A One-step Procedure by Using Linear Echoendoscope to Perform EUS-guided Choledochoduodenostomy and Duodenal Stenting in Patients with Irresectable Periampullary Cancer

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.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage: Are we there yet?

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is the mainstay procedure of choice for management of obstructive biliary disease. While ERCP is widely performed with high success rates, the procedure is not feasible in every patient such as cases of non-accessible papilla. In the setting of unsuccessful ERCP, endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) has become a promising alternative to surgical bypass and percutaneous biliary drainage (PTBD). A variety of different forms of EUS-BD have been described, allowing for both intrahepatic and extrahepatic approaches. Recent studies have reported high success rates utilizing EUS-BD for both transpapillary and transluminal drainage, with fewer adverse events when compared to PTBD. Advancements in novel technologies designed specifically for EUS-BD have led to increased success rates as well as improved safety profile for the procedure. The techniques of EUS-BD are yet to be fully standardized and are currently performed by highly trained advanced endoscopists. The aim of our review is to highlight the different EUS-guided interventions for achieving biliary drainage and to both assess the progress that has been made in the field as well as consider what the future may hold.

Choledochoduodenostomy: Outcomes and limitations

The EUS-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) has gained broad acceptance as the preferred approach after failed ERCP for malignant biliary obstruction. Despite the drainage route, namely, transhepatic or transduodenal, the technical and clinical success rates are high. Because of such good outcomes with tolerable adverse events (AEs) rate, the EUS-BD might soon even replace the ERCP for primary biliary decompression in patients at high risk of failed biliary cannulation. Among the EUS-BD techniques, the choledochoduodenostomy seems to carry the lower risk of AEs and should be considered the first-line EUS approach for biliary decompression.

Review of Simultaneous Double Stenting Using Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Biliary Drainage Techniques in Combined Gastric Outlet and Biliary Obstructions

Concomitant malignant gastric outlet obstruction and biliary obstruction may occur in patients with advanced cancers affecting these anatomical regions. This scenario presents a unique challenge to the endoscopist in selecting an optimal management approach. We sought to determine the efficacy and safety of endoscopic techniques for treating simultaneous gastric outlet and biliary obstruction (GOBO) with endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) guidance for biliary drainage. An extensive literature search for peer-reviewed published cases yielded 6 unique case series that either focused on or included the use of EUS-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) with simultaneous gastroduodenal stenting. In our composite analysis, a total of 51 patients underwent simultaneous biliary drainage through EUS, with an overall reported technical success rate of 100% for both duodenal stenting and biliary drainage. EUS-guided choledochoduodenostomy or EUS-guided hepaticogastrostomy was employed as the initial technique. In 34 cases in which clinical success was ascribed, 100% derived clinical benefit. The common adverse effects of double stenting included cholangitis, stent migration, bleeding, food impaction, and pancreatitis. We conclude that simultaneous double stenting with EUS-BD and gastroduodenal stenting for GOBO is associated with high success rates. It is a feasible and practical alternative to percutaneous biliary drainage or surgery for palliation in patients with associated advanced malignancies.

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.