Practical applications and learning curve for EUS-guided hepaticoenterostomy: results of a large single-center US retrospective analysis

Theodore W. James; Todd H. Baron

doi:10.1055/a-0867-9599

Endoscopy International Open, Table of Contents

CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Endosc Int Open 2019; 07(04): E600-E607
DOI: 10.1055/a-0867-9599

Original article

Practical applications and learning curve for EUS-guided hepaticoenterostomy: results of a large single-center US retrospective analysis

Authors

Theodore W. James

Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Medicine, University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, United States
Todd H. Baron

Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Medicine, University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, United States

Abstract

Background and study aims Endoscopic ultrasound-guided hepaticoenterostomy (EUS-HE) is an effective method of endoscopic biliary drainage in cases where endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography has failed or is deemed impossible. Indications for EUS-HE have expanded, resulting in increased interest by endoscopists to learn the procedure; however, few data exist on breadth of application or experience needed to develop proficiency. We describe utilization of EUS-HE for biliary decompression at a large tertiary referral center along with procedural learning curve.

Patients and methods Retrospective evaluation of 60 consecutive patients who underwent attempted EUS-HE by one endoscopist from February 2016 through June 2018. Procedures were divided into chronological and summative experience quartiles. We compared procedural success rate, procedural utilization, and procedure duration over time.

Results Sixty patients underwent attempted EUS-HE during the study period: 35 with surgically altered anatomy, 23 with malignant biliary obstruction, 35 outpatients, 35 females; median age, 66 years. The procedure was technically successful in 53 patients. Success rates by summative experience quartile were 80 %, 80 %, 93.3 % and 100 % respectively. Beginning at patient number 40, the remaining cases had a success rate of 100 %. Utilization increased from eight cases in the first chronological quartile to 28 in the fourth. There was no significant reduction in procedure duration over time.

Conclusion For an experienced endoscopist, EUS-HE could be performed effectively and safely after the experience of 40 cases. Limitations of this study include a single endoscopist and heterogeneous patient population with variable anatomy that may affect procedural success. Future studies should include data from multiple centers and endoscopists.

Full Text

References

References
1 Baron TH, Grimm IS, Swanstrom LL. Interventional approaches to gallbladder disease. N Engl J Med 2015; 373: 357-365
2 Carrasco CH, Zornoza J, Bechtel WJ. Malignant biliary obstruction: complications of percutaneous biliary drainage. Radiology 1984; 343-346
3 Winick AB, Waybill PN, Venbrux AC. Complications of percutaneous transhepatic biliary interventions. Tech Vasc Interv Radiol 2001; 4: 200-206
4 Sharaiha RZ, Kumta NA, Desai AP. et al. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage versus percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage: predictors of successful outcome in patients who fail endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. Surg Endosc 2016; 30: 5500-5505
5 Nam K, Kim DU, Lee TH. et al. Patient perception and preference of EUS-guided drainage over percutaneous drainage when endoscopic transpapillary biliary drainage fails: An international multicenter survey. Endosc Ultrasound 2018; 7: 48-55
6 Burmester E, Niehaus J, Leineweber T. et al. EUS-cholangio-drainage of the bile duct: report of 4 cases. Gastrointest Endosc 2003; 57: 246-251
7 Park SJ, Choi J-H, Park DH. et al. Expanding indication: EUS-guided hepaticoduodenostomy for isolated right intrahepatic duct obstruction (with video). Gastrointest Endosc 2013; 78: 374-380
8 Park DH, Song T-J, Eum J. et al. EUS-guided hepaticogastrostomy with a fully covered metal stent as the biliary diversion technique for an occluded biliary metal stent after a failed ERCP (with videos). Gastrointest Endosc 2010; 71: 413-419
9 Sharaiha RZ, Kalloo AN, Khashab MA. EUS-guided hepatoesophagostomy for transesophageal biliary drainage (with video). Gastrointest Endosc 2012; 76: 227-228
10 Iwashita T, Nakai Y, Hara K. et al. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided antegrade treatment of bile duct stone in patients with surgically altered anatomy: A multicenter retrospective cohort study. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci 2016; 23: 227-233
11 Ogura T, Kitano M, Takenaka M. et al. Multicenter prospective evaluation study of endoscopic ultrasound-guided hepaticogastrostomy combined with antegrade stenting (with video). Dig Endosc 2018; 30: 252-259
12 James TW, Fan YC, Baron TH. EUS-guided hepaticoenterostomy as a portal to allow definitive antegrade treatment of benign biliary diseases in patients with surgically altered anatomy. Gastrointest Endosc 2018; 88: 547-554
13 Cotton PB, Eisen GM, Aabakken L. et al. A lexicon for endoscopic adverse events: report of an ASGE workshop. Gastrointest Endosc 2010; 71: 446-454
14 Imai H, Takenaka M, Omoto S. et al. Utility of endoscopic ultrasound-guided hepaticogastrostomy with antegrade stenting for malignant biliary obstruction after failed endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. Oncol 2017; 93: 69-75
15 De Cassan C, Bories E, Pesenti C. et al. Use of partially covered and uncovered metallic prosthesis for endoscopic ultrasound-guided hepaticogastrostomy: Results of a retrospective monocentric study. Endosc Ultrasound 2017; 6: 329-335