Search

Background and Aim: This study aimed to determine safety and risk factors for adverse events (AEs) of endoscopic ultrasound‐guided gallbladder drainage (EUS‐GBD) with long‐term indwell of lumen‐apposing metal stents (LAMS). Methods: This study is a multicenter prospective observational study on consecutive high surgical‐risk patients requiring gallbladder drainage who underwent EUS‐GBD with LAMS over 12 months. Centralized telephone follow‐up interviews were conducted every 3 months for 1 year. Patients were censored at LAMS removal, cholecystectomy, or death. AE‐free survival was determined using log–rank tests. Cumulative risks were estimated using life‐table analysis. Results: Eighty‐two patients were included (53.7% male, median [interquartile range] age of 84.6 [76.5–89.8] years, and 85.4% with acute cholecystitis). Technical success was achieved in 79 (96.3%), and clinical success in 73 (89%). No patient was lost to follow‐up; 45 patients (54.9%) completed 1‐year follow‐up with in situ LAMS. Median (interquartile range) LAMS indwell time was 364 (47–367) days. Overall, 12 (14.6%) patients presented 14 AEs, including 5 (6.1%) recurrent biliary events (3 acute cholangitis, 1 mild acute pancreatitis, and 1 acute cholecystitis). Patients with pancreatobiliary malignancy had an increased risk of recurrent biliary events (33% vs 1.5%, P = 0.001). The overall 1‐year cumulative risk of recurrent biliary events was 9.7% (4.1–21.8%). The 1‐year risk of AEs and of severe AEs was 18.8% (11–31.2%) and 7.9% (3.3–18.2%), respectively. Pancreatobiliary malignancy was the single risk factor for recurrent biliary events; LAMS misdeployment was the strongest risk factor for AEs. Conclusions: Long‐term LAMS indwell does not increase the risk of delayed AEs following EUS‐GBD. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Migration of fully covered metal stents (FCMS) remains a limitation of the endoscopic treatment of anastomotic biliary strictures (ABS) following orthotopic liver transplantation (OLT). The use of antimigration FCMS (A-FCMS) might enhance endoscopic treatment outcomes for ABS. Methods: Single center retrospective study. Consecutive patients with ABS following OLT who underwent ERCP with FCMS placement between January 2005 and December 2020 were eligible. Subjects were grouped into conventional-FCMS (C-FCMS) and A-FCMS. The primary outcome was stent migration rates. Secondary outcomes were stricture resolution, adverse event, and recurrence rates. Results: A total of 102 (40 C-FCMS; 62 A-FCMS) patients were included. Stent migration was identified at the first revision in 24 C-FCMS patients (63.2%) and in 21 A-FCMS patients (36.2%) (p = 0.01). The overall migration rate, including the first and subsequent endoscopic revisions, was 65.8% in C-FCMS and 37.3% in A-FCMS (p = 0.006). The stricture resolution rate at the first endoscopic revision was similar in both groups (60.0 vs 61.3%, p = 0.87). Final stricture resolution was achieved in 95 patients (93.1%), with no difference across groups (92.5 vs 93.5%; p = 0.84). Adverse events were identified in 13 patients (12.1%) with no difference across groups. At a median follow-up of 52 (IQR: 19–85.5) months after stricture resolution, 25 patients (24.5%) developed recurrences, with no difference across groups (C-FCMS 30% vs A-FCMS 21%; p = 0.28). Conclusions: The use of A-FCMS during ERCP for ABS following OLT results in significantly lower stent migration rates compared to C-FCMS. However, the clinical benefit of reduced stent migration is unclear. Larger studies focusing on stricture resolution and recurrence rates are needed [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the use of machine learning models to predict the presence of choledocholithiasis, or common bile duct stones, in patients with suspected choledocholithiasis. The goal of this research is to improve current stratification methods and reduce the risks associated with unnecessary endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) procedures. The model developed by Steinway et al. outperformed existing guidelines in terms of diagnostic accuracy. However, there are concerns about the study's limitations, such as the inability to account for moderate-risk patients who may require additional imaging before determining the need for ERCP. The authors' efforts are commendable, and future models should consider noninvasive imaging and external validation to further improve risk stratification for patients with suspected choledocholithiasis. [Extracted from the article]

1: ESGE recommends the use of endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) over percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD) after failed endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in malignant distal biliary obstruction when local expertise is available.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 2: ESGE suggests EUS-BD with hepaticogastrostomy only for malignant inoperable hilar biliary obstruction with a dilated left hepatic duct when inadequately drained by ERCP and/or PTBD in high volume expert centers.Weak recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 3: ESGE recommends that EUS-guided pancreatic duct (PD) drainage should only be considered in symptomatic patients with an obstructed PD when retrograde endoscopic intervention fails or is not possible.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 4: ESGE recommends rendezvous EUS techniques over transmural PD drainage in patients with favorable anatomy owing to its lower rate of adverse events.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 5: ESGE recommends that, in patients at high surgical risk, EUS-guided gallbladder drainage (GBD) should be favored over percutaneous gallbladder drainage where both techniques are available, owing to the lower rates of adverse events and need for re-interventions in EUS-GBD.Strong recommendation, high quality of evidence. 6: ESGE recommends EUS-guided gastroenterostomy (EUS-GE), in an expert setting, for malignant gastric outlet obstruction, as an alternative to enteral stenting or surgery.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 7: ESGE recommends that EUS-GE may be considered in the management of afferent loop syndrome, especially in the setting of malignancy or in poor surgical candidates. Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 8: ESGE suggests that endoscopic ultrasound-directed transgastric ERCP (EDGE) can be offered, in expert centers, to patients with a Roux-en-Y gastric bypass following multidisciplinary decision-making, with the aim of overcoming the invasiveness of laparoscopy-assisted ERCP and the limitations of enteroscopy-assisted ERCP.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and aims: EUS-guided choledochoduodenostomy (EUS-CDS) is an effective option for biliary drainage in malignant biliary obstruction. Lumen apposing metal stents (LAMS) are increasingly been used for EUS-CDS. It is unknown how LAMS compare to tubular self-expandable metal stents (SEMS) for EUS-CDS. Our aim is to compare the clinical outcomes of LAMS versus SEMS for EUS-CDS. Patients and methods: Single-center retrospective cohort study of consecutive patients with unresectable malignant biliary obstruction who underwent EUS-CDS after failed ERCP for initial biliary drainage between 2011 and 2019. Clinical outcomes were compared between patients who had conventional covered SEMS and LAMS placed for EUS-CDS. Outcome measures included unplanned procedural events, technical success, clinical success, adverse events and reinterventions. Survival was analyzed by the Kaplan–Meier method. Results: During the study period 57 patients met inclusion criteria (37 LAMS, 20 SEMS). All EUS-CDS were technically successful (LAMS group 95% CI 90.3–100%, SEMS group 95% CI 83.2–100%). There were no differences between groups in unplanned procedural events (4 LAMS deployment issues, 2 mild bleeding in SEMS group; 10 vs 10.8%), clinical success (37/37 [100%] vs 19/20 [95%]), and short-term adverse events (5/37 [13.5%] vs 4/20 [20%], p = 0.71). Complete follow-up data were available in 41 patients for a mean of 376 ± 145 days. Endoscopic reintervention was required for duodenal stent placement (n = 9) or biliary stent dysfunction (n = 4), with no difference between LAMS and SEMS group (6/37 [16.2%] vs 7/20 [35%]). There were no differences in overall survival between both groups. Conclusions: EUS-guided choledochoduodenostomy after failed ERCP has equally high technical and clinical success rates with either LAMS or SEMS in patients with malignant biliary obstruction. No differences in adverse events, reinterventions and survival were seen with either type of stent. The cost-effectiveness of LAMS vs SEMS for EUS-guided choledochoduodenostomy remains to be proven. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided ductal access and drainage (EUS-DAD) of biliary/pancreatic ducts after failed endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is less invasive than percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD). The actual need for EUS-DAD remains unknown. We aimed to determine how often EUS-DAD is needed to overcome ERCP failure.Methods: Consecutive duct access procedures (n = 2205; 95 % biliary) performed between June 2013 and November 2015 at a tertiary-care center were reviewed. ERCP was used first line, EUS-DAD as salvage after ERCP, and PTBD when both had failed. Procedures were defined as "index" in patients without prior endoscopic duct access and "combined" when EUS-DAD followed successful ERCP. The main outcomes were the EUS-DAD and PTBD rates.Results: EUS-DAD was performed in 7.7 % (170/2205) of overall procedures: 9.1 % (116/1274) index and 5.8 % (54/931) follow-up. Most index EUS-DADs were performed following (46 %) or anticipating (39 %) ERCP failure, whereas 15 % followed successful ERCP (combined procedures). Among index procedures, the EUS-DAD rate was higher in surgically altered anatomy (58.2 % [39 /67)] vs. 6.4 % [77/1207]); PTBD was required in 0.2 % (3/1274). Among follow-up procedures, ERCP represented 85.7 %, cholangiopancreatography through mature transmural fistulas 8.5 %, and EUS-DAD 5.8 %; no patient required PTBD. The secondary PTBD rate was 0.1 % (3/2205). Six primary PTBDs were performed (overall PTBD rate 0.4 % [9/2205]).Conclusions: EUS-DAD was required in 7.7 % of ERCPs for benign and malignant biliary/pancreatic duct indications. Salvage PTBD was required in 0.1 %. This high EUS-DAD rate reflects disease complexity, a wide definition of ERCP failure, and restrictive PTBD use, not poor ERCP skills. EUS-DAD effectively overcomes the limitations of ERCP eliminating the need for primary and salvage PTBD in most cases. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

