 34 patients (14.7%) in the ERCP group (P = .99).

CONCLUSIONS

Given the similar rates of adverse events and treatment outcomes in this randomized trial, EUS-BD is a practical alternative to ERCP for primary biliary decompression in pancreatic cancer. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT03054987.).

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.

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.

Assessment of efficacy and safety of EUS-guided biliary drainage: a systematic review

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

EUS-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) has emerged as an alternative procedure after failed ERCP. However, limited data on the efficacy and safety of EUS-BD are available. Therefore, a systematic review was conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of EUS-BD and to evaluate transduodenal (TD) and transgastric (TG) approaches.

METHODS

PubMed and EMBASE were searched to identify relevant studies published in the English language for inclusion in this systematic review and meta-analysis. Data from eligible studies were combined to calculate the cumulative technical success rate (TSR), functional success rate (FSR), and adverse-event rate of EUS-BD and the pooled odds ratio of TSR, FSR, and adverse-event rate of the TD approach when compared with the TG approach.

RESULTS

Forty-two studies with 1192 patients were included in this study, and the cumulative TSR, FSR, and adverse-event rate were 94.71%, 91.66%, and 23.32%, respectively. The common adverse events associated with EUS-BD were bleeding (4.03%), bile leakage (4.03%), pneumoperitoneum (3.02%), stent migration (2.68%), cholangitis (2.43%), abdominal pain (1.51%), and peritonitis (1.26%). Ten studies were included in the meta-analysis for comparative evaluation of TD and TG approaches for EUS-BD. Compared with the TG approach, the pooled odds ratio of the TSR, FSR, and adverse-event rate of the TD approach were 1.36 (95% CI, .66-2.81; P > .05), .84 (95% CI, .50-1.42; P > .05), and .61 (95% CI, .36-1.03; P > .05), respectively, which indicated no significant difference in the TSR, FSR, and adverse-event rate between the 2 groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Although it is associated with significant morbidity, EUS-BD is an effective alternative procedure for relieving biliary obstruction. There was no significant difference between the TD and TG approaches for EUS-BD.

Endoscopic ultrasound and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: Can they be successfully combined?

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) have much in common, including their main indications (biliopancreatic disorders), powerful therapeutic capacities and a steep learning curve. Over the years they have evolved from novel diagnostic procedures to interventional therapeutic techniques, but along different paths (different scopes or devices and endoscopists specializing exclusively in one or the other technique). However, EUS has gradually developed into a therapeutic technique that requires skills in the use of ERCP devices and stents, leading some ERCP specialists to explore the therapeutic potential of EUS. The corresponding literature, which has grown exponentially, includes recent experiments on combining the two techniques, which have gradually come to be used in routine care in a number of centers, with positive technical, clinical and financial outcomes. We review EUS and ERCP as individual or combined procedures for managing biliopancreatic disorders.

Endoscopic Ultrasound-Assisted Pancreaticobiliary Access

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is the primary approach to drain an obstructed pancreatic or biliary duct. Failed biliary drainage is traditionally referred for percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage or surgical bypass, which carry significantly higher morbidity and mortality rates compared with ERCP and transpapillary drainage. Endoscopic ultrasound provides a real-time imaging platform to access and deliver therapy to organs and tissues outside of the bowel lumen. The bile and pancreatic ducts can be directly accessed from the stomach and duodenum, offering an alternative to ERCP when this fails or is not feasible.

Surgery or EUS-guided choledochoduodenostomy for malignant distal biliary obstruction after ERCP failure

Background and Objectives:

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is the method of choice for drainage in patients with distal malignant biliary obstruction, but it fails in up to 10% of cases. Percutaneous transhepatic cholangiography (PTC) and surgical bypass are the traditional drainage alternatives. This study aimed to compare technical and clinical success, quality of life, and survival of surgical biliary bypass or hepaticojejunostomy (HJT) and endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided choledochoduodenostomy (CDT) in patients with distal malignant bile duct obstruction and failed ERCP.

