Endoscopy 2024; 56(S 02): S106
DOI: 10.1055/s-0044-1782922
Abstracts | ESGE Days 2024
Oral presentation
EUS guided biliary drainage: More than a new kid on the block 26/04/2024, 16:45 – 17:45 Room 11

On the way to standardisation of EUS-guided hepaticogastrostomy

B. Martínez-Moreno
1   General University Hospital of Alicante, Alicante, Spain
,
G. López-Roldán
1   General University Hospital of Alicante, Alicante, Spain
,
L. Guilabert
1   General University Hospital of Alicante, Alicante, Spain
,
J. Martinez Sempere
1   General University Hospital of Alicante, Alicante, Spain
,
C. Mangas
1   General University Hospital of Alicante, Alicante, Spain
,
L. Company
1   General University Hospital of Alicante, Alicante, Spain
,
F. Ruiz
1   General University Hospital of Alicante, Alicante, Spain
,
J. R. Aparicio
1   General University Hospital of Alicante, Alicante, Spain
› Author Affiliations
 
 

    Aims Fistula dilation is one of the key steps when performing EUS-guided hepaticogastrostomy (EUS-HG). Knowing whether there are differences between the existing tools used in EUS-HG dilation may reduce the complexity and adverse events (AEs) associated with this technique.

    Methods Retrospective study of all HG-EUS performed in a tertiary centre between 2017 and 2023. The procedure time, technical success clinical success and adverse events associated with different dilatation methods during EUS-HG were evaluated. Dilation methods used were: 4mm balloon dilator, 6F cystotome, filiform catheter (4/7F) or a combination of the previous.

    Results Thirty-four patients were included with a technical success rate of 31/34 (91.2%). Clinical success was 100% when technical success was achieved. Table 1 shows the methods used for fistula dilatation. There were 7 AE (20.6%), all early AE and none intra-procedurally. The duration of the procedure was 37.5 (±15.7) minutes.

    A filiform catheter was used in 18 cases and fistula creation was possible in 17 cases (94.4%). The use of a single method for fistula creation reduced procedure time: 44.24 (±17) vs 31.8 (±13.7) min, p=0.018, but not AE. The use of a filiform catheter alone or in combination with dilatation was associated with a significant reduction in the procedure time: 33.7±(15.3) vs 44.6 (±16.5) min, p=0.033, as was the rate of AE: 5. 9% vs 35.7%, p=0.036. However, the use of balloon dilatation was associated with a significantly longer duration:42.7 (16.4) vs 31.3 (14.9), and AE: 25% vs 9.1%, the latter without statistical significance.

    Conclusions The use of a filiform catheter reduces the time and AE associated with EUS-HG. Its use can be recommended over other methods of fistula dilatation in EUS-HG. Standardisation of complex procedures increases safety and allows their use to be extended to other centres.


    #

    Conflicts of interest

    Authors do not have any conflict of interest to disclose.

    Publication History

    Article published online:
    15 April 2024

    © 2024. European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. All rights reserved.

    Georg Thieme Verlag KG
    Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany