Usefulness of endoscopic ultrasound-guided transhepatic biliary drainage with a 22-gauge fine-needle aspiration needle and 0.018-inch guidewire in the procedure's induction phase

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided transhepatic biliary drainage is usually performed with a 19-gauge fine-needle aspiration (FNA) needle and a 0.025-inch guidewire. The combination of a 22-gauge FNA needle and a 0.018-inch guidewire is reported to be effective as a rescue option when the bile duct diameter is small or technically challenging. Experts in EUS-guided transhepatic biliary drainage have reported that bile duct puncture with a 19-gauge FNA needle is possible in most cases, but is not easy to reproduce by endoscopists with less experience in EUS-guided transhepatic biliary drainage. We investigated the usefulness of EUS-guided transhepatic biliary drainage using a 22-gauge FNA needle and a 0.018-inch guidewire during the procedure's induction phase. Consecutive patients who underwent EUS-guided transhepatic biliary drainage at our institution from March 2021 to May 2023 were evaluated, and 37 were included. Biliary drainage was performed for malignant bile duct stricture in 36 patients and choledocholithiasis in one patient. The median target bile duct diameter was 4.5 mm (2.5-9.4). Biliary access, fistula dilation, and stent placement were successful in the 37 patients (100%). The median procedure time was 35 min (16-125). Adverse events occurred in four (10.8%) patients. EUS-guided transhepatic biliary drainage using a 22-gauge FNA needle and a 0.018-inch guidewire is a useful and promising option for endoscopists with limited experience in EUS-guided transhepatic biliary drainage in the procedure's induction phase.

Loop technique for guidewire manipulation during endoscopic ultrasound-guided hepaticogastrostomy

Background and Aim

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided hepaticogastrostomy (EUS-HGS) is widely used in the management of biliary obstructions; however, literature on guidewire manipulation is lacking. This study aimed to assess the utility and optimal conditions of the loop technique for guidewire manipulation during EUS-HGS.

Methods

Consecutive patients who underwent EUS-HGS between April 2015 and January 2022 were included in this study. Patient characteristics and procedural details were retrospectively analyzed. Guidewire manipulations were classified as conventional technique or loop technique, based on the shape of the guidewire tip.

Results

A total of 52 patients (Median age: 73 years, 38 male and 14 female) underwent EUS-HGS. The median guidewire insertion time was 49 s and the median overall procedure time was 20.5 min. The initial guidewire direction was toward the peripheral side in 23 patients (44%). Technical success rate of the EUS-HGS was 100%. Twenty patients (38%) underwent the procedure using the loop technique and 32 (62%) with the conventional technique. In the logistic regression analysis, an angle between the bile duct and needle of >70° was independently associated with use of the loop technique (OR 9.84; 95% CI: 2.24-43.13; P <0.01).

Conclusion

This study revealed the utility of the loop technique in EUS-HGS. This technique is recommended if the bile duct is punctured at an angle >70°.

Efficacy of a dedicated plastic stent in endoscopic ultrasound-guided hepaticogastrostomy during the learning curve: cumulative multi-center experience

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Currently, there are no reports on the learning curve of endoscopic ultrasound-guided hepaticogastrostomy (EUS-HGS) using dedicated plastic stents. Therefore, we evaluated the outcomes of EUS-HGS using dedicated plastic stents at tertiary referral centers during the initial development phase of EUS-HGS.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) was strictly prioritized over EUS-HGS. Twenty-three consecutive patients treated using EUS-HGS with a 7-Fr dedicated plastic stent over 4 years beginning in 2018 were analyzed retrospectively.

RESULTS

The most common primary disease was pancreatic cancer, and the most common reason for difficulty in ERCP was duodenal obstruction, followed by surgically altered anatomy. The overall technical success rate of EUS-HGS was 95.7% (22/23). One failed case was converted to EUS-guided choledochoduodenostomy. The clinical success rate was 90.9% (20/22). Adverse events (AEs) related to the procedure were observed in four (17.4%) patients, including mild biliary peritonitis in three (13.0%) and mild cholangitis in one (4.3%) patient; all patients received conservative therapy. No serious AEs, such as stent migration, bleeding, or gastrointestinal perforation, were observed. Recurrent biliary obstruction (RBO) was observed in eight (34.8%) patients. Of these, HGS stent replacement was performed in four patients, and other treatments were performed in the remaining four patients. Another four (17.4%) patients did not develop RBO but underwent periodic HGS stent replacement.

CONCLUSIONS

EUS-HGS using a dedicated plastic stent was performed safely even in its initial phase of introduction. The approach using this stent can be useful in case of ERCP failure for biliary decompression because of the high feasibility and low risk of serious adverse events.

A retrospective multicenter study comparing the punctures to B2 and B3 in endoscopic ultrasound-guided hepaticogastrostomy

Objectives

In recent years, endoscopic ultrasound-guided hepaticogastrostomy (EUS-HGS) has been performed as an important salvage option for failed endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography for biliary drainage. However, technical issues, such as puncture site (bile duct of segment 3 [B3] or bile duct of segment 2 [B2]), dilation method, stent selection, and procedural safety, need to be resolved for the optimization of EUS-HGS. The present study was to compare the safety, difficulty, and technical and functional success between biliary access via B2 and B3 during EUS-HGS.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective investigation of 161 consecutive EUS-HGS cases across a total of 6 facilities, including those at our hospital. The patients were divided into two groups according to the successful drainage route: the puncture to B2 (P-B2) or the puncture to B3 (P-B3). We compared the technical and functional success rates, technical difficulty, and adverse events between the two groups. We also conducted a subgroup analysis to show the factors related to the procedure time.

Results

There were 92 cases in the P-B2 group and 69 cases in the P-B3 group. There were no significant differences in the technical success, functional success, or adverse events between the groups; however, the procedure time was significantly shorter in P-B2 cases than in P-B3 cases. The multivariate analysis showed that the puncture site was the only factor related to the procedure time.

Conclusions

Based on these findings, P-B2 appears useful and safe. P-B2 is as effective as P-B3 and was able to be performed in a shorter period of time. The B2 approach can be considered a useful option for EUS-HGS.