PDF herunterladen
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Endosc Int Open 2016; 04(02): E175-E181
DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-109083
Original article

International multicenter comparative trial of transluminal EUS-guided biliary drainage via hepatogastrostomy vs. choledochoduodenostomy approaches

Mouen A. Khashab
1   Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore, MD, United States
,
Ahmed A. Messallam
1   Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore, MD, United States
,
Irene Penas
2   Hospital Universitario–Roi Hortega, Valladolid, Spain.
,
Yousuke Nakai
3   University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan.
,
Rani J. Modayil
4   Winthrop University, Mineola, NY, United States.
,
Carlos De la Serna
2   Hospital Universitario–Roi Hortega, Valladolid, Spain.
,
Kazuo Hara
5   Aichi Cancer Center Hospital, Nagoya, Japan
,
Mohamad El Zein
1   Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore, MD, United States
,
Stavros N. Stavropoulos
4   Winthrop University, Mineola, NY, United States.
,
Manuel Perez-Miranda
2   Hospital Universitario–Roi Hortega, Valladolid, Spain.
,
Vivek Kumbhari
1   Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore, MD, United States
,
Saowanee Ngamruengphong
1   Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore, MD, United States
,
Vinay K. Dhir
6   Baladota Institute of Digestive Sciences, Mumbai, India.
,
Do Hyun Park
7   Asan Medical Center, Seoul, South Korea.
› Institutsangaben
› Weitere Informationen
Auch verfügbar auf
   Lizenzen und Reprints

Background and study aims: Endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) can be performed entirely transgastrically (hepatogastrostomy/EUS-HG) or transduodenally (choledochoduodenostomy/EUS-CDS). It is unknown how both techniques compare. The aims of this study were to compare efficacy and safety of both techniques and identify predictors of adverse events.

Patients and methods: Consecutive jaundiced patients with distal malignant biliary obstruction who underwent EUS-BD at multiple international centers were included. Technical/clinical success, adverse events, stent complications, and survival were assessed.

Results: A total of 121 patients underwent EUS-BD (CDS 60, HG 61). Technical success was achieved in 112 (92.56 %) patients (EUS-CDS 93.3 %, EUS-HG 91.8 %, P = 0.75). Clinical success was attained in 85.5 % of patients who underwent EUS-CDS group as compared to 82.1 % of patients who underwent EUS-HG (P = 0.64). Adverse events occurred more commonly in the EUS-HG group (19.67 % vs. 13.3 %, P = 0.37). Both plastic stenting (OR 4.95, 95 %CI 1.41 – 17.38, P = 0.01) and use of non-coaxial electrocautery (OR 3.95, 95 %CI 1.16 – 13.40, P = 0.03) were independently associated with adverse events. Length of hospital stay was significantly shorter in the CDS group (5.6 days vs. 12.7 days, P < 0.001). Mean follow-up duration was 151 ± 159 days. The 1-year stent patency probability was greater in the EUS-CDS group [0.98 (95 %CI 0.76 – 0.96) vs 0.60 (95 %CI 0.35 – 0.78)] but overall patency was not significantly different. There was no difference in median survival times between the groups (P = 0.36)

Conclusions: Both EUS-CDS and EUS-HG are effective and safe techniques for the treatment of distal biliary obstruction after failed ERCP. However, CDS is associated with shorter hospital stay, improved stent patency, and fewer procedure- and stent-related complications. Metallic stents should be placed whenever feasible and non-coaxial electrocautery should be avoided when possible as plastic stenting and non-coaxial electrocautery were independently associated with occurrence of adverse events.



Publikationsverlauf

Publikationsdatum:
15. Januar 2016 (online)

© 2016. 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 commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Stuttgart · New York

 

