Endoscopic duodenal stenting is the current standard treatment for malignant gastric outlet obstruction (GOO) in patients with limited life expectancy. However, duodenal stenting is prone to stent ...dysfunction. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided gastroenterostomy (EUS-GE) is a novel technique with potentially superior stent patency. We compared clinical success, safety, and stent dysfunction of EUS-GE and duodenal stenting in patients with malignant GOO using propensity score matching.
This international, multicenter, retrospective study analyzed consecutive patients undergoing EUS-GE or duodenal stenting for GOO between 2015 and 2021 in three European centers. Primary outcomes were clinical success (GOO scoring system GOOSS ≥ 2) and stent dysfunction (GOOSS ≤ 1 after initial clinical success). A propensity score matching (1:1) analysis was performed using age, sex, underlying disease, disease stage, ascites, and peritoneal carcinomatosis as variables.
214 patients underwent EUS-GE (n = 107) or duodenal stenting (n = 107). After propensity score matching, 176 patients were matched and compared. Technical success rates for EUS-GE and duodenal stenting were 94 % (95 %CI 89 %-99 %) vs. 98 % (95 %CI 95 %-100 %), respectively (
= 0.44). Clinical success rates were 91 % (95 %CI 85 %-97 %) vs. 75 % (95 %CI 66 %-84 %;
= 0.008). Stent dysfunction occurred in 1 % (95 %CI 0-4 %) vs. 26 % (95 %CI 15 %-37 %) of patients (
< 0.001). Adverse event rate was 10 % (95 %CI 4 %-17 %) vs. 21 % (95 %CI 12 %-29 %;
= 0.09).
EUS-GE had higher clinical success and lower stent dysfunction, with similar safety, compared with duodenal stenting, suggesting that EUS-GE may be preferred over duodenal stenting in patients with malignant GOO.
In the management of gastric outlet obstruction (GOO), EUS-guided gastroenterostomy (EUS-GE) seems to be safe and more effective than enteral stent placement. However, comparisons with laparoscopic ...GE (L-GE) are scarce. Our aim was to perform a propensity score–matched comparison between EUS-GE and L-GE.
An international, multicenter, retrospective analysis was performed of consecutive EUS-GE and L-GE procedures in 3 academic centers (January 2015 to May 2020) using propensity score matching to minimize selection bias. A standard maximum propensity score difference of .1 was applied, also considering underlying disease and oncologic staging.
Overall, 77 patients were treated with EUS-GE and 48 patients with L-GE. By means of propensity score matching, 37 patients were allocated to both groups, resulting in 74 (1:1) matched patients. Technical success was achieved in 35 of 37 EUS-GE–treated patients (94.6%) versus 100% in the L-GE group (P = .493). Clinical success, defined as eating without vomiting or GOO Scoring System ≥2, was achieved in 97.1% and 89.2%, respectively (P = .358). Median time to oral intake (1 interquartile range {IQR}, .3-1.0 vs 3 IQR, 1.0-5.0 days, P < .001) and median hospital stay (4 IQR, 2-8 vs 8 IQR, 5.5-20 days, P < .001) were significantly shorter in the EUS-GE group. Overall (2.7% vs 27.0%, P = .007) and severe (.0% vs 16.2%, P = .025) adverse events were identified more frequently in the L-GE group.
For patients with GOO, EUS-GE and L-GE showed almost identical technical and clinical success. However, reduced time to oral intake, shorter median hospital stay, and lower rate of adverse events suggest that the EUS-guided approach might be preferable.
Objectives
Where palliative surgery or percutaneous drainage used to be the only option in patients with afferent loop syndrome, endoscopic management by EUS-guided gastroenterostomy has been gaining ...ground. However, EUS-guided hepaticogastrostomy might also provide sufficient biliary drainage. Our aim was to evaluate the feasibility of EUS-guided hepaticogastrostomy for the management of afferent loop syndrome and provide comparative data on the different approaches.
Methods
The institutional databases were queried for all consecutive minimally invasive procedures for afferent loop syndrome. A retrospective, dual-centre analysis was performed, separately analysing EUS-guided hepaticogastrostomy, EUS-guided gastroenterostomy and percutaneous drainage. Efficacy, safety, need for re-intervention, hospital stay and overall survival were compared.
