Endoscopic management of concomitant biliary and duodenal malignant obstruction: Impact of the timing of drainage for one vs. two procedures and the modalities of biliary drainage

Management of Malignant Gastric Outlet Obstruction: A Comprehensive Review on the Old, the Classic and the Innovative Approaches

Gastrojejunostomy is the principal method of palliation for unresectable malignant gastric outlet obstructions (GOO). Gastrojejunostomy was traditionally performed as a surgical procedure with an open approach butrecently, notable progress in the development of minimally invasive procedures such as laparoscopic gastrojejunostomies have emerged. Additionally, advancements in endoscopic techniques, including endoscopic stenting (ES) and endoscopic ultrasound-guided gastroenterostomy (EUS-GE), are becoming more prominent. ES involves the placement of self-expandable metal stents (SEMS) to restore luminal patency. ES is commonly the first choice for patients deemed unfit for surgery or at high surgical risk. However, although ES leads to rapid improvement of symptoms, it carries limitations like higher stent dysfunction rates and the need for frequent re-interventions. Recently, EUS-GE has emerged as a potential alternative, combining the minimally invasive nature of the endoscopic approach with the long-lasting effects of a gastrojejunostomy. Having reviewed the advantages and disadvantages of these different techniques, this article aims to provide a comprehensive review regarding the management of unresectable malignant GOO.

Will Endoscopic-Ultrasound-Guided Choledocoduodenostomy with Electrocautery-Enhanced Lumen-Apposing Metal Stent Placement Replace Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography When Treating Distal Malignant Biliary Obstructions?

Malignant distal biliary obstructions are becoming increasingly common, especially in patients with cancers of the pancreatic head, despite progress in medical oncology research. ERCP is the current gold standard for management of such strictures, but the emergence of EC-LAMS has rendered EUS-CDS both safe and efficient. It is a "game changer"; originally intended for ERCP failure, two randomised clinical trials recently proposed EUS-CDS as a first-intent procedure in palliative settings. For resectable diseases, the absence of iatrogenic pancreatitis associated with a lower rate of postsurgical adverse events (compared with ERCP) leads us to believe that EUS-CDS might be used in first-intent as a pre-operative endoscopic biliary drainage.

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.

Same-session double EUS-guided bypass versus surgical gastroenterostomy and hepaticojejunostomy: an international multicenter comparison

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Gastric outlet and biliary obstruction are common manifestations of GI malignancies and some benign diseases for which standard treatment would be surgical gastroenterostomy and hepaticojejunostomy (ie, "double bypass"). Therapeutic EUS has allowed for the creation of an EUS-guided double bypass. However, same-session double EUS-guided bypass has only been described in small proof-of-concept series and lacks a comparison with surgical double bypass.

METHODS

A retrospective multicenter analysis was performed of all consecutive same-session double EUS-guided bypass procedures performed in 5 academic centers. Surgical comparators were extracted from these centers' databases from the same time interval. Efficacy, safety, hospital stay, nutrition and chemotherapy resumption, long-term patency, and survival were compared.

RESULTS

Of 154 identified patients, 53 (34.4%) received treatment with EUS and 101 (65.6%) with surgery. At baseline, patients undergoing EUS exhibited higher American Society of Anesthesiologists scores and a higher median Charlson Comorbidity Index (9.0 [interquartile range {IQR}, 7.0-10.0] vs 7.0 [IQR, 5.0-9.0], P < .001). Technical success (96.2% vs 100%, P = .117) and clinical success rates (90.6% vs 82.2%, P = .234) were similar when comparing EUS and surgery. Overall (11.3% vs 34.7%, P = .002) and severe adverse events (3.8% vs 19.8%, P = .007) occurred more frequently in the surgical group. In the EUS group, median time to oral intake (0 days [IQR, 0-1] vs 6 days [IQR, 3-7], P < .001) and hospital stay (4.0 days [IQR, 3-9] vs 13 days [IQR, 9-22], P < .001) were significantly shorter.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite being used in a patient population with more comorbidities, same-session double EUS-guided bypass achieved similar technical and clinical success and was associated with fewer overall and severe adverse events when compared with surgical gastroenterostomy and hepaticojejunostomy.

A Systematic Review of Endoscopic Treatments for Concomitant Malignant Biliary Obstruction and Malignant Gastric Outlet Obstruction and the Outstanding Role of Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Therapies

BACKGROUND

The treatments for cancer palliation in patients with concomitant malignant biliary obstruction (MBO) and gastric outlet obstruction (MGOO) are still under investigation due to the lack of evidence available in the medical literature. We performed a systematic search and critical review to investigate efficacy and safety among patients with MBO and MGOO undergoing both endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) and MGOO endoscopic treatment.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed in PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library. EUS-BD included both transduodenal and transgastric techniques. Treatment of MGOO included duodenal stenting or EUS-GEA (gastroenteroanastomosis). Outcomes of interest were technical success, clinical success, and rate of adverse events (AEs) in patients undergoing double treatment in the same session or within one week.

RESULTS

11 studies were included in the systematic review for a total number of 337 patients, 150 of whom had concurrent MBO and MGOO treatment, fulfilling the time criteria. MGOO was treated by duodenal stenting (self-expandable metal stents) in 10 studies, and in one study by EUS-GEA. EUS-BD had a mean technical success of 96.4% (CI 95%, 92.18-98.99) and a mean clinical success of 84.96% (CI 95%, 67.99-96.26). The average frequency of AEs for EUS-BD was 28.73% (CI 95%, 9.12-48.33). Clinical success for duodenal stenting was 90% vs. 100% for EUS-GEA.

CONCLUSIONS

EUS-BD could become the preferred drainage in the case of double endoscopic treatment of concomitant MBO and MGOO in the near future, with the promising EUS-GEA becoming a valid option for MGOO treatment in these patients.

Combined endoscopic mAnagement of BiliaRy and gastrIc OutLET obstruction (CABRIOLET Study): A multicenter retrospective analysis

Objectives

Combined biliary obstruction and gastric outlet obstruction (GOO) represent a challenging clinical scenario despite developments in therapeutic endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) as GOO might impair EUS‐guided biliary drainage. Little is known about the effectiveness of different therapeutic combinations used to treat double obstruction, especially regarding stent patency.

Methods

All consecutive patients with double obstruction treated between 2016 and 2021 in three tertiary academic centres were eligible for inclusion. Five combinations involving enteral stenting (ES), EUS‐guided gastroenterostomy (EUS‐GE), hepaticogastrostomy (EUS‐HGS), choledochoduodenostomy (EUS‐CDS), and transpapillary biliary stenting (TPS) were evaluated for dysfunction during follow‐up, either as proportions or dysfunction‐free survival (DFS) using Kaplan–Meier estimates.

Results

Ninety‐three patients were included (male 46%; age 67 [interquartile range 60–76] years; pancreatic cancer 73%, metastatic 57%), resulting in 103 procedure combinations. Different combinations showed significantly different overall dysfunction rates (p = 0.009), ranging from the null rate of EUS‐GE+HG to the 18% rate of EUS‐GE+TPS, 31% of EUS‐GE+EUS‐CD, 53% of ES+TPS and 83% of ES+EUS‐CDS. Sub‐analyses restricted to biliary dysfunction confirmed these trends. A multivariate Cox proportional‐hazards regression of DFS, a stenosis distal to the papilla (HR 3.2 [1.5–6.9]) and ES+EUS‐CDS (HR 5.6 [2–15.7]) independently predicted dysfunction.

Conclusions

Despite a lack of statistical power per combination, this study introduces new associations beyond the increased risk of GOO recurrence with ES versus EUS‐GE. EUS‐CDS showed reduced effectiveness and frequent dysfunction in the context of GOO, especially when combined with ES. EUS‐GE+HGS or EUS‐GE+TPS in this setting might result in superior patency. These results suggest that a prospective evaluation of the optimal endoscopic approach to malignant double obstruction is needed.

The formation process and mechanism of gastrointestinal anastomosis after retrieval anchor-assisted endoscopic ultrasound-guided gastroenterostomy: a preclinical study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided gastroenterostomy (EUS-GE) is a promising method of treating gastric outlet obstruction. However, no study has investigated gastrointestinal anastomosis formation after EUS-GE. We aimed to evaluate the formation of gastrointestinal anastomosis after EUS-GE in a porcine model.

METHODS

Retrieval anchor-assisted EUS-GE was performed on 15 Bama mini pigs. Five pigs each were randomly euthanized 3, 7, and 14 days postoperatively to evaluate the formation of gastrointestinal anastomosis and measure the anastomotic distance. The expression of transforming growth factor-β1(TGF-β1) and Smad3 in the anastomosis site were examined by immunohistochemistry.

RESULTS

EUS-GE was successfully performed in all 15 pigs. The mean procedure time was 29.2 ± 6.0 (range 18-40) minutes. The anastomotic distance was 34.0 ± 3.6 cm in 14 pigs. The site of gastroenterostomy of one pig was at the ileum. For pigs euthanized 3 days postoperatively, the structure was mechanically maintained by a stent. For pigs euthanized 7 or 14 days postoperatively, the stomach and small intestine were anastomosed to form a stable structure. The level of TGF-β1 and Smad3 in the anastomosis site gradually increased from 3 to 14 days after EUS-GE. TGF-β1 and Smad3 expression had a significant difference between 3 days, 7 days, and 14 days after EUS-GE (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

For EUS-GE, the stomach and small intestine were initially linked together mechanically and spontaneously anastomosed to form a stable structure 7 days postoperatively. TGF-β1 and Smad3 play an important role in the formation of a stable structure of gastrointestinal anastomosis.

Single session endoscopic ultrasound-guided double bypass (hepaticogastrostomy and gastrojejunostomy) for concomitant duodenal and biliary obstruction: A case series

BACKGROUND

Concomitant malignant biliary and gastric outlet obstruction can be difficult to manage endoscopically with traditional endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and luminal stenting. Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided hepaticogastrostomy (HG) and gastrojejunostomy (GJ) are novel techniques that can relieve both obstructions in a single session. This study aims to describe the outcomes of combined, single session EUS-HG and EUS-GJ.

METHODS

This is a two-center retrospective study of consecutive patients who underwent same session EUS-HG and EUS-GJ. The primary outcome was technical success. Secondary outcomes included adverse events (AE), reduction in total serum bilirubin, length of hospital stay (LOS), and re-intervention rates.

RESULTS

A total of 23 patients underwent EUS-HG and EUS-GJ (12 males, mean age 66.4 years). Twenty-one were performed for malignant obstruction. Technical success was 100% and 95.6% for HG and GJ, respectively. All patients subsequently tolerated a soft diet and 72.7% (16/22) of patients had a 50% reduction in bilirubin post-procedure. The median LOS for the 17 patients who were not discharged home immediately following the procedure was 2 (range 1-20) days. There were five AEs (2 mild, 3 moderate). Only three patients required reintervention (interventional radiology-guided biliary drainage, stent exchange for a benign biliary stricture, and placement of a second stent through an occluded distal common bile duct stent) over a median follow-up of 78 days. One patient with pancreatic cancer underwent successful tumor resection.

CONCLUSION

Single session EUS-guided double bypass (HG and GJ) is technically feasible and safe when conducted by experienced endosonographers. Larger, comparative studies are needed.

Endoscopic Double Stenting for the Management of Combined Malignant Biliary and Duodenal Obstruction

Periampullary cancers are often diagnosed at advanced stages and can cause both biliary and duodenal obstruction. As these two obstructions reduce patients’ performance status and quality of life, appropriate management of the disease is important. Combined malignant biliary and duodenal obstruction is classified according to the location and timing of the duodenal obstruction, which also affect treatment options. Traditionally, surgical bypass (gastrojejunostomy and hepaticojejunostomy) has been performed for the treatment of unresectable periampullary cancer. However, it has recently been substituted by less invasive endoscopic procedures due to its high morbidity and mortality. Thus, endoscopic double stenting (transpapillary stenting and enteral stenting) has become the current standard of care. Limitations of transpapillary stenting include its technical difficulty and the risk of duodenal-biliary reflux. Recently, endoscopic ultrasound-guided procedures have emerged as a novel platform and have been increasingly utilized in the management of biliary and duodenal obstruction. As the prognosis of periampullary cancer has improved due to recent advances in chemotherapy, treatment strategies for biliary and duodenal obstruction are becoming more important. In this article, we review the treatment strategies for combined malignant biliary and duodenal obstruction based on the latest evidence.