Single-session EUS-guided gastroenterostomy and hepaticogastrostomy using dedicated metal stents (with videos)

Efficacy and safety of endoscopic ultrasound-guided hepaticogastrostomy: a meta-regression analysis

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided hepaticogastrostomy (EUS-HGS) is a valid option for EUS-guided biliary drainage that has been increasingly used in the last decade. The aims of this study were to provide a systematic review with meta-analysis and meta-regression of the features and outcomes of this procedure.

METHODS

The MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases were searched for literature pertinent to EUS-HGS. Meta-analysis of the proportions and meta-regression of potential modifiers of the main outcome measures were applied. The main outcome was technical success; secondary outcomes were clinical success and procedure-related adverse events (AEs).

RESULTS

33 studies, including 1644 patients, were included in the meta-analysis. Malignant biliary obstruction (MBO) was the underlying cause in almost all cases (99.6%); the main indications for EUS-HGS were duodenal/papillary invasion (34.8%), surgically altered anatomy (18.4%), and hilar stenosis (16.0%). The pooled technical success of EUS-HGS was 97.7% (95%CI 96.1%-99.0%; I 2 = 0%), the intention-to-treat clinical success rate was 88.1% (95%CI 84.7%-91.2%; I 2 = 33.9%), and procedure-related AEs occurred in 12.0% (95%CI 9.8%-14.5%; I 2 = 20.4%), with cholangitis/sepsis (2.8%) and bleeding (2.3%) the most frequent. The rate of procedure-related AEs was lower with the use of dedicated stents on univariable meta-regression analysis. Meta-regression showed that technical success and clinical success rates were modified by the centers' experience (>4/year).

CONCLUSIONS

EUS-HGS represents an effective and safe procedure for EUS-guided biliary drainage in patients with MBO. Future studies should address the impact of center experience, patient selection, and the use of dedicated stents to improve performance of this technique.

Endoscopic ultrasound guided gastroenterostomy: Technical details updates, clinical outcomes, and adverse events

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided gastroenterostomy (EUS-GE) has been transformed from an innovative technique, into a viable alternative to enteral stenting and surgical gastrointestinal anastomosis for patients with gastric outlet obstruction. Even EUS-GE guided ERCP and EUS-guided gastrointestinal anastomosis for the treatment of afferent loop syndrome have been performed, giving patients more less invasive options. However, EUS-GE is still a technically challenging procedure. In order to improve EUS-GE, several techniques have been reported to improve the technical details. With EUS-GE widely performed, more data about EUS-GE’s clinical outcomes have been reported. The aim of the current review is to describe technical details updates, clinical outcomes, and adverse events of EUS-GE.

Methods for Drainage of Distal Malignant Biliary Obstruction after ERCP Failure: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

There is scarce evidence on the comparison between different methods for the drainage of distal malignant biliary obstruction (DMBO) after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) failure. Therefore, we performed a network meta-analysis to compare the outcomes of these techniques. We searched main databases through September 2021 and identified five randomized controlled trials. The primary outcome was clinical success. The secondary outcomes were technical success, overall and serious adverse event rate. Percutaneous trans-hepatic biliary drainage was found to be inferior to other interventions (PTBD: RR 1.01, 0.88–1.17 with EUS-choledochoduodenostomy (EUS-CD); RR 1.03, 0.86–1.22 with EUS-hepaticogastrostomy (EUS-HG); RR 1.42, 0.90–2.24 with surgical hepaticojejunostomy). The comparison between EUS-HG and EUS-CD was not significant (RR 1.01, 0.87–1.17). Surgery was not superior to other interventions (RR 1.40, 0.91–2.13 with EUS-CD and RR 1.38, 0.88–2.16 with EUS-HG). No difference in any of the comparisons concerning adverse event rate was detected, although PTBD showed a slightly poorer performance on ranking analysis (SUCRA score 0.13). In conclusion, all interventions seem to be effective for the drainage of DMBO, although PTBD showed a trend towards higher rates of adverse events.

Relief of jaundice in malignant biliary obstruction: When should we consider endoscopic ultrasonography-guided hepaticogastrostomy as an option?

BACKGROUND

Since it was first described in 2001, endoscopic ultrasonography-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) has emerged as an alternative procedure for achieving an endoscopic internal drainage in case of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) failure. Biliary drainage can be achieved by either a transduodenal extrahepatic approach through EUS-guided choledochoduodenostomy (EUS-CDS), or a transgastric intrahepatic approach, namely EUS-guided hepaticogastrostomy (EUS-HGS) which already holds a remarkable place in the treatment of patients with malignant biliary obstruction.

DATA SOURCES

For this review we did a comprehensive search of PubMed/MEDLINE from inception to May 31, 2021 for papers with a significant sample size (at least 20 patients enrolled) dealing with EUS-HGS. Data on technical success, clinical success and rate of adverse events were collected.

RESULTS

A total of 22 studies with different design, comprising 874 patients, were included. Technical success was achieved in about 96% of cases (ranging from 65% to 100%). Clinical success was obtained in almost 91% of cases (ranging from 76% to 100%). Overall rate of adverse events was 19% (ranging from 0% to 35%). Abdominal pain, self-limiting pneumoperitoneum, bile leak, cholangitis, bleeding, perforation and intraperitoneal migration of the stent were the most common.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite both safety and efficacy profile, at the moment HGS still remains a challenging procedure at every single step and must therefore be conducted by a very experienced endoscopist in interventional EUS and ERCP procedures, who is able to deal with the possible severe adverse events of this procedure. A rapid introduction in clinical practice of dedicated devices is desiderable.