RESUMO
OBJECTIVES: Bariatric surgery can greatly ameliorate obesity and its associated metabolic disorders. Alteration of foregut anatomy, as is seen after Roux-en-Y gastric bypass and biliopancreatic diversion with duodenal switch, renders traditional access to the biliary tree difficult, if not impossible. This may complicate management of anastomotic biliary complications after liver transplant. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this single-center study, we retrospectively reviewed all adult patients with a history of any bariatric surgery who underwent liver transplant during the period January 2017 to December 2022. We obtained demographic information of donors and recipients. Outcomes of interest included the modality in which the anastomotic biliary complications were managed. RESULTS: Of 261 patients who underwent liver transplant at our center during the study period, 9 had a history of bariatric surgery. Anastomotic biliary complications occurred in 3 of 9 patients (33%). No significant differences were shown in donor age, ischemia time, etiology of liver disease, or Model for End-Stage Liver Disease sodium score at time of transplant between the 2 groups. All anastomotic biliary complications occurred in patients with a history of Roux-en-Y gastric bypass or biliopancreatic diversion with duodenal switch. Interventions included advanced endoscopy, endoscopic ultrasonography, and lumen-apposing metal stent to access the remnant stomach and biliopancreatic limb (n = 2) and surgical revision following percutaneous transhepatic biliary drain placement (n = 1). At the end of the study, none experienced recurrent stricture. CONCLUSIONS: Anastomotic biliary complications are well-described after liver transplant. A multidisciplinary approach with interventional radiology and inter-ventional gastroenterology can be beneficial to address strictures that arise in recipients with a history of Roux-en-Y gastric bypass or biliopancreatic diversion with duodenal switch.
Assuntos
Transplante de Fígado , Humanos , Estudos Retrospectivos , Transplante de Fígado/efeitos adversos , Feminino , Masculino , Resultado do Tratamento , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Adulto , Fatores de Risco , Desvio Biliopancreático/efeitos adversos , Derivação Gástrica/efeitos adversos , Fatores de Tempo , Doenças Biliares/etiologia , Doenças Biliares/cirurgia , Doenças Biliares/diagnóstico , Stents , Cirurgia Bariátrica/efeitos adversosRESUMO
This clinical practice guideline from the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy provides an evidence-based approach for the role of therapeutic EUS in the management of biliary tract disorders. This guideline was developed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework and addresses the following: 1: The role of EUS-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) versus percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD) in resolving biliary obstruction in patients after failed ERCP. 2: The role of EUS-guided hepaticogastrostomy versus EUS-guided choledochoduodenostomy in resolving distal malignant biliary obstruction after failed ERCP. 3: The role of EUS-directed transgastric ERCP (EDGE) versus laparoscopic-assisted ERCP and enteroscopy-assisted ERCP (E-ERCP) in resolving biliary obstruction in patients with Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) anatomy. 4: The role of EUS-BD versus E-ERCP and PTBD in resolving biliary obstruction in patients with surgically altered anatomy other than RYGB. 5: The role of EUS-guided gallbladder drainage (EUS-GBD) versus percutaneous gallbladder drainage and endoscopic transpapillary transcystic gallbladder drainage in resolving acute cholecystitis in patients who are not candidates for cholecystectomy.
RESUMO
Background and Aims: EUS-guided gastroenterostomy (EUS-GE) is effective in relieving gastric outlet obstruction. Several techniques used to create EUS-GEs have been described. However, these techniques are dependent on passing a guidewire beyond the obstruction. We describe a direct needle-puncture technique that allows for successful EUS-GE creation without a guidewire. Methods: The direct antegrade EUS-GE method often involves passing a guidewire and tube beyond the obstruction to distend the small bowel. An oblique echoendoscope is then positioned in the stomach to locate the distended small bowel. An electrocautery-enhanced lumen-apposing metal stent (LAMS) is used to create the anastomosis. However, in cases when neither endoscope nor guidewire can be passed across the obstruction, the direct needle-puncture technique can be used. With the oblique echoendoscope positioned in the stomach, a collapsed loop of small bowel is located adjacent to the gastric wall. A 19-gauge needle is used to puncture the gastric and small bowel wall. The small bowel is distended with a mixture of saline, methylene blue, and contrast via a standard water pump connected to the needle. An antispasmodic is administered, and an electrocautery-enhanced LAMS is then introduced into the working channel to create a gastroenterostomy using the freehand method. Results: The direct needle-puncture technique was performed in 4 patients for these indications: postsurgical inflammation causing gastric outlet obstruction (case 1), tumor infiltration causing gastric outlet obstruction (cases 2A and 2B), and pancreaticobiliary limb access in a duodenal switch (case 3). The video shows the technique performed in a patient with postsurgical inflammation and a patient with duodenal tumor infiltration. Conclusions: The direct needle-puncture technique is useful for performing gastroenterostomy when the guidewire cannot be passed beyond the obstruction. It can also be used to gain access to a targeted bowel limb in altered anatomy for diagnostic and therapeutic purposes.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Closure of gastrointestinal defects can reduce postprocedural adverse events. Over-the-scope clips and an over-the-scope suturing system are widely available, yet their use may be limited by defect size, location, operator skill level, and need to reinsert the endoscope with the device attached. The introduction of a through-the-scope helix tack suture system (TTSS) allows for closure of large irregular defects using a gastroscope or colonoscope, without the need for endoscope withdrawal. Since its approval 3 years ago, only a handful of studies have explored outcomes using this novel device. METHODS: Multiple databases were searched for studies looking at TTSS closure from inception until August 2023. The primary outcomes were the success of TTSS alone and TTSS with clips for complete defect closure. Secondary outcomes included complete closure based on procedure type (endoscopic mucosal resection [EMR], endoscopic submucosal dissection [ESD]) and adverse events. RESULTS: Eight studies met the inclusion criteria (449 patients, mean defect size 34.3 mm). Complete defect closure rates for TTSS alone and TTSS with adjunctive clips were 77.2% (95%CI 66.4-85.3; I2=79%) and 95.2% (95%CI 90.3-97.7; I2=42.5%), respectively. Complete defect closure rates for EMR and ESD were 99.2% (95%CI 94.3-99.9; I2 = 0%) and 92.1% (95%CI 85-96; I2=0%), respectively. The adverse event rate was 5.4% (95%CI 2.7-10.3; I2=55%). CONCLUSION: TTSS is a novel device for closure of postprocedural defects, with relatively high technical and clinical success rates. Comparative studies of closure devices are needed.
Assuntos
Técnicas de Sutura , Humanos , Técnicas de Sutura/instrumentação , Técnicas de Sutura/efeitos adversos , Ressecção Endoscópica de Mucosa/instrumentação , Ressecção Endoscópica de Mucosa/efeitos adversos , Ressecção Endoscópica de Mucosa/métodos , Suturas/efeitos adversos , Endoscopia Gastrointestinal/instrumentação , Endoscopia Gastrointestinal/efeitos adversos , Endoscopia Gastrointestinal/métodos , Resultado do TratamentoRESUMO
INTRODUCTION: The study aimed to develop international consensus recommendations on the safe use of lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMSs) for on- and off-label indications. METHODS: Based on the available literature, statements were formulated and grouped into the following categories: general safety measures, peripancreatic fluid collections, endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-biliary drainage, EUS-gallbladder drainage, EUS-gastroenterostomy, and gastric access temporary for endoscopy. The evidence level of each statement was determined using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology.International LAMS experts were invited to participate in a modified Delphi process. When no 80% consensus was reached, the statement was modified based on expert feedback. Statements were rejected if no consensus was reached after the third Delphi round. RESULTS: Fifty-six (93.3%) of 60 formulated statements were accepted, of which 35 (58.3%) in the first round. Consensus was reached on the optimal learning path, preprocedural imaging, the need for airway protection and essential safety measures during the procedure, such as the use of Doppler, and measurement of the distance between the gastrointestinal lumen and the target structure. Specific consensus recommendations were generated for the different LAMS indications, covering, among others, careful patient selection, the preferred size of the LAMS, the need for antibiotics, the preferred anatomic location of the LAMS, the need for coaxial pigtail placement, and the appropriate management of LAMS-related adverse events. DISCUSSION: Through a modified international Delphi process, we developed general and indication-specific experience- and evidence-based recommendations on the safe use of LAMS.
Assuntos
Endossonografia , Uso Off-Label , Humanos , Consenso , Estudos Retrospectivos , Stents/efeitos adversos , Endoscopia Gastrointestinal , Drenagem/métodosRESUMO
GOALS: To describe the long-term outcomes of patients after EUS-guided gallbladder drainage (EUS-GBD), including those who underwent standardized stent exchanges for permanent plastic stents. BACKGROUND: EUS-GBD has become one of the first-line alternatives for gallbladder decompression, with outcomes and safety profiles comparable to that of percutaneous gallbladder drainage. However, the long-term outcomes of EUS-GBD are not well-described. We report our single-center experience of a large cohort who underwent EUS-GBD. STUDY: Patients who underwent EUS-GBD from August 2014 to December 2022 were included in the study. Patient demographics, comorbidities, and procedure details were recorded. Patients were followed until complete stent removal, end of study period, or death. Short and long-term outcomes include technical and clinical success, stent patency, recurrent cholecystitis, cholecystectomy, and death. RESULTS: During the study period, 128 patients were included. One hundred and one patients had benign indications for EUS-GBD, including cholecystitis and choledocholithiasis. Of those with malignant indications, 23 of 27 had distal malignant biliary obstruction. Technical and clinical successes were 95.3% and 95.1%, respectively. Stents were exchanged for 2 permanent double pigtail plastic stents in 43.0%. The mean stent patency was 421 days (488 d among those still alive) without any recurrent cholecystitis. CONCLUSION: EUS-GBD demonstrates prolonged stent patency and minimal long-term adverse events, particularly among patients who underwent stent exchanges for permanent plastic stents. EUS-GBD is also promising for patients presenting with choledocholithiasis and biliary colic who are not surgical candidates.
Assuntos
Drenagem , Endossonografia , Stents , Humanos , Drenagem/métodos , Masculino , Feminino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Idoso , Endossonografia/métodos , Resultado do Tratamento , Estudos Retrospectivos , Vesícula Biliar/cirurgia , Vesícula Biliar/diagnóstico por imagem , Adulto , Idoso de 80 Anos ou mais , Ultrassonografia de Intervenção/métodos , Colecistite/cirurgiaRESUMO
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Diseases of the gallbladder can be increasingly managed through endoscopic interventions, either serving as an alternative to or obviating the need for cholecystectomy. In this review, we aim to review the most recent data on endoscopic management of the most common gallbladder diseases. RECENT FINDINGS: The development of lumen-opposing metal stents (LAMS) marked a major shift in gallbladder management, with transmural techniques now well studied for management of cholecystitis. Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) is also a well-developed technique for gallbladder imaging, comparable or superior to transabdominal ultrasound. Novel techniques with LAMS for gallbladder lesion/polyp resection and treatment of non-cholecystitis gallbladder diseases mark important milestones in gallbladder preservation and increasingly less invasive management of diseases of the gallbladder. There are multiple interventional endoscopic techniques that can be used to manage common gallbladder diseases including cholecystitis, cholelithiasis, gallbladder lesions/polyps, and gallbladder cancer. Ongoing development of novel therapeutic techniques holds promise for additional minimally invasive techniques in the future.
Assuntos
Colecistite , Drenagem , Humanos , Drenagem/métodos , Resultado do Tratamento , Colecistite/cirurgia , Endossonografia/métodos , Stents , Ultrassonografia de IntervençãoRESUMO
The transcendence of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) from diagnostic to therapeutic tool has revolutionized management options in the field of gastroenterology. Through EUS-guided methods, pancreaticobiliary obstruction can now be utilized as an alternative to surgical and percutaneous approaches. This modality also allows for gallbladder drainage in patients who are not ideal operative candidates. By utilizing its unique imaging capabilities, EUS also allows for drainage access points in cases of gastric outlet obstruction as well as windows to ablate pancreatic cystic lesions. As technical progress continues to evolve, interventional gastroenterology continues to push the envelope of minimally invasive therapeutic procedures in a multidisciplinary setting. In this comprehensive review, we set out to describe current indications and innovations through EUS.
A transformação da ecoendoscopia (EUS) de um método de diagnóstico a ferramenta terapêutica revolucionou a abordagem na gastroenterologia. As terapêuticas guiadas por EUS, nomeadamente as obstruções pancreatobiliares, constituem agora alternativas às abordagens cirúrgicas e percutâneas. Esta modalidade terapêutica permite também a drenagem da vesícula biliar em doentes que não são candidatos cirúrgicos. Além disso, ao utilizar as suas capacidades únicas de imagem, a EUS permite a drenagem em casos de obstrução da saída gástrica, bem como realizar a ablação de lesões císticas pancreáticas. O crescente progresso da gastrenterologia permite o desenvolvimento de procedimentos terapêuticos minimamente invasivos num ambiente multidisciplinar. Nesta revisão, propusemos-nos a descrever as atuais indicações e inovações através da EUS.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND/AIMS: Self-expandable metallic stents (SEMSs) are widely adopted for the palliation of dysphagia in patients with malignant esophageal strictures. An important adverse event is the development of SEMS-induced esophagorespiratory fistulas (SEMS-ERFs). This study aimed to assess the risk factors related to the development of SEMS-ERF after SEMS placement in patients with esophageal cancer. METHODS: This retrospective study was performed at the Instituto do Cancer do Estado de São Paulo. All patients with malignant esophageal strictures who underwent esophageal SEMS placement between 2009 and 2019 were included in the study. RESULTS: Of the 335 patients, 37 (11.0%) developed SEMS-ERF, with a median time of 129 days after SEMS placement. Stent flare of 28 mm (hazard ratio [HR], 2.05; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.15-5.51; p=0.02) and post-stent chemotherapy (HR, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.01-4.00; p=0.05) were associated with an increased risk of developing SEMS-ERF, while lower-third tumors were a protective factor (HR, 0.5; 95% CI, 0.26-0.85; p=0.01). No difference was observed in overall survival. CONCLUSION: The incidence of SEMS-ERFs was 11%, with a median time of 129 days after SEMS placement. Post-stent chemotherapy and a 28 mm stent flare were associated with a higher risk of SEMS-ERF.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Palliation of malignant gastric outlet obstruction (mGOO) allows resumption of peroral intake. Although surgical gastrojejunostomy (SGJ) provides durable relief, it may be associated with a higher morbidity, interfere with chemotherapy, and require an optimum nutritional status. EUS-guided gastroenterostomy (EUS-GE) has emerged as a minimally invasive alternative. We aimed to conduct the largest comparative series to date between EUS-GE and SGJ for mGOO. METHODS: This multicenter retrospective study included consecutive patients undergoing SGJ or EUS-GE at 6 centers. Primary outcomes included time to resumption of oral intake, length of stay (LOS), and mortality. Secondary outcomes included technical and clinical success, reintervention rates, adverse events (AEs), and resumption of chemotherapy. RESULTS: A total of 310 patients were included (EUS-GE, n = 187; SGJ, n = 123). EUS-GE exhibited significantly lower time to resumption of oral intake (1.40 vs 4.06 days, P < .001), at lower albumin levels (2.95 vs 3.33 g/dL, P < .001), and a shorter LOS (5.31 vs 8.54 days, P < .001) compared with SGJ; there was no difference in mortality (48.1% vs 50.4%, P = .78). Technical (97.9% and 100%) and clinical (94.1% vs 94.3%) success was similar in the EUS-GE and SGJ groups, respectively. EUS-GE had lower rates of AEs (13.4% vs 33.3%, P < .001) but higher reintervention rates (15.5% vs 1.63%, P < .001). EUS-GE patients exhibited significantly lower interval time to resumption of chemotherapy (16.6 vs 37.8 days, P < .001). Outcomes between the EUS-GE and laparoscopic (n = 46) surgical approach showed that EUS-GE had shorter interval time to initiation/resumption of oral intake (3.49 vs 1.46 days, P < .001), decreased LOS (9 vs 5.31 days, P < .001), and a lower rate of AEs (11.9% vs 17.9%, P = .003). CONCLUSIONS: This is the largest study to date showing that EUS-GE can be performed among nutritionally deficient patients without affecting the technical and clinical success compared with SGJ. EUS-GE is associated with fewer AEs while allowing earlier resumption of diet and chemotherapy.
Assuntos
Derivação Gástrica , Obstrução da Saída Gástrica , Humanos , Estudos Retrospectivos , Endossonografia , Stents , Gastroenterostomia , Obstrução da Saída Gástrica/etiologia , Obstrução da Saída Gástrica/cirurgiaAssuntos
Cisto Pancreático , Neoplasias Pancreáticas , Pseudocisto Pancreático , Humanos , Cisto Pancreático/diagnóstico , Cisto Pancreático/diagnóstico por imagem , Dor Abdominal/diagnóstico , Dor Abdominal/etiologia , Neoplasias Pancreáticas/diagnóstico , Neoplasias Pancreáticas/diagnóstico por imagemRESUMO
Pancreatic cancer (PC) carries a poor prognosis with an overall 5-year survival of less than 10%. Early diagnosis, though cumbersome, is essential to allow complete surgical resection. Therefore, primary and secondary prevention are critical to reduce the incidence and to potentially prevent mortality. Given a relatively low lifetime risk of developing PC, identification of high-risk individuals is crucial to allow identification of pre-malignant lesions and small, localized tumors. Although 85-90% of PC cases are sporadic, we could consider risk stratification for the 5-10% of patients with a family history and the 3-5% of cases due to inherited genetic syndromes. These high-risk populations should be considered for screening and surveillance of PC. MRI/MRCP and EUS are the preferred modalities, due to their high sensitivity in lesion detection. Surveillance should be personalized, considering genetics and family history, and assessment of risk factors that may increase cancer risk. Screening programs should be limited to tertiary referral center, with high-volumes and adequate facilities to manage these patients.
Assuntos
Predisposição Genética para Doença , Neoplasias Pancreáticas , Humanos , Neoplasias Pancreáticas/diagnóstico , Fatores de Risco , Detecção Precoce de Câncer , Neoplasias PancreáticasRESUMO
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided gallbladder drainage (EUS-GBD) using a lumen-apposing metal stent (LAMS). BACKGROUND: For patients with acute cholecystitis who are poor surgical candidates, EUS-GBD using a LAMS is an important treatment alternative to percutaneous gallbladder drainage. METHODS: We conducted a regulatory-compliant, prospective multicenter trial at 7 tertiary referral centers in the United States of America and Belgium. Thirty consecutive patients with mild or moderate acute cholecystitis who were not candidates for cholecystectomy were enrolled between September 2019 and August 2021. Eligible patients had a LAMS placed transmurally with 30 to 60-day indwell if removal was clinically indicated, and 30-day follow-up post-LAMS removal. Endpoints included days until acute cholecystitis resolution, reintervention rate, acute cholecystitis recurrence rate, and procedure-related adverse events (AEs). RESULTS: Technical success was 93.3% (28/30) for LAMS placement and 100% for LAMS removal in 19 patients for whom removal was attempted. Five (16.7%) patients required reintervention. Mean time to acute cholecystitis resolution was 1.6±1.5 days. Acute cholecystitis symptoms recurred in 10.0% (3/30) after LAMS removal. Five (16.7%) patients died from unrelated causes. Procedure-related AEs were reported to the FDA in 30.0% (9/30) of patients, including one fatal event 21 days after LAMS removal; however, no AEs were causally related to the LAMS. CONCLUSIONS: For selected patients with acute cholecystitis who are at elevated surgical risk, EUS-GBD with LAMS is an alternative to percutaneous gallbladder drainage. It has high technical and clinical success, with low recurrence and an acceptable AE rate. Clinicaltrials.gov, Number: NCT03767881.
Assuntos
Colecistite Aguda , Vesícula Biliar , Humanos , Vesícula Biliar/diagnóstico por imagem , Vesícula Biliar/cirurgia , Estudos Prospectivos , Resultado do Tratamento , Colecistite Aguda/diagnóstico por imagem , Colecistite Aguda/cirurgia , Endossonografia , Drenagem/efeitos adversos , Stents , Ultrassonografia de IntervençãoRESUMO
Endoscopy plays a critical role in caring for and evaluating the patient with eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE). Endoscopy is essential for diagnosis, assessment of response to therapy, treatment of esophageal strictures, and ongoing monitoring of patients in histologic remission. To date, less-invasive testing for identifying or grading EoE severity has not been established, whereas diagnostic endoscopy as integral to both remains the criterion standard. Therapeutic endoscopy in patients with adverse events of EoE may also be required. In particular, dilation may be essential to treat and attenuate progression of the disease in select patients to minimize further fibrosis and stricture formation. Using a modified Delphi consensus process, a group of 20 expert clinicians and investigators in EoE were assembled to provide guidance for the use of endoscopy in EoE. Through an iterative process, the group achieved consensus on 20 statements yielding comprehensive advice on tissue-sampling standards, gross assessment of disease activity, use and performance of endoscopic dilation, and monitoring of disease, despite an absence of high-quality evidence. Key areas of controversy were identified when discussions yielded an inability to reach agreement on the merit of a statement. We expect that with ongoing research, higher-quality evidence will be obtained to enable creation of a guideline for these issues. We further anticipate that forthcoming expert-generated and agreed-on statements will provide valuable practice advice on the role and use of endoscopy in patients with EoE.
Assuntos
Esofagite Eosinofílica , Estenose Esofágica , Dilatação , Endoscopia Gastrointestinal , Esofagite Eosinofílica/complicações , Esofagite Eosinofílica/diagnóstico , Esofagite Eosinofílica/patologia , Estenose Esofágica/terapia , HumanosRESUMO
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Piecemeal EMR of colorectal laterally spreading tumors (LSTs) >20 mm is effective. Experience is limited in the use of cap-assisted EMR (EMR-C) for resection of colonic lesions. We compared the efficacy and the safety of EMR-C for the removal of colonic LSTs ≥30 mm with "inject-and-cut" standard EMR (EMR-S). METHODS: In this randomized trial from 4 Italian centers, 138 patients were treated with EMR-C and 102 with EMR-S. The rates of residual lesions, percentage of recurrence after 12 months, and adverse events were evaluated. RESULTS: One hundred forty-three lesions were resected with EMR-C and 102 with EMR-S. Argon plasma coagulation (APC) was used as adjunctive treatment in 2.9% of EMR-Cs and in 22.5% of EMR-Ss (P < .001). The median time required was 20 minutes for EMR-C and 30 minutes for EMR-S (P < .001). Adverse events (AEs) occurred in 14 EMR-Cs (10.1%; 2 perforations, 11 bleeding events, and 1 stenosis) and in 22 EMR-Ss (21.6%; 1 perforation and 21 bleeding events) (P = .017). Intraprocedural AEs occurred in 3.6% of EMR-Cs and 16.7% of EMR-Ss (P = .001). Overall, residual lesions within 12 months were found to be significantly higher with EMR-S (32 patients, 31.4%) than with EMR-C (8 patients, 5.8%) (P < .001). Recurrence at follow-up colonoscopy in 12 months occurred in 7 EMR-Cs (5.1%) and 17 EMR-Ss (16.7%; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: The study demonstrated the feasibility and safety of EMR-C for removing large colorectal LSTs, with higher eradication rates, shorter resection time, and less use of APC when compared with EMR-S. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT03498664.).
Assuntos
Neoplasias do Colo , Neoplasias Colorretais , Humanos , Colonoscopia , Neoplasias Colorretais/cirurgia , Neoplasias Colorretais/patologia , Neoplasias do Colo/cirurgia , Neoplasias do Colo/patologia , Coagulação com Plasma de ArgônioRESUMO
BACKGROUND: The selection of surgery between parenchymal preserving (PPS) and total pancreatectomy (TP) with/without islet cell autotransplantation (IAT) for chronic pancreatitis (CP) patients varies based on multiple factors with a scarcity in literature addressing both at the same time. The aim of this manuscript is to present an algorithm for the surgery selection based on dominant area of disease, ductal dilatation, and glycemic control and compare outcomes. METHODS: From 2017 to 2021, CP patients offered surgery at a single institution were retrospectively evaluated. RESULTS: 51 patients underwent surgery (20 [39.2%] TPIAT, 4 [7.8%] TP, and 27 [52.9%] PPS - 9 Whipple procedures, 15 distal pancreatectomies, and 3 duct drainage procedures). No significant difference was observed in baseline characteristics or perioperative outcomes except median length of stay (8 days [IQR 6-10] vs. 13 days [IQR 9-15.5], p < 0.001), attributed to insulin requirement and education for TPIAT group. No differences in postoperative complications, such as clinically significant leak and intrabdominal fluid collection (3 [11.1%] vs 2 [10%], p = 1.0), hemorrhage (0 vs. 2 [10.0%], p = 0.2), delayed feeding (1 [3.7%] vs. 5 [25.0%], p = 0.07), or wound infection (4 [14.8%] vs. 0, p = 0.1) between PPS and TPIAT groups, respectively, were observed nor requirement of long-acting insulin at discharge (2 [15.4%] vs. 7 [43.8%], p = 0.1) for pre-operatively non-diabetic patients. No significant difference in weaning off narcotics and no mortality observed. CONCLUSION: The most appropriate selection of surgery based on the algorithm yields good and comparable outcomes.
Assuntos
Transplante das Ilhotas Pancreáticas , Ilhotas Pancreáticas , Pancreatite Crônica , Humanos , Transplante das Ilhotas Pancreáticas/métodos , Pancreatectomia/métodos , Pancreatite Crônica/complicações , Estudos Retrospectivos , Transplante Autólogo , Resultado do TratamentoRESUMO
Background and Objectives: Percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD) and EUS-guided choledochoduodenostomy (EUS-CD) are alternate therapies to endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography with stent placement for biliary decompression. The primary outcome of this study is to compare the technical and clinical success of PTBD to EUS-CD in patients with distal biliary obstruction. Secondary outcomes were adverse events (AEs), need for reintervention, and survival. Methods: A multicenter retrospective cohort study from three different centers was performed. Cox regression was used to compare time to reintervention and survival and logistic regression to compare technical and clinical success and AE rates. Subgroup analysis was performed in patients with malignant biliary obstruction (MBO). Results: A total of 86 patients (58 PTBD and 28 EUS-CD) were included. The two groups were similar with respect to age, gender, and cause of biliary obstruction, with malignancy being the most common etiology (80.2%). EUS-CD utilized lumen-apposing metal stents in 15 patients and self-expandable metal biliary stents in 13 patients. Technical success was similar been EUS-CD (100%) and PTBD (96.6%; P = 0.3). EUS-CD was associated with higher clinical success compared to PTBD (84.6% vs. 62.1%; P = 0.04). There was a trend toward lower rates of AEs with EUS-CD 14.3% versus PTBD 29.3%, odds ratio: 0.40 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.12-1.33, P = 0.14). The need for reintervention was significantly lower among patients who underwent EUS-CD (10.7%) compared to PTBD (77.6%) (hazard ratio: 0.07, 95% CI: 0.02-0.24; P < 0.001). A sensitivity analysis of only patients with MBO demonstrated similar rate of reintervention between the groups in individuals who survived 50 days or less after the biliary decompression. However, reintervention rates were lower for EUS-CD in those with longer survival. Conclusion: EUS-CD is a technically and clinically highly successful procedure with a trend toward lower AEs compared to PTBD. EUS-CD minimizes the need for reintervention, which may enhance end-of-life quality in patients with MBO and expected survival longer than 50 days.