Results
In total, 17 patients were included (mean age 59 years (± SD 10.5), 23.5% female). Six patients, which were ineligible for EUS-guided gastroenterostomy, were treated with EUS-guided hepaticogastrostomy. EUS-guided gastroenterostomy and percutaneous drainage were performed in 6 and 5 patients respectively. Clinical success was achieved in all EUS-treated patients, versus 80% in the percutaneous drainage group (
p
= 0.455). Furthermore, higher rates of bilirubin decrease were seen among patients undergoing EUS: > 25% bilirubin decrease in 10 vs. 1 patient(s) in the percutaneously drained group (
p
= 0.028), with > 50% and > 75% decrease identified only in the EUS group. Using the ASGE lexicon for adverse event grading, adverse events occurred only in patients treated with percutaneous drainage (60%,
p
= 0.015). And last, the median number of re-interventions was significantly lower in patients undergoing EUS (0 (IQR 0.0–1.0) vs. 1 (0.5–2.5),
p
= 0.045) when compared to percutaneous drainage.
Conclusions
In the management of afferent loop syndrome, EUS seems to outperform percutaneous drainage. Moreover, in our cohort, EUS-guided gastroenterostomy and hepaticogastrostomy provided similar outcomes, suggesting EUS-guided hepaticogastrostomy as the salvage procedure in situations where EUS-guided gastroenterostomy is not feasible or has failed.
Clinical management after complete endoscopic resection of pT1 colorectal cancers (CRCs) is still under debate. Follow-up data are heterogeneous and poorly reported, resulting in variable clinical ...management. Our aim was to meta-analyze recurrence and cancer-specific mortality (CSM) occurring after endoscopic resection of low- and high-risk pT1 CRCs undergoing conservative (nonsurgical) management.
Literature was systematically searched until February 2019 for studies describing patients with pT1 CRCs, histologically classifiable as low or high risk, endoscopically resected without complementary surgery and with ≥12 months of follow-up. Pooled cumulative incidence (and incidence rate when specific follow-up intervals were available) of recurrence and CSM were calculated separately for low- and high-risk pT1 CRCs. Quality, publication bias, and heterogeneity were explored.
Pooled cumulative incidences of recurrence and CSM among high-risk lesions (5 studies, 571 patients) were, respectively, 9.5% (95% confidence interval CI, 6.7%-13.3%; I2 = 38.4%) and 3.8% (95% CI, 2.4%-5.8%; I2 = 0%), whereas among low-risk lesions (7 studies, 650 patients) they were, respectively, 1.2% (95% CI, .6%-2.5%; I2 = 0%) and .6% (95% CI, .2%-1.7%; I2 = 0%). Pooled incidence rates of recurrence and CSM among high-risk lesions (3 cohorts, 237 patients) were, respectively, 11 (95% CI, 2-20; I2 = 43.3%) and 4 (95% CI, 1-7; I2 = 0%) per 1000 patient-years, whereas among low-risk lesions (3 cohorts, 229 patients) they were 3 (95% CI, 0-6; I2 = 0%) and 2 (95% CI, 0-4; I2 = 0%) per 1000 patient-years, respectively. No publication bias or significant heterogeneity was found.
Pooled estimates of adverse events after endoscopic resection of pT1 CRCs suggest a conservative approach for low-risk lesions. In high-risk lesions, increased surgical risk might justify a conservative management, whereas fitness for surgery makes surgical completion appropriate.
Display omitted
Objectives
Combined biliary obstruction and gastric outlet obstruction (GOO) represent a challenging clinical scenario despite developments in therapeutic endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) as GOO ...might impair EUS‐guided biliary drainage. Little is known about the effectiveness of different therapeutic combinations used to treat double obstruction, especially regarding stent patency.
Methods
All consecutive patients with double obstruction treated between 2016 and 2021 in three tertiary academic centres were eligible for inclusion. Five combinations involving enteral stenting (ES), EUS‐guided gastroenterostomy (EUS‐GE), hepaticogastrostomy (EUS‐HGS), choledochoduodenostomy (EUS‐CDS), and transpapillary biliary stenting (TPS) were evaluated for dysfunction during follow‐up, either as proportions or dysfunction‐free survival (DFS) using Kaplan–Meier estimates.
Results
Ninety‐three patients were included (male 46%; age 67 interquartile range 60–76 years; pancreatic cancer 73%, metastatic 57%), resulting in 103 procedure combinations. Different combinations showed significantly different overall dysfunction rates (p = 0.009), ranging from the null rate of EUS‐GE+HG to the 18% rate of EUS‐GE+TPS, 31% of EUS‐GE+EUS‐CD, 53% of ES+TPS and 83% of ES+EUS‐CDS. Sub‐analyses restricted to biliary dysfunction confirmed these trends. A multivariate Cox proportional‐hazards regression of DFS, a stenosis distal to the papilla (HR 3.2 1.5–6.9) and ES+EUS‐CDS (HR 5.6 2–15.7) independently predicted dysfunction.
Conclusions
Despite a lack of statistical power per combination, this study introduces new associations beyond the increased risk of GOO recurrence with ES versus EUS‐GE. EUS‐CDS showed reduced effectiveness and frequent dysfunction in the context of GOO, especially when combined with ES. EUS‐GE+HGS or EUS‐GE+TPS in this setting might result in superior patency. These results suggest that a prospective evaluation of the optimal endoscopic approach to malignant double obstruction is needed.
