EUS-guided hepaticogastrostomy versus percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage after failed ERCP: A propensity score-matched analysis.

Background and study aims Percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD) is the traditional second-line option after unsuccessful endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). Endoscopic ultrasound-guided hepaticogastrostomy (EUS-HG) is a viable alternative to PTBD. Our study aimed to compare outcomes of EUS-HG and PTBD for benign and malignant biliary diseases following failed ERCP. Patients and methods This single-center study retrospectively analyzed patients undergoing EUS-HG and PTBD for benign and malignant biliary disorders. A propensity score-matched analysis was performed using age, sex, and Charlson Comorbidity Index. The primary outcome was clinical success, which we defined as a decrease in total bilirubin by ≥ 50% at 2 weeks for malignant disease and resolution of the biliary disorder for benign disease. Results In total, 41 patients underwent EUS-HG and 138 patients underwent PTBD. After propensity score matching in a 1:2 ratio, 32 EUS-HG patients were matched with 64 PTBD. Technical success was achieved in 29 of 32 (91%) for EUS-HG and 63 of 64 (98%) for PTBD ( P =0.11). Clinical success was 100% for EUS-HG and 75% for PTBD ( P =0.0021). EUS-HG was associated with a lower adverse event rate (EUS-HG 13% vs. PTBD 58%, P <0.0001), shorter procedure duration (median 60 vs. 115 minutes, P <0.0001), shorter post-procedure length of stay (median 2 vs. 4 days, P <0.0001), and fewer reinterventions (median 1 vs. 3, P <0.0001). Conclusions Our results suggest that EUS-HG is superior to PTBD in the treatment of benign and malignant biliary disorders after failed ERCP.

Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Gallbladder Drainage: Beyond Cholecystitis.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided gallbladder drainage (EUS-GBD) is an alternative to surgery for acute cholecystitis (AC) in poor operative candidates. However, the role of EUS-GBD in non-cholecystitis (NC) indications has not been well studied. We compared the clinical outcomes of EUS-GBD for AC and NC indications. Consecutive patients undergoing EUS-GBD for all indications at a single center were retrospectively analyzed. Fifty-one patients underwent EUS-GBD during the study period. Thirty-nine (76%) patients had AC while 12 (24%) had NC indications. NC indications included malignant biliary obstruction (n = 8), symptomatic cholelithiasis (n = 1), gallstone pancreatitis (n = 1), choledocholithiasis (n = 1), and Mirizzi's syndrome (n = 1). Technical success was noted in 92% (36/39) for AC and 92% (11/12) for NC (p > 0.99). The clinical success rate was 94% and 100%, respectively (p > 0.99). There were four adverse events in the AC group and 3 in the NC group (p = 0.33). Procedure duration (median 43 vs. 45 min, p = 0.37), post-procedure length of stay (median 3 vs. 3 days, p = 0.97), and total gallbladder-related procedures (median 2 vs. 2, p = 0.59) were similar. EUS-GBD for NC indications is similarly safe and effective as EUS-GBD in AC.

Cholecystocolonic fistula following endoscopic ultrasound-guided gallbladder drainage for stump cholecystitis.

Cholecystocolonic fistulas are a rare sequela of gallstone disease. Presenting symptoms are variable but a triad of chronic diarrhea, vitamin K malabsorption, and pneumobilia has been proposed. If untreated, recurrent biliary sepsis can occur with substantial morbidity and mortality. Definitive management is surgical although endoscopic treatment has been described in nonsurgical patients. We present a case of a cholecystocolonic fistula following transgastric endoscopic ultrasound-guided gallbladder drainage with a lumen-apposing metal stent for stump cholecystitis. The patient's presenting symptom was diarrhea. Upper endoscopy and cholecystoscopy 4 weeks following gallbladder drainage revealed a cholecystocolonic fistula. The cholecystogastric tract was closed through the scope clips. The patient had no episodes of cholangitis and had a patent biliary tree with a prior biliary sphincterotomy so clinical observation was chosen. Colonoscopy 1 month later confirmed the closure of the fistula and the patient had a resolution of diarrhea. Our case highlights a novel adverse event of endoscopic ultrasound-guided gallbladder drainage caused by direct pressure of the lumen apposing metal and double pigtail stents on an already inflamed gallbladder wall. Endoscopic therapies that aid in transcapillary biliary drainage are viable alternatives to surgery and can result in fistula closure.

Preoperative Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Hepaticogastrostomy Facilitates Decompression and Diagnosis in Patients With Suspected Malignant Biliary Obstruction: A Case Series.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided hepaticogastrostomy (EUS-HG) is increasingly being used as an alternative to percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD) after unsuccessful endoscopic retrograde pancreatography (ERCP). This technique has also been utilized for diagnosis of malignant biliary obstruction by providing biliary access for antegrade cholangioscopy with biopsies and brushings for cytology and fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH). However, the potential impact of EUS-HG on surgical candidacy in cases with resectable disease remains unknown. We present three patients who underwent pancreaticoduodenectomy (Whipple procedure) for suspected distal malignant biliary obstruction following EUS-HG. Biliary drainage was achieved in all three patients preoperatively and a diagnosis of malignancy could be established in two of the three cases using this technique. There were no procedure-related complications. The HG metal stent was removed eight weeks post-operatively with cholangiogram showing a patent hepaticojejunostomy in all three patients. Mean length of follow-up after EUS-HG was 298 +/- 96 days. Our case series demonstrates that EUS-HG is an effective method to achieve biliary decompression in patients with an inaccessible papilla. The mature HG tract can subsequently be used to obtain a tissue diagnosis. Lastly, EUS-HG does not preclude patients from undergoing a curative Whipple procedure.

Rectal indomethacin reduces the risk of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis in low-risk patients.

BACKGROUND: Evidence shows that rectal indomethacin (RI) reduces the risk of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP) in high-risk patients. The prophylactic role of RI in low-risk patients has not yet been identified. The objective of our study was to evaluate the impact of RI in preventing PEP in low-risk patients. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted to evaluate the impact of RI in preventing PEP. RI was available starting November 2012. Patient characteristics and procedure details were collected. RESULTS: The study population included 2238 patients who underwent ERCP (1055 in the RI group and 1183 in the control group). PEP was diagnosed in 107 patients (4.8%). In a multivariate model of consecutive patients, RI reduced the incidence of PEP by 55% (odds ratio [OR] 0.45, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.36-0.94; P=0.03). In a multivariate model that included 1874 (84%) low-risk patients, RI reduced the incidence of PEP by 62% (OR 0.38, 95%CI 0.19-0.74; P=0.004). Propensity-matched group analysis was performed for low-risk native papilla patients. RI reduced the incidence of PEP by 61% (OR 0.39, 95%CI 0.18-0.8; P=0.009). CONCLUSION: RI reduced PEP in consecutive as well as low-risk patients. RI should be administrated in consecutive patients unless contraindicated. Larger prospective studies are needed to confirm our results.

Impact of body mass index on the incidence and severity of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis.

BACKGROUND: Pancreatitis is a potential major complication after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (post-ERCP pancreatitis; PEP). Obesity has been associated with increased severity of acute pancreatitis. However, the correlation between obesity and PEP is controversial. Therefore, our study aimed to clarify the relationship between body mass index (BMI) and the incidence and severity of PEP. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted to elucidate the relationship between BMI and PEP in all patients who underwent ERCP in a tertiary referral center between January 2009 and October 2016. Patient characteristics and procedure details were collected. PEP was defined by consensus criteria. Multivariate logistic regression was used to determine the association between BMI and PEP. RESULTS: The analysis included 2236 patients whose BMI was recorded and had adequate follow up (921 with BMI≥30 kg/m2, 1315 with BMI<30 kg/m2). PEP was diagnosed in 107 (4.8%) patients. PEP was seen in 49 obese patients (5.3%) and 58 non-obese patients (4.4%). In the univariate and multivariate analysis BMI≥30 kg/m2 was not associated with PEP (odds ratio 1.2, 95%CI 0.8-1.8; P=0.32). A subgroup analysis of different BMI subcategories found that BMI was not associated with the incidence or severity of PEP. CONCLUSION: In the largest study to date, neither obesity nor low body weight increased the incidence or severity of PEP.

The diagnostic and cellularity yield of reverse bevel versus fork-tip fine needle biopsy.

INTRODUCTION: Two new systems with a novel tip (Procore™ and SharkCore™) have been introduced for ultrasound-guided fine needle biopsy (US-FNB). Direct comparison of the diagnostic yield of these needles in the evaluation of pancreatic lesions is currently under investigation. This study aims to compare the diagnostic and cellular yields of the two needle systems. METHODS: Consecutive patients with upper gastrointestinal lesions undergoing EUS-FNB using 22 gauge Procore™ (reverse bevel) or SharkCore™ (fork-tip) needles were included in the study. Cytological rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE) slides were scored on a numerical scale of diagnostic yield relative to the number of passes. Similarly, histology of biopsy material was assessed on diagnostic quality using a numeric score. The final diagnosis was based on resection specimens and/or follow-up of clinical and imaging data of the subject. RESULTS: The diagnostic yield was similar between the fork-tip and reverse bevel needles (125/163; 77% vs 103/139;74% with P = .60). Sub-analysis for solid pancreatic masses demonstrated similar results (69/88; 78% vs. 83/107; 78% with P = .88). The fork-tip needle had a lower mean number of passes (2.5 vs 3.1; P = .04) and ROSE was utilized in significantly less cases than in the reverse bevel needle group (77% versus 98.3%). CONCLUSIONS: Although we observed no difference in the diagnostic yield using either the fork-tip or the reverse bevel needle, the fork-tip needle had significantly better performance with regards to achieving more adequate cytologic specimen in fewer number of passes while at the same time requiring fewer episodes of ROSE.

Impact of malnutrition on gastrointestinal surgical patients.

BACKGROUND: The accurate diagnosis of malnutrition is imperative if we are to impact outcomes in the malnourished. The American Society of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition (ASPEN) and Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics (AND), in an attempt to address this issue, have provided evidence-based criteria to diagnose malnutrition. The purpose of this study was to validate the ASPEN/AND criteria in a cohort of patients from a single high-volume surgical oncology unit. METHODS: Patients undergoing major abdominal surgery from June 2013 to March 2015 were classified by their nutritional status using the ASPEN/AND criteria. RESULTS: A total of 490 patients were included. Median age was 64 y, a majority were female (50.6%), white (60.2%), underwent elective procedures (77.6%), had a Charlson comorbidity score (CCS) of 3-5 (40.0%), and a Clavien-Dindo complication (CDC) grade of 0-II (81.2%). A total of 93 (19.0%) patients were classified as moderately/severely malnourished. On univariate analysis, malnourished patients were more likely to be older, undergo emergent procedures, and have a CCS >5 (P < 0.05). Malnutrition was also associated with a longer postoperative length of stay (LOS), higher cost, higher in-hospital mortality, more severe complications, and higher readmission rates (P < 0.05). Multivariate analysis reaffirmed the association between malnutrition, LOS (odds ratio [OR] = 1.67), and cost (OR = 2.49), P < 0.05. Complications (OR = 1.35), mortality rates (OR = 3.05), and readmission rates (OR = 1.34) P > 0.05 failed to reach significance. CONCLUSIONS: Malnutrition worsens LOS and cost. Utilization of standardized criteria consistently identifies patients at risk of negative outcomes who may benefit from perioperative nutritional support.

Enhanced Recovery after Surgery in a Single High-Volume Surgical Oncology Unit: Details Matter.

Benefits of ERAS protocol have been well documented; however, it is unclear whether the improvement stems from the protocol or shifts in expectations. Interdisciplinary educational seminars were conducted for all health professionals. However, one test surgeon adopted the protocol. 394 patients undergoing elective abdominal surgery from June 2013 to April 2015 with a median age of 63 years were included. The implementation of ERAS protocol resulted in a decrease in the length of stay (LOS) and mortality, whereas the difference in cost was found to be insignificant. For the test surgeon, ERAS was associated with decreased LOS, cost, and mortality. For the control providers, the LOS, cost, mortality, readmission rates, and complications remained similar both before and after the implementation of ERAS. An ERAS protocol on the single high-volume surgical unit decreased the cost, LOS, and mortality.

A Single Surgeon's Experience with Enhanced Recovery after Surgery: An Army of One.

The benefits of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) have been demonstrated for multiple surgical procedures in high-volume programs. However, resources required for its implementation may be daunting to individual surgeons. Patients undergoing elective abdominal procedures from June 2013 to April 2015 by a surgical oncologist before and after the implementation of an ERAS protocol were reviewed. A total of 179 patients were included. The mean age of the patients was 63 years, and a majority of them were females (53.6%), white (61.5%), had a Charlson score of 0 to 2 (45.8%), and a Clavien complication grade of 0 to I (60.1%). The univariate analysis revealed that the ERAS protocol was associated with shorter length of stay (LOS) (6.2 vs 9.6 days), lower cost ($21,674 vs $30,380), and lower mortality (0 vs 3.3%); P < 0.05. Differences were noted in LOS and costs for all procedures, the differences were the greatest for hepatic resection (3.8 vs 8.4 days and $16,770 vs $28,589), intestinal resection/stoma closure (4.8 vs 7.6 days and $18,391 vs $22,239), and other abdominal procedures (5.0 vs 10.8 and $17,713 vs $30,900); P < 0.05. The differences were less for patients undergoing procedures for which postoperative pathways were already in place such as pancreatic (9 vs 10.8 days and $30,524 vs $34,291) and colorectal (5.3 vs 6.5 days and $20,733 vs $25,150) surgeries. P > 0.05. An ERAS program can be instituted by an individual surgeon with the benefits of decreased LOS, cost, and mortality.