Search

Background: Endoscopic ultrasound-guided rendezvous (EUS-RV) is a recently added alternative salvage technique to percutaneous transhepatic cholangiography rendezvous (PTC-RV) for achieving biliary cannulation in failed ERCP. Comparative data on these two techniques are lacking. The aim of this study is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of EUS-RV versus PTC-RV in a tertiary referral center., Methods: A case-control study was conducted in the tertiary referral center, Ghent University Hospital. All consecutive patients that underwent a rendezvous procedure between February 2014 and March 2022 for failed biliary cannulation were included. Patients that underwent PTC-RV (between February 2014 and February 2018) were compared to those who underwent EUS-RV (between March 2018 and March 2022). A sub-analysis was performed for malignant biliary strictures (MBO), benign biliary strictures (BBO) and common bile duct stones (CBDS). The primary endpoints of interest were technical success rate and complication rate. These outcome variables were compared among techniques using Fisher's exact test. Statistical analyses were performed using STATA version 15., Results: A total of 59 consecutive procedures in 57 patients were included for analysis; 20/59 (33.9%) were PTC-RV; the remaining 39/59 (66.1%) procedures were EUS-RV. Two patients in the PTC-RV group underwent two procedures. Of the PTC-RV procedures, 18/20 (90.0%) were technically successful, as compared to 28/39 EUS-RV procedures (71.8%) (P = 0.184; Fig. 1). Adverse events were reported in 7/20 PTC-RV procedures (35.0%) and in 13/39 EUS-RV procedures (33.3%) (P = 1.000). In 5/20 PTC-RV procedures (25.0%) and 4/39 EUS-RV procedures (10.3%), the adverse event was considered major (defined as AGREE classification of 3 or more; P = 0.249)., Conclusions: EUS-RV has an acceptable success rate and is not associated with an increased risk of adverse events as compared to PTC-RV., (© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.)

Background: Patients with malignant hilar biliary strictures can suffer from obstructive jaundice. Controversy remains on the optimal approach to obtain preoperative or palliative biliary drainage in these patients. A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to compare the two modalities most commonly used in this scenario: endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and percutaneous transhepatic cholangiography (PTC)., Methods: MEDLINE via PubMed was searched for relevant articles published from 2005 to April 2019. Following outcome measures were used to compare ERCP and PTC: therapeutic success rate, cholangitis, pancreatitis, bleeding, tube dislocation, reintervention rate, mortality such as 30d mortality and in-hospital death, median survival time, drainage patency, duration until decompression and hospital stay. Risk of bias assessment for the retrospective studies was conducted by NOS. RoB 2 was used for RCT. A meta-analysis was performed by using Review Manager 5.3. The certainty of evidence was appraised using GRADE., Results: Eleven articles of which one RCT and ten retrospective cohort studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria for data-analysis (1417 patients; 784 ERCP, 633 PTC). The combined odds ratio (OR) for therapeutic succes was 3.5 times higher in the PTC group (95% CI 2.05-5.97; high certainty). In terms of cholangitis, ERCP carried a 1.7-fold risk as compared to PTC (95% CI 0.92-3.08; moderate certainty). Patients who underwent ERCP were 11.50 times more likely to undergo a reintervention (95% CI 3.51-37.70; moderate certainty). ERCP was comparable to PTC in terms of pancreatitis (low certainty), bleeding (high certainty) and tube dislocation rate (moderate certainty). Mortality tended to be numerically higher in the PTC group but low patient numbers, selection bias and study heterogeneity did not allow uniform comparative analysis., Conclusions: In patients with malignant hilar biliary strictures, PTC is associated with a better therapeutic success rate, less cholangitis and lower reintervention rate as compared to ERCP., (© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.)

Background and Study Aims: Lumen-apposing stents (LAMS) are approved to treat peripancreatic collections and for gallbladder and bile duct drainage. Over the last years, LAMS have also been used for off-label indications including gastrojejunostomy, gastro-gastrostomy and drainage of postsurgical collections. We aimed to analyze indications, technical/clinical success rates and complications of all LAMS placed over the last 2 years., Patients and Methods: Data from 61 consecutive LAMS (Hot Axios, Boston Scientific) in 57 patients were analyzed. Technical success was defined as successful deployment of the LAMS in the desired position. Clinical success was defined as follows: for pancreatic collections: resolution without the need for non-endoscopic interventions; for choledochoduodenostomy: ≥ 50% drop in baseline serum bilirubin within 2 weeks AND patient can receive chemotherapy if indicated; for gastrojejunostomy: resolution of gastric outlet obstruction and successful re-initiation of oral intake; for gastro-gastrostomy: successful endoscopic access to the excluded stomach; for gallbladder or postsurgical collection drainage: resolution of sepsis., Results: Indications were drainage of peripancreatic collections in 24 cases (39.3%), choledochoduodenostomy in 13 (21.3%), gastrojejunostomy in 6 (9.8%), gastro-gastrostomy in 13 (21.3%), gallbladder drainage in 1 (1.6%) and postsurgical collection drainage in 4 (6.6%). Overall technical and clinical success rates were high (57/61; 93.4% and 54/61; 88.5%, respectively). Clinical success rate for non-approved indications was 95.6% (22/23 cases). Complications occurred in 13 patients (21.3%, 4 serious)., Conclusions: LAMS are increasingly used in interventional endoscopy. In our cohort, more than one third of LAMS are placed for off-label indications, with a high success rate and acceptable complication rate., (© 2020. Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.)