Patients and Methods:

A prospective, randomized trial was conducted. From March 2011 to September 2013, 32 patients with malignant distal biliary obstruction and failed ERCP were studied. The HJT group consisted of 15 patients and the CDT group consisted of 14 patients. Technical and clinical success, quality of life, and survival were assessed prospectively.

Results:

Technical success was 94% (15/16) in the HJT group and 88% (14/16) in the CDT group (P = 0.598). Clinical success occurred in 14 (93%) patients in the HJT group and in 10 (71%) patients in the CDT group (P = 0.169). During follow-up, a statistically significant difference was seen in mean functional capacity scores, physical health, pain, social functioning, and emotional and mental health aspects in both techniques (P < 0.05). The median survival time in both groups was the same (82 days).

Conclusion:

Data relating to technical and clinical success, quality of life, and survival were similar in patients who underwent HJT and CDT drainage after failed ERCP for malignant distal biliary obstruction.

Outcome of stenting in biliary and pancreatic benign and malignant diseases: A comprehensive review

Endoscopic stenting has become a widely method for the management of various malignant and benign pancreatico-biliary disorders. Biliary and pancreatic stents are devices made of plastic or metal used primarily to establish patency of an obstructed bile or pancreatic duct and may also be used to treat biliary or pancreatic leaks, pancreatic fluid collections and to prevent post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis. In this review, relevant literature search and expert opinions have been used to evaluate the outcome of stenting in biliary and pancreatic benign and malignant diseases.

Uncommon complications of therapeutic endoscopic ultrasonography: What, why, and how to prevent

There is an increasing role for endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided interventions in the treatment of many conditions. Although it has been shown that these types of interventions are effective and safe, they continue to be considered only as alternative treatments in some situations. This is in part due to the occurrence of complications with these techniques, which can occur even when performed by experienced endosonographers. Although common complications have been described for many procedures, it is also crucial to be aware of uncommon complications. This review describes rare complications that have been reported with several EUS-guided interventions. EUS-guided biliary drainage is accepted as an alternative treatment for malignant biliary obstruction. Most of the uncommon complications related to this procedure involve stent malfunction, such as the migration or malposition of stents. Rare complications of EUS-guided pancreatic pseudocyst drainage can result from air embolism and infection. Finally, a range of uncommon complications has been reported for EUS-guided celiac plexus neurolysis, involving neural and vascular injuries that can be fatal. The goal of this review is to identify possible complications and promote an understanding of how they occur in order to increase general awareness of these adverse events with the hope that they can be avoided in the future.

Endoscopic ultrasound guided interventional procedures

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) has emerged as an important diagnostic and therapeutic modality in the field of gastrointestinal endoscopy. EUS provides access to many organs and lesions which are in proximity to the gastrointestinal tract and thus giving an opportunity to target them for therapeutic and diagnostic purposes. This modality also provides a real time opportunity to target the required area while avoiding adjacent vascular and other structures. Therapeutic EUS has found role in management of pancreatic fluid collections, biliary and pancreatic duct drainage in cases of failed endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, drainage of gallbladder, celiac plexus neurolysis/blockage, drainage of mediastinal and intra-abdominal abscesses and collections and in targeted cancer chemotherapy and radiotherapy. Infact, therapeutic EUS has emerged as the therapy of choice for management of pancreatic pseudocysts and recent innovations like fully covered removable metallic stents have improved results in patients with organised necrosis. Similarly, EUS guided drainage of biliary tract and pancreatic duct helps drainage of these systems in patients with failed cannulation, inaccessible papilla as with duodenal/gastric obstruction or surgically altered anatomy. EUS guided gall bladder drainage is a useful emergent procedure in patients with acute cholecystitis who are not fit for surgery. EUS guided celiac plexus neurolysis and blockage is more effective and less morbid vis-à-vis the percutaneous technique. The field of interventional EUS is rapidly advancing and many more interventions are being continuously added. This review focuses on the current status of evidence vis-à-vis the established indications of therapeutic EUS.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage: a review

