Feasibility and efficacy of endoscopic reintervention after covered metal stent placement for EUS-guided hepaticogastrostomy: A multicenter experience

Endoscopic management of recurrent obstructive jaundice after EUS-guided biliary drainage

EUS-GUIDED biliary drainage (EUS-BD) has recently gained widespread acceptance as a minimally invasive alternative method for biliary drainage. However, the risks of encountering recurrent biliary obstruction (RBO) after EUS-BD have increased due to the growing clinical experience of EUS-BD and prolonged prognosis of the underlying disease. Previous studies have shown that the incidence of RBO following EUS-BD ranges from 11% to 25%. Nevertheless, literature on the efficacy of reintervention of RBO after EUS-GUIDED hepaticogastrostomy (EUS-HGS) and case reports describing the procedural details of endoscopic reintervention following EUS-HGS are lacking.

Is Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Hepaticogastrostomy Safe and Effective after Failed Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography?-A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background/Objectives: Endoscopic ultrasound-guided hepaticogastrostomy (EUS-HGS) has emerged as an alternative option for biliary drainage in cases of failed endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). Limited data exist on the safety and efficacy of EUS-HGS. In this comprehensive meta-analysis, we aim to study the safety and efficacy of EUS-HGS in cases of failed conventional ERCP. Methods: Embase, PubMed, and Web of Science databases were searched to include all studies that evaluated the efficacy and safety of EUS-HGS. Using the random effect model, the pooled weight-adjusted event rate estimate for clinical outcomes in each group were calculated with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The primary outcomes were technical and clinical success rates. Secondary outcomes included overall adverse events (AEs), rates of recurrent biliary obstruction (RBO), and rates or re-intervention. Results: Our analysis included 70 studies, with a total of 3527 patients. The pooled technical and clinical success rates for EUS-HGS were 98.1% ([95% CI, 97.5-98.7]; I2 = 40%) and 98.1% ([95% CI, 97.5-98.7]; I2 = 40%), respectively. The pooled incidence rate of AEs with EUS-HGS was 14.9% (95% CI, 12.7-17.1), with bile leakage being the most common (2.4% [95% CI, 1.7-3.2]). The pooled incidence of RBO was 15.8% [95% CI, 12.2-19.4], with a high success rate for re-intervention (97.5% [95% CI, 94.7-100]). Conclusions: Our analysis showed high technical and clinical success rates of EUS-HGS, making it a feasible and effective alternative to ERCP. The ongoing development of dedicated devices and techniques is expected to make EUS-HGS more accessible and safer for patients in need of biliary drainage.