Objectives
Long‐term outcomes of endoscopic ultrasound‐guided choledochoduodenostomy (EUS‐CDS) performed with lumen apposing metal stents (LAMS) have been poorly evaluated in small or retrospective ...series, leading to an underestimation of LAMS dysfunction.
Methods
All consecutive EUS‐CDS performed in three academic referral centers were included in prospectively maintained databases. Technical/clinical success, adverse events (AEs), and dysfunction during follow‐up were retrospectively analyzed. Kaplan–Meier analysis was used to estimate dysfunction‐free survival (DFS), with Cox proportional hazard regression to evaluate independent predictors of dysfunction.
Results
Ninety‐three patients were included (male 56%; mean age, 70 years 95% confidence interval (CI) 68–72; pancreatic cancer 81%, metastatic disease 47%). In 67% of procedures, 6 mm LAMS were used. Technical and clinical success were achieved in 97.8% and 93.4% of patients, respectively, with AEs occurring in 9.7% (78% mild/moderate). Dysfunction occurred in 31.8% of patients after a mean of 166 days (95% CI 91–241), with an estimated 6 month and 12 month DFS of 75% and 52%, respectively; mean DFS of 394 (95% CI 307–482) days. Almost all dysfunctions (96%) were successfully managed by endoscopic reintervention. Duodenal invasion (hazard ratio 2.7 95% CI 1.1–6.8) was the only independent predictor of dysfunction.
Conclusions
Endoscopic ultrasound‐guided choledochoduodenostomy shows excellent initial efficacy and safety, although stent dysfunctions occurs frequently during long‐term follow‐up. Almost all stent dysfunctions can be managed successfully by endoscopic reinterventions. We propose a comprehensive classification of the different types of dysfunction that may be encountered and rescue procedures that may be employed under these circumstances. Duodenal invasion seems to increase the risk of developing EUS‐CDS dysfunction, potentially representing a relative contraindication for this technique.
The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has changed the way we work, and health care services have to adapt. The use of personal protective equipment (PPE) and the delay of non-urgent procedures were the immediate ...measures adopted by Gastrointestinal (GI) Endoscopy Units at the time of crisis. As the peak has now passed in most countries, GI facilities are facing the next challenge of this pandemic: service providers must adapt their routine work to a ‘new normal’. Routine casework must resume, and waiting lists must be addressed: all in the awareness of the ongoing potential risks of COVID-19, and the threat of a second wave. In this review, we discuss strategies to manage the workload by improving procedure appropriateness and prioritization, whilst maintaining a ‘COVID-free’ environment. This includes monitoring of an adequate stock of PPE and the implications for the staff’s workload, and the GI trainees’ need of training.
Abstract
Background and study aims
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.
Patients and methods
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.
Results
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,
P
= 0.004) and there was also a trend toward less dysfunction with those stents (6.7 % vs
.
30 %,
P
= 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 %,
P
= 0.01), reduced post-procedural pain (17.8 % vs. 44.4 %, p = 0.004), shorter median hospital stay (7.5 vs 11.5 days,
P
= 0.01), lower rates of stent dysfunction (15.8 % vs. 42.9 %,
P
= 0.01), and the mean number of reinterventions was lower (0.4 vs. 2.8,
P
< 0.0001).
Conclusions
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.
Choledocholithiasis is one of the most common indications for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in daily practice. Although the majority of stones are small and can be easily ...removed in a single endoscopy session, approximately 10-15% of patients have complex biliary stones, requiring additional procedures for an optimum clinical outcome. A plethora of endoscopic methods is available for the removal of difficult biliary stones, including papillary large balloon dilation, mechanical lithotripsy, and electrohydraulic and laser lithotripsy. In-depth knowledge of these techniques and the emerging literature on them is required to yield the most optimal therapeutic effects. This narrative review aims to describe the definition of difficult bile duct stones based on certain characteristics and streamline their endoscopic retrieval using various modalities to achieve higher clearance rates.
In this 14th document in a series of papers entitled "
" we discuss various aspects of EUS-guided biliary drainage that are debated in the literature and in practice. Endoscopic retrograde ...cholangiography is still the reference technique for therapeutic biliary access, but EUS-guided techniques for biliary access and drainage have developed into safe and highly effective alternative options. However, EUS-guided biliary drainage techniques are technically demanding procedures for which few training models are currently available. Different access routes require modifications to the basic technique and specific instruments. In experienced hands, percutaneous transhepatic cholangiodrainage is also a good alternative. Therefore, in this paper, we compare arguments for different options of biliary drainage and different technical modifications.
PDF
