» Articles » PMID: 33269311

EUS-guided Intrahepatic Biliary Drainage: a Large Retrospective Series and Subgroup Comparison Between Percutaneous Drainage in Hilar Stenoses or Postsurgical Anatomy

Overview
Journal Endosc Int Open
Specialty Gastroenterology
Date 2020 Dec 3
PMID 33269311
Citations 12
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

 Endoscopic ultrasound-guided intrahepatic biliary drainage (EUS-IBD) struggles to find a place in management algorithms, especially compared to percutaneous drainage (PTBD). In the setting of hilar stenoses or postsurgical anatomy data are even more limited.  All consecutive EUS-IBDs performed in our tertiary referral center between 2012 - 2019 were retrospectively evaluated. Rendez-vous (RVs), antegrade stenting (AS) and hepatico-gastrostomies (HGs) were compared. The predefined subgroup of EUS-IBD patients with proximal stenosis/surgically-altered anatomy was matched 1:1 with PTBD performed for the same indications. Efficacy, safety and events during follow-up were compared.  One hundred four EUS-IBDs were included (malignancies = 87.7 %). These consisted of 16 RVs, 43 ASs and 45 HGs. Technical and clinical success rates were 89.4 % and 96.2 %, respectively. Any-degree, severe and fatal adverse events (AEs) occurred in 23.3 %, 2.9 %, and 0.9 % respectively. Benign indications were more common among RVs while proximal stenoses, surgically-altered anatomy, and disconnected left ductal system among HGs. Procedures were shorter with HGs performed with specifically designed stents (25 vs 48 minutes,  = 0.004) and there was also a trend toward less dysfunction with those stents (6.7 % vs 30 %,  = 0.09) compared with previous approaches. Among patients with proximal stenosis/surgically-altered anatomy, EUS-IBD vs. PTBD showed higher rates of clinical success (97.4 % vs. 79.5 %,  = 0.01), reduced post-procedural pain (17.8 % vs. 44.4 %, p = 0.004), shorter median hospital stay (7.5 vs 11.5 days,  = 0.01), lower rates of stent dysfunction (15.8 % vs. 42.9 %,  = 0.01), and the mean number of reinterventions was lower (0.4 vs. 2.8,  < 0.0001).  EUS-IBD has high technical and clinical success with an acceptable safety profile. HGs show comparable outcomes, which are likely to further improve with dedicated tools. For proximal strictures and surgically-altered anatomy, EUS-IBD seems superior to PTBD.

Citing Articles

Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Hepaticogastrostomy in Malignant Biliary Obstruction: A Comprehensive Review on Technical Tips and Clinical Outcomes.

Mazza S, Masciangelo G, Mauro A, Scalvini D, Torello Viera F, Bardone M Diagnostics (Basel). 2024; 14(23).

PMID: 39682552 PMC: 11640186. DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics14232644.


Endoscopic ultrasound-guided choledochoduodenostomy versus hepaticogastrostomy combined with gastroenterostomy in malignant double obstruction (CABRIOLET_Pro): A prospective comparative study.

Vanella G, Leone R, Frigo F, Bronswijk M, van Wanrooij R, Tamburrino D DEN Open. 2024; 5(1):e70024.

PMID: 39377069 PMC: 11456614. DOI: 10.1002/deo2.70024.


Controversies in Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Biliary Drainage.

Dietrich C, Arcidiacono P, Bhutani M, Braden B, Burmester E, Fusaroli P Cancers (Basel). 2024; 16(9).

PMID: 38730570 PMC: 11083358. DOI: 10.3390/cancers16091616.


Same-session endoscopic diagnosis and symptom palliation in pancreato-biliary malignancies: Clinical impact of rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE).

Vanella G, DellAnna G, Cosenza A, Pedica F, Petrone M, Mariani A Endosc Int Open. 2024; 12(2):E297-E306.

PMID: 38420151 PMC: 10901646. DOI: 10.1055/a-2251-3551.


Risk factors of early adverse events associated with endoscopic ultrasound-guided hepaticogastrostomy using self-expandable metal stent.

Nakaji S, Takahashi H, Yoshioka W, Shiratori T, Yoshimura S, Kawamitsu N Endosc Int Open. 2024; 12(1):E164-E175.

PMID: 38292592 PMC: 10827478. DOI: 10.1055/a-2240-1100.


References
1.
Khashab M, El Zein M, Sharzehi K, Marson F, Haluszka O, Small A . EUS-guided biliary drainage or enteroscopy-assisted ERCP in patients with surgical anatomy and biliary obstruction: an international comparative study. Endosc Int Open. 2016; 4(12):E1322-E1327. PMC: 5161123. DOI: 10.1055/s-0042-110790. View

2.
Wang K, Zhu J, Xing L, Wang Y, Jin Z, Li Z . Assessment of efficacy and safety of EUS-guided biliary drainage: a systematic review. Gastrointest Endosc. 2015; 83(6):1218-27. DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2015.10.033. View

3.
Giovannini M . EUS-guided hepaticogastrostomy. Endosc Ultrasound. 2020; 8(Suppl 1):S35-S39. PMC: 6896433. DOI: 10.4103/eus.eus_47_19. View

4.
Ardengh J, Lopes C, Kemp R, Dos Santos J . Different options of endosonography-guided biliary drainage after endoscopic retrograde cholangio-pancreatography failure. World J Gastrointest Endosc. 2018; 10(5):99-108. PMC: 5955728. DOI: 10.4253/wjge.v10.i5.99. View

5.
Han S, Kim S, So H, Shin E, Kim D, Park D . EUS-guided biliary drainage versus ERCP for first-line palliation of malignant distal biliary obstruction: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Sci Rep. 2019; 9(1):16551. PMC: 6851119. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-019-52993-x. View