How should we use endoscopic ultrasonography-guided biliary drainage techniques separately?

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.

EUS-guided antegrade metal stenting with hepaticoenterostomy using a dedicated plastic stent with a review of the literature (with video)

Background and Objectives:

Recently, a novel EUS-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) technique consisting of EUS-guided antegrade stenting and EUS-guided hepaticoenterostomy (EUS-AS+HES) using two conventional metal stents (MS) has been reported to decrease adverse events and maintain longer stent patency for malignant biliary obstruction (MBO). However, only a few limited reports have evaluated this technique. Finally, dedicated plastic stents (PSs) have been developed to perform EUS-HES safely. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the outcome in EUS-AS+HES for MBO using the dedicated HES PSs.

Methods:

The results of a total of 23 patients who underwent EUS-AS+HES (18 simultaneous cases and 5 sequential cases) for MBO from October 2014 to July 2017 were retrospectively reviewed.

Results:

Technical and clinical success rates were 100% (23/23). Adverse events were seen in 8.7% (2/23); 2 cases of mild biliary peritonitis, which were successfully managed conservatively. Overall survival was 96 days and the median duration of stent patency, including stent dysfunction, patient death, and last follow-up, was 66.0 days (53 days in simultaneous cases and 78 days in sequential cases). Stent dysfunction was seen in 13.0% (3/23) of patients in 267, 263, and 135 days after the procedure.

Conclusions:

The novel EUS-BD technique, EUS-AS using MS plus HES employing a dedicated PS, was shown to be a feasible procedure for MBO and should yield longer duration of stent patency. Furthermore, sequential antegrade stenting in cases of occluded HES seems to be one other option instead of HES stent exchange. Further large-scale comparison studies with EUS-HES or EUS-AS are required to confirm its clinical efficacy.

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.

Endoscopic management of acute cholangitis according to the TG13

The Tokyo Guidelines 2013 (TG13) recommend that endoscopic drainage should be the first-choice treatment for biliary decompression in patients with acute cholangitis. Timing of biliary drainage for acute cholangitis should be based on the severity of the disease. For patients with severe acute cholangitis, appropriate organ support and urgent biliary drainage are needed. For patients with moderate acute cholangitis, early biliary drainage is needed. For patients with mild acute cholangitis, biliary drainage is needed when initial treatment such as antimicrobial therapy is ineffective. There are three methods of biliary drainage: endoscopic drainage, percutaneous transhepatic drainage, and surgical drainage. Endoscopic drainage is less invasive than the other two drainage methods. The drainage method (endoscopic nasobiliary drainage and stenting) depends on the endoscopist's preference but endoscopic sphincterotomy should be selected rather than endoscopic papillary balloon dilation from the aspect of procedure-related complications. In the TG13, balloon enteroscopy-assisted and endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainages have been newly added as specific drainage methods. Recent studies have demonstrated their usefulness and safety. These drainage methods will become more widespread in the future.