OPINION STATEMENT

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiography (ERCP) has become the standard tool for diagnosis and treatment of patients with biliary obstruction. However, despite the reported success rate of >90 % in expert centers, the common bile duct may still be occasionally inaccessible due to anatomical or technical issues. Over the past decade, endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) has emerged as an effective alternative over percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD) or surgical bypass for biliary drainage after unsuccessful ERCP. EUS-BD includes rendezvous techniques (EUS-RV), EUS-guided choledochoduodenostomy (EUS-CDS), and EUS-guided hepatogastrostomy (EUS-HGS). Published data demonstrated high success rates especially for EUS-CDS and EUS-HGS. Complication rates, however, are also higher in these two techniques. The indications and anatomical requirements for the three techniques differ and should be considered complementary to each other. Most reported studies only included a small number of patients, and larger-scaled randomized trials are required to establish the efficacy among various EUS techniques and to compare to traditional means of radiological or surgical drainage.

Feasibility and safety of using Soehendra stent retriever as a new technique for biliary access in endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage

AIM: To assess the feasibility and safety of the use of soehendra stent retriever as a new technique for biliary access in endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage.

METHODS: The medical records and endoscopic reports of the patients who underwent endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) owing to failed endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in our institute between June 2011 and January 2014 were collected and reviewed. All the procedures were performed in the endoscopic suite under intravenous sedation with propofol and full anaesthetic monitoring. Then we used the Soehendra stent retriever as new equipment for neo-tract creation and dilation when performing EUS-BD procedures. The patients were observed in the recovery room for 1-2 h and transferred to the regular ward, patients’ clinical data were reviewed and analysed, clinical outcomes were defined by using several different criteria. Data were analysed by using SPSS 13 and presented as percentages, means, and medians.

RESULTS: A total of 12 patients were enrolled. The most common indications for EUS-BD in this series were failed common bile duct cannulation, duodenal obstruction, failed selective intrahepatic duct cannulation, and surgical altered anatomy for 50%, 25%, 16.7%, and 8.3%, respectively. Seven patients underwent EUS-guided hepaticogastrostomy (58.3%), and 5 underwent EUS-guided choledochoduodenostomy (41.7%). The technical success rate was 100%, while the clinical success rate was 91.7%. Major and minor complications occurred in 16.6% and 33.3% of patients, respectively, but there were no procedure-related death.

CONCLUSION: Soehendra stent retriever could be used as an alternative instrument for biliary access in endoscopic ultrasound guided biliary drainage.

Technical tips of endoscopic ultrasound-guided choledochoduodenostomy

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) is clinically useful not only as a diagnostic tool during EUS-guided fine needle aspiration, but also during interventional EUS. EUS-guided biliary drainage has been developed and performed by experienced endoscopists. EUS-guided choledocoduodenostomy (EUS-CDS) is relatively well established as an alternative biliary drainage method for biliary decompression in patients with biliary obstruction. The reported technical success rate of EUS-CDS ranges from 50% to 100%, and the clinical success rate ranges from 92% to 100%. Further, the over-all technical success rate was 93%, and clinical success rate was 98%. Based on the currently available literature, the overall adverse event rate for EUS-CDS is 16%. The data on the cumulative technical and clinical success rate for EUS-CDS is promising. However, EUS-CDS can still lead to several problems, so techniques or devices that are more feasible and safe need to be established. EUS-CDS has the potential to become a first-line biliary drainage procedure, although standardizing the technique in multicenter clinical trials and comparisons with endoscopic biliary drainage by randomized clinical trials are still needed.

Endoscopic ultrasonography guided drainage: summary of consortium meeting, May 21, 2012, San Diego, California

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is the preferred procedure for biliary and pancreatic drainage. While ERCP is successful in about 95% of cases, a small subset of cases are unsuccessful due to altered anatomy, peri-ampullary pathology, or malignant obstruction. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided drainage is a promising technique for biliary, pancreatic and recently gallbladder decompression, which provides multiple advantages over percutaneous or surgical biliary drainage. Multiple retrospective and some prospective studies have shown endoscopic ultrasound-guided drainage to be safe and effective. Based on the currently reported literature, regardless of the approach, the cumulative success rate is 84%-93% with an overall complication rate of 16%-35%. endoscopic ultrasound-guided drainage seems a viable therapeutic modality for failed conventional drainage when performed by highly skilled advanced endoscopists at tertiary centers with expertise in both echo-endoscopy and therapeutic endoscopy.

Novel method of endoscopic ultrasound-guided hepaticogastrostomy to prevent stent dysfunction

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIM

The present study assesses the feasibility as well as the technical and functional success rates of a novel endoscopic ultrasound-guided hepaticogastrostomy (EUS-HGS) technique called the locking stent method that uses end-bare covered metallic stents (EBCMS).

METHODS

Twenty consecutive patients who were histologically diagnosed with unresectable cancer complicated with obstructive jaundice underwent EUS-HGS due to failed endoscopic biliary drainage or inaccessible papilla. We retrospectively collected clinical data for these patients including technical and functional success rates and complications.

RESULTS

Seven were treated by EUS-HGS (EUS-HGS group), and 13 were treated using the locking stent EUS-HGS method (LS group). Technical and functional success rates were 100% in both groups. Procedural duration did not significantly differ between the EUS-HGS and LS groups (26.9 ± 9.0 versus 32.3 ± 11.1 min, P = 0.30). Two patients developed complications related to stent migration in the EUS-HGS group. In contrast, although mild post-procedural bile peritonitis required conservative treatment for a few days, none of the stents malfunctioned in the LS group.

CONCLUSION

Our method can safely and effectively prevent stent dysfunction, but validation in a prospective clinical trial is required.

The role of therapeutic endoscopic ultrasound now and for the future

Therapeutic endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) became possible after the advent of the linear echoendoscope and the EUS guided fine needle aspiration. Over the past two decades, the indications for therapeutic EUS have expanded and evidence regarding its utility has been steadily accumulating. Randomized studies have shown EUS to be effective for cancer pain relief (celiac plexus neurolysis), pancreatic fluid collection drainage, and biliary drainage. Prospective studies have shown EUS-guided biliary drainage to be safe and effective in patients with failed ERCP. There is evidence to suggest that EUS is effective for pancreatic duct drainage, gallbladder drainage, and drainage of pelvic collections. EUS may also be useful for targeted cancer treatment via brachytherapy, radiofrequency ablation, or injection therapy. Therapeutic EUS is likely to play an increasingly important role in endoscopic therapy of gastrointestinal diseases in the near future.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided treatments: are we getting evidence based--a systematic review

The continued need to develop less invasive alternatives to surgical and radiologic interventions has driven the development of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided treatments. These include EUS-guided drainage of pancreatic fluid collections, EUS-guided necrosectomy, EUS-guided cholangiography and biliary drainage, EUS-guided pancreatography and pancreatic duct drainage, EUS-guided gallbladder drainage, EUS-guided drainage of abdominal and pelvic fluid collections, EUS-guided celiac plexus block and celiac plexus neurolysis, EUS-guided pancreatic cyst ablation, EUS-guided vascular interventions, EUS-guided delivery of antitumoral agents and EUS-guided fiducial placement and brachytherapy. However these procedures are technically challenging and require expertise in both EUS and interventional endoscopy, such as endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography and gastrointestinal stenting. We undertook a systematic review to record the entire body of literature accumulated over the past 2 decades on EUS-guided interventions with the objective of performing a critical appraisal of published articles, based on the classification of studies according to levels of evidence, in order to assess the scientific progress made in this field.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage: an update

OPINION STATEMENT

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is currently the preferred procedure for biliary drainage in both benign and malignant obstructions. While ERCP is successful in approximately 95 % of cases, a small subset of cases are unsuccessful due to variant anatomy, ampullary pathology, or malignant luminal obstruction. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) is a promising route for biliary decompression that provides multiple advantages over percutaneous and surgical biliary drainage. Multiple retrospective as well as some prospective studies have shown EUS-BD to be safe and effective. Based on the current literature, the cumulative success rate is 84-93 %, regardless of the approach, with an overall complication rate of 16-35 %. EUS-BD appears to a viable therapeutic modality for failed ERCP when performed by highly skilled advanced endoscopists at tertiary centers with expertise in both echo-endoscopy and biliary endoscopy. Larger prospective multicenter randomized comparative studies are needed to further define indications, outcomes, and complications.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage: a review

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiography (ERCP) is widely used as a first-line therapy for biliary drainage. ERCP occasionally fails owing to anatomical or technical problems, despite high reported success rates. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) has recently emerged as an effective alternative biliary drainage method after unsuccessful ERCP. EUS-BD can be essentially divided into 3 different techniques—(1) EUS-guided transluminal biliary drainage including choledocoduodenostomy and hepaticogastrostomy, (2) EUS-rendezvous technique, and (3) EUS-antegrade approach. Here, we focus on the current status of EUS-BD in light of these 3 different techniques.

Interventional endoscopic ultrasonography: an overview of safety and complications

BACKGROUND

In recent years, endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS)-guided techniques have been developed as alternatives to surgical, radiologic, or conventional endoscopic approaches for the treatment or palliation of several digestive diseases. The use of EUS guidance allows the therapeutic area to be targeting more precisely, with a possible clinical benefit and less morbidity. Nevertheless, the risks persist and must be taken into consideration. This review gives an overview of the complications observed with the most established procedures of therapeutic EUS.

METHODS

The PubMed and Embase databases were used to search English language articles on interventional EUS. The studies considered for inclusion were those reporting on complications of EUS-guided celiac plexus block (EUS-CPB), EUS-guided celiac plexus neurolysis (EUS-CPN), drainage of fluid pancreatic and pelvic collections, and EUS-guided biliary and pancreatic drainage (EUS-BD and EUS-PD). Variations in methodology and design in most studies made a thorough statistical analysis difficult. Instead, a frequency analysis of complications and a critical discussion were performed.

RESULTS

Although EUS-guided celiac plexus injection causes mainly mild and transient complications, growing experience shows that EUS-CPN is not as benign a procedure as previously thought. Most of the major complications have been observed in patients with chronic pancreatitis. The findings show that EUS-guided drainage of fluid collections is a safe procedure. Complications occur more often after the drainage of pancreatic abscesses and necrosis. Although the heterogeneity of studies dealing with pancreatobiliary drainage makes the evaluation of risks after these procedures difficult, complications after EUS-BD and EUS-PD are relatively frequent and can be severe. The technical complexity and the lack of specifically designed devices may account for their complication rates.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinicians can consider EUS-guided celiac injection and EUS-guided drainage of fluid collections to be safe alternatives to surgical and radiologic interventions. Well-designed prospective trials are needed to assess the risks of EUS-BD and EUS-PD accurately before they are broadly advocated after a failed endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP).

Endoscopic guided biliary drainage: how can we achieve efficient biliary drainage?

Currently, endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is the preferred procedure for biliary drainage for various pancreatico-biliary disorders. ERCP is successful in 90% of the cases, but is unsuccessful in cases with altered anatomy or with tumors obstructing access to the duodenum. Due to the morbidity and mortality associated with surgical or percutaneous approaches in unsuccessful ERCP cases, biliary endoscopists have been using endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) more frequently within the last decade in different countries. As with any novel advanced endoscopic procedure that incorporates various approaches, advanced endoscopists all over the world have innovated and adopted diverse EUS-BD techniques. Indications for EUS-BD include failed conventional ERCP, altered anatomy, tumor preventing access into the biliary tree and contraindication to percutaneous access (i.e., ascites, etc.). EUS-BD utilizing EUS-guided rendezvous technique is conducted by creating a tract from either the stomach or the duodenum into the bile duct. Although EUS-BD has rapidly been gaining attraction and popularity in the endoscopic world, the indications and methods have yet to be standardized. There are several access routes and techniques that are employed by advanced endoscopists throughout the world for BD. This article reviews the indications and currently practiced EUS-BD techniques, including indications, technical details (intrahepatic or extrahepatic approach), equipment, patient selection, complications, and overall advantages and limitations.

A novel technique for endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage

AIM: To describe a successful endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided biliary drainage technique with high success and low complication rates.

METHODS: The recorded data of consecutive patients who presented to Siriraj Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Center, Siriraj Hospital in Bangkok, Thailand for treatment of malignant obstructive jaundice but failed endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography and underwent subsequent EUS-guided biliary drainage were retrospectively reviewed. The patients’ baseline characteristics, clinical manifestations, procedure details, and post-procedure follow-up data were recorded and analyzed. Clinical outcomes were assessed by physical exam and standard laboratory tests. Technical success of the procedure was defined as completion of the stent insertion. Clinical success was defined as improvement of the patient’s overall clinical manifestations, in terms of general well-being evidenced by physical examination, restoration of normal appetite, and adequate biliary drainage. Overall median survival time was calculated as the time from the procedure until the time of death, and survival analysis was performed by the Kaplan-Meier method. The Student’s t-test and the χ² test were used to assess the significance of inter-group differences.

RESULTS: A total of 21 cases were enrolled, a single endoscopist performed all the procedures. The mean age was 62.8 years (range: 46-84 years). The sex distribution was almost equal, including 11 women and 10 men. Patients with failed papillary cannulation (33.3%), duodenal obstruction (42.9%), failed selective cannulation (19.0%), and surgical altered anatomy (4.8%) were considered candidates for EUS-guided biliary drainage. Six patients underwent EUS-guided choledochoduodenostomy and 15 underwent EUS-guided hepaticogastrostomy. The technique using non-cauterization and no balloon dilation was performed for all cases, employing the in-house manufactured tapered tip Teflon catheter to achieve the dilation. The technical success and clinical success rates of this technique were 95.2% and 90.5%, respectively. Complications included bile leakage and pneumoperitoneum, occurred at a rate of 9.5%. None of the patients died from the procedure. One patient presented with a biloma, a major complication that was successfully treated by another endoscopic procedure.

CONCLUSION: We present a highly effective EUS-guided biliary drainage technique that does not require cauterization or balloon dilation.

Endoscopic ultrasonographic access and drainage of the common bile duct

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is currently the standard of care for biliary drainage. In the hands of experienced endoscopists, conventional ERCP has a failed cannulation rate of 3% to 5%. Failures have traditionally been referred for either percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD) or surgery. Both PTBD and surgery have higher than desirable complication rates. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) is a novel and attractive alternative after failed ERCP. Many groups have reported on the feasibility, efficacy, and safety of this technique. This article reviews the indications and technique currently practiced in EUS-BD, including EUS-guided rendezvous, EUS-guided choledochoduodenostomy, and EUS-guided hepaticogastrostomy.

Outcomes of endoscopic-ultrasound-guided cholangiopancreatography: a literature review

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) can fail in 3–10% of the cases even in experienced hands. Although percutaneous transhepatic cholangiography (PTC) and surgery are the traditional alternatives, there are morbidity and mortality associated with both. In this paper, we have discussed the efficacy and safety of endoscopic-ultrasound-guided cholangiopancreatography (EUS-CP) in decompression of biliary and pancreatic ducts. The overall technical and clinical success rates are around 90% for biliary and 70% for pancreatic duct drainage. The overall EUS-CP complication rate is around 15%. EUS-CP is, however, a technically challenging procedure and should be performed by an experienced endoscopist skilled in both EUS and ERCP. Same session EUS-CP as failed initial ERCP is practical and may result in avoidance of additional procedures. With increasing availability of endoscopists trained in both ERCP and EUS, the role of EUS-CP is likely to grow in clinical practice.