EUS-cholangiography revealed a dilated common bile duct (CBD) and a patent cystic duct above a distal stricture (Fig. In malignant biliary obstruction, EUS-guided gallbladder drainage allows symptomatic decompression when the cystic duct is involved [3] and rescue biliary drainage when it is patent [4]. [Extracted from the article]

Background and Aim: Endoscopic ultrasound‐guided gallbladder drainage (EUS‐GBD) is an emerging option for acute cholecystitis in non‐surgical candidates. Combining endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) for common bile duct stones with EUS‐GBD in a single session might become a non‐surgical management strategy to comprehensively treat gallstone disease in selected patients. Methods: Single‐center retrospective cohort study comparing outcomes between EUS‐GBD alone (group A) and single‐session ERCP combined with EUS‐GBD (group B). Consecutive patients who underwent EUS‐GBD with a lumen‐apposing metal stent (LAMS) between June 2011 and August 2018 were analyzed. Exclusion criteria were subjects included in randomized clinical trials, patients who had had ERCP within 5 days of EUS‐GBD, patients in whom ERCP or EUS‐GBD was carried out for salvage of one or the other procedure, and patients who underwent concurrent EUS‐guided biliary drainage. Results: One hundred and nine consecutive patients underwent EUS‐GBD with LAMS during the study period. Seventy‐one patients satisfied the inclusion criteria and 34 patients were in group A and 37 in group B. Baseline characteristics were similar in both groups. There were no significant differences in technical (97.1% vs 97.3%; P = 0.19) and clinical success rates (88.2% vs 94.6%; P = 0.42) of EUS‐GBD in group A versus group B. Rate of adverse events was similar in both groups, five (14.7%) in group A versus five (13.5%) in group B. Conclusions: Single‐session EUS‐GBD combined with ERCP has comparable rates of technical and clinical success to EUS‐GBD alone. A combined EUS‐GBD and ERCP procedure does not appear to increase adverse events and makes possible comprehensive treatment of gallstone disease by purely endoscopic means. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An introduction is presented in which the editor discusses articles in the issue on topics including endoscopic ultrasound (EUS), EUS-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD), and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) techniques.

: Referring to Kongkam P et al. p. 55-62 Complete drainage of complex MHBO improves patient outcomes; however, complete drainage in high-grade MHBO is not only difficult to achieve but also difficult to maintain, as clogging and ingrowth result in limited stent patency. For two decades now, EUS-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) has increasingly been performed in malignant biliary obstruction (MBO) following failed ERCP as an alternative to PTBD, the historical gold standard for difficult biliary drainage. [Extracted from the article]

The editor talks about the topics discussed within the issue including biliary rendezvous obtained through endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), treatment of postoperative bile ductinjury, and periodic progressive stenting.