  • References

  • 1 Khashab MA, Varadarajulu S. Endoscopic ultrasonography as a therapeutic modality. Curr Opin Gastroenterol 2012; 28: 467-476
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Kahaleh M, Hernandez AJ, Tokar J. et al. Interventional EUS-guided cholangiography: evaluation of a technique in evolution. Gastrointest Endosc 2006; 64: 52-59
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Maranki J, Hernandez AJ, Arslan B. et al. Interventional endoscopic ultrasound-guided cholangiography: long-term experience of an emerging alternative to percutaneous transhepatic cholangiography. Endoscopy 2009; 41: 532-538
    Artikel in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Kim YS, Gupta K, Mallery S. et al. Endoscopic ultrasound rendezvous for bile duct access using a transduodenal approach: cumulative experience at a single center. A case series. Endoscopy 2010; 42: 496-502
    Artikel in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Fabbri C, Luigiano C, Fuccio L. et al. EUS-guided biliary drainage with placement of a new partially covered biliary stent for palliation of malignant biliary obstruction: a case series. Endoscopy 2011; 43: 438-441
    Artikel in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Komaki T, Kitano M, Sakamoto H. et al. Endoscopic ultrasonography-guided biliary drainage: evaluation of a choledochoduodenostomy technique. Pancreatology 2011; 11: 47-51
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Park DH, Jang JW, Lee SS. et al. EUS-guided biliary drainage with transluminal stenting after failed ERCP: predictors of adverse events and long-term results. Gastrointest Endosc 2011; 74: 1276-1284
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Hara K, Yamao K, Niwa Y. et al. Prospective clinical study of EUS-guided choledochoduodenostomy for malignant lower biliary tract obstruction. Am J Gastroenterol 2011; 106: 1239-1245
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Iwashita T, Lee JG, Shinoura S. et al. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided rendezvous for biliary access after failed cannulation. Endoscopy 2012; 44: 60-65
    Artikel in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Khashab M, Fujii LL, Baron TH. et al. EUS-guided biliary drainage for patients with malignant biliary obstruction with an indwelling duodenal stent (with video). Gastrointest Endosc 2012; 76: 209-213
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Henry WA, Singh VK, Kalloo AN. et al. Simultaneous EUS-guided transbulbar pancreaticobiliary drainage (with video). Gastrointest Endosc 2012; 76: 1065-1067
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Dhir V, Bhandari S, Bapat M. et al. Comparison of EUS-guided rendezvous and precut papillotomy techniques for biliary access (with videos). Gastrointest Endosc 2012; 75: 354-359
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Shah JN, Marson F, Weilert F. et al. Single-operator, single-session EUS-guided anterograde cholangiopancreatography in failed ERCP or inaccessible papilla. Gastrointest endosc 2012; 75: 56-64
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Khashab MA, Valeshabad AK, Modayil R. et al. EUS-guided biliary drainage by using a standardized approach for malignant biliary obstruction: rendezvous versus direct transluminal techniques (with videos). Gastrointest Endosc 2013; 78: 734-741
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Khashab MA, Valeshabad AK, Afghani E. et al. A comparative evaluation of EUS-guided biliary drainage and percutaneous drainage in patients with distal malignant biliary obstruction and failed ERCP. Dig Dis Sci 2015; 60: 557-565
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Itoi T, Yamao K. EUS 2008 Working Group document: evaluation of EUS-guided choledochoduodenostomy (with video). Gastrointest Endosc 2009; 69: 8-S12
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Savides TJ, Varadarajulu S, Palazzo L. EUS 2008 Working Group document: evaluation of EUS-guided hepaticogastrostomy. Gastrointest Endosc 2009; 69: S3-S7
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Artifon EL, Safatle-Ribeiro AV, Ferreira FC. et al. EUS-guided antegrade transhepatic placement of a self-expandable metal stent in hepatico-jejunal anastomosis. J Oncol Pract 2011; 12: 610-613
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Nguyen-Tang T, Binmoeller KF, Sanchez-Yague A. et al. Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided transhepatic anterograde self-expandable metal stent (SEMS) placement across malignant biliary obstruction. Endoscopy 2010; 42: 232-236
    Artikel in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 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
    Google Scholar
  • 21 Khashab MA, Kumbhari V, Kalloo AN. et al. EUS-guided biliary drainage by using a hepatogastrostomy approach. Gastrointest Endosc 2014; 78: 675
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Dhir V, Bhandari S, Bapat M. et al. Comparison of transhepatic and extrahepatic routes for EUS-guided rendezvous procedure for distal CBD obstruction. United European Gastroenterol J 2013; 1: 103-108
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Park do H, Jeong SU, Lee BU. et al. Prospective evaluation of a treatment algorithm with enhanced guidewire manipulation protocol for EUS-guided biliary drainage after failed ERCP (with video). Gastrointest Endosc 2013; 78: 91-101
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Dhir V, Artifon EL, 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Artifon EL, 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar