Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Endosc Int Open 2020; 08(12): E1782-E1794
DOI: 10.1055/a-1264-7511
Original article

EUS-guided intrahepatic biliary drainage: a large retrospective series and subgroup comparison between percutaneous drainage in hilar stenoses or postsurgical anatomy

Giuseppe Vanella
1   Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University Hospital Gasthuisberg, University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
2   Pancreatobiliary Endoscopy and Endosonography Division, IRCSS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy
,
Michiel Bronswijk
1   Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University Hospital Gasthuisberg, University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
,
Geert Maleux
3   Department of Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Gasthuisberg, University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
,
Hannah van Malenstein
1   Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University Hospital Gasthuisberg, University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
,
Wim Laleman
1   Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University Hospital Gasthuisberg, University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
,
Schalk Van der Merwe
1   Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University Hospital Gasthuisberg, University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

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.

Supplementary material



Publication History

Article published online:
17 November 2020

© 2020. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commecial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

 

  • References

  • 1 Enochsson L, Swahn F, Arnelo U. et al. Nationwide, population-based data from 11,074 ERCP procedures from the Swedish Registry for Gallstone Surgery and ERCP. Gastrointest Endosc 2010; 72 Epub ahead of print
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 2 Khashab M, El Zein M, Sharzehi K. et al. EUS-guided BD or enteroscopy-assisted ERCP in patients with surgical anatomy and biliary obstruction: an international comparative study. Endosc Int Open 2016; 04: E1322-E1327
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 3 Giovannini M. EUS-guided hepaticogastrostomy. Endosc Ultrasound 2019; 8: 35
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 4 Anderloni A, Fugazza A, Troncone E. et al. Single-stage EUS-guided choledochoduodenostomy using a lumen-apposing metal stent for malignant distal biliary obstruction. Gastrointest Endosc 2019; 89: 69-76
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 5 Park JK, Woo YS, Noh DH. et al. Efficacy of EUS-guided and ERCP-guided biliary drainage for malignant biliary obstruction: prospective randomized controlled study. Gastrointest Endosc 2018; 88: 277-282
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 6 Bang JY, Navaneethan U, Hasan M. et al. Stent placement by EUS or ERCP for primary biliary decompression in pancreatic cancer: a randomized trial (with videos). Gastrointest Endosc 2018; 88: 9-17
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 7 Khan MA, Akbar A, Baron TH. et al. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage: a systematic review and meta-analysis. New York LLC: Springer;
  • 8 Dhir V, Artifon ELA, Gupta K. et al. Multicenter study on endoscopic ultrasound-guided expandable biliary metal stent placement: Choice of access route, direction of stent insertion, and drainage route. Dig Endosc 2014; 26: 430-435
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 9 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
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 10 Sha J, Dong Y, Niu H. A prospective study of risk factors for in-hospital mortality in patients with malignant obstructive jaundice undergoing percutaneous biliary drainage. Medicine (Baltimore) 2019; 98: e15131
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 11 Takahashi K, Tsuyuguchi T, Saiga A. et al. Risk factors of ineffective drainage in uncovered self-expandable metal stenting for unresectable malignant hilar biliary strictures. Oncotarget 2018; 9: 28185-28194
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 12 Kanno Y, Ito K, Koshita S. et al. EUS-guided biliary drainage for malignant perihilar biliary strictures after further transpapillary intervention has been judged to be impossible or ineffective. Intern Med 2017; 56: 3145-3151
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 13 Nakai Y, Isayama H, Yamamoto N. et al. Conversion to endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage by temporary nasobiliary drainage placement in patients with prior biliary stenting. Endosc Ultrasound 2017; 6: 323-328
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 14 Panpimanmas S, Ratanachu-Ek T. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided hepaticogastrostomy for advanced cholangiocarcinoma after failed stenting by endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. Asian J Surg 2013; 36: 154-158
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 15 Ardengh JC, Lopes CV, Kemp R. et al. Different options of endosonography-guided biliary drainage after endoscopic retrograde cholangio-pancreatography failure. World J Gastrointest Endosc 2018; 10: 99-108
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 16 Gupta K, Perez-Miranda M, Kahaleh M. et al. Endoscopic ultrasound-assisted bile duct access and drainage: Multicenter, long-term analysis of approach, outcomes, and complications of a technique in evolution. J Clin Gastroenterol 2014; 48: 80-87
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 17 Sassatelli R, Cecinato P, Lupo M. et al. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage for malignant biliary obstruction after failed ERCP in low performance status patients. Dig Liver Dis 2019; Epub ahead of print
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 18 Khashab M, Van der Merwe S, Kunda R. et al. Prospective international multicenter study on endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage for patients with malignant distal biliary obstruction after failed endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. Endosc Int Open 2016; 04: E487-E496
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 19 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
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 20 Oh D, Park DH, Song TJ. et al. Optimal biliary access point and learning curve for endoscopic ultrasound-guided hepaticogastrostomy with transmural stenting. Therap Adv Gastroenterol 2017; 10: 42-53
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 21 Paik WH, Lee TH, Park DH. et al. EUS-guided biliary drainage versus ERCP for the primary palliation of malignant biliary obstruction: a multicenter randomized clinical trial. Am J Gastroenterol 2018; 113: 987-997
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 22 Lee TH, Choi JH, Park DH. et al. Similar efficacies of endoscopic ultrasound-guided transmural and percutaneous drainage for malignant distal biliary obstruction. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2016; 14: 1011-1019.e3
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 23 Artifon ELA, Aparicio D, Paione JB. et al. Biliary drainage in patients with unresectable, malignant obstruction where ERCP fails: Endoscopic ultrasonography-guided choledochoduodenostomy versus percutaneous drainage. J Clin Gastroenterol 2012; 46: 768-774
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 24 Han SY, Kim SO, So H. et al. EUS-guided biliary drainage versus ERCP for first-line palliation of malignant distal biliary obstruction: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Sci Rep 2019; Epub ahead of print
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 25 Miller CS, Barkun AN, Martel M. et al. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage for distal malignant obstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials. Endosc Int Open 2019; 7: E1563-E1573
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 26 Artifon ELA, Marson FP, Gaidhane M. et al. Hepaticogastrostomy or choledochoduodenostomy for distal malignant biliary obstruction after failed ERCP: Is there any difference?. Gastrointest Endosc 2015; 81: 950-959
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 27 Wang K, Zhu J, Xing L. et al. Assessment of efficacy and safety of EUS-guided biliary drainage: A systematic review. Gastrointest Endosc 2016; 83: 1218-1227
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 28 Ogura T, Chiba Y, Masuda D. et al. Comparison of the clinical impact of endoscopic ultrasound-guided choledochoduodenostomy and hepaticogastrostomy for bile duct obstruction with duodenal obstruction. [Erratum appears in Endoscopy. 2016 Feb;48(2):163; PMID: 26418074]. Endoscopy 2016; 48: 156-163
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 29 Sharaiha RZ, Khan MA, Kamal F. et al. Efficacy and safety of EUS-guided biliary drainage in comparison with percutaneous biliary drainage when ERCP fails: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy 2017; 85: 904-914
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 30 Sportes A, Camus M, Greget M. et al. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided hepaticogastrostomy versus percutaneous transhepatic drainage for malignant biliary obstruction after failed endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: A retrospective expertise-based study from two centers. Therap Adv Gastroenterol 2017; 10: 483-493
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 31 Bapaye A, Dubale N, Aher A. Comparison of endosonography-guided vs. Percutaneous biliary stenting when papilla is inaccessible for ERCP. United Eur Gastroenterol J 2013; 1: 285-293
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 32 Ogura T, Onda S, Takagi W. et al. Clinical utility of endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage as a rescue of re-intervention procedure for high-grade hilar stricture. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2017; 32: 163-168
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 33 Minaga K, Takenaka M, Kitano M. et al. Rescue EUS-guided intrahepatic biliary drainage for malignant hilar biliary stricture after failed transpapillary re-intervention. Surg Endosc 2017; 31: 4764-4772
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 34 Paik WH, Lee NK, Nakai Y. et al. Conversion of external percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage to endoscopic ultrasound-guided hepaticogastrostomy after failed standard internal stenting for malignant biliary obstruction. Endoscopy 2017; 49: 544-548
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 35 Park DH, Lee TH, Paik WH. et al. Feasibility and safety of a novel dedicated device for one-step EUS-guided biliary drainage: A randomized trial. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2015; 30: 1461-1466
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 36 Paik W, Park D. Outcomes and limitations: EUS-guided hepaticogastrostomy. Endosc Ultrasound 2019; 8: 44
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 37 Tyberg A, Desai AP, Kumta NA. et al. EUS-guided biliary drainage after failed ERCP: a novel algorithm individualized based on patient anatomy. Gastrointest Endosc 2016; 84: 941-946
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar