EUS-guided hepaticogastrostomy versus EUS-guided hepaticogastrostomy with antegrade stent placement in patients with unresectable malignant distal biliary obstruction: a propensity score-matched case-control study.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: EUS-guided hepaticogastrostomy (EUS-HGS) is a rescue procedure when ERCP fails. Peritonitis and recurrent biliary obstruction (RBO) are adverse events (AEs) associated with EUS-HGS. Antegrade stent placement across a malignant distal biliary obstruction (DBO) followed by EUS-HGS (EUS-HGAS) creates 2 biliary drainage routes, potentially reducing peritonitis and prolonging time to RBO (TRBO). We compared the outcomes of the 2 techniques. METHODS: Data of consecutive patients with malignant DBO who underwent attempted EUS-HGS or EUS-HGAS across 5 institutions from January 2014 to December 2020 were retrospectively analyzed. A matched cohort of patients was obtained using 1-to-1 propensity score matching. The primary outcome was TRBO, and secondary outcomes were AEs except for RBO and overall survival. RESULTS: Among 360 patients, 283 (176 and 107 in the HGS and HGAS groups, respectively) were eligible. The matched cohorts included 81 patients in each group. AEs developed in 10 (12.3%) and 15 (18.5%) patients (P = .38) in the HGS and HGAS groups, respectively. RBO occurred in 18 and 2 patients in the HGS and HGAS groups, respectively (P < .001). TRBO was significantly longer in the HGAS group (median, 194 days vs 716 days; hazard ratio, .050; 95% confidence interval, .0066-.37; P < .01). However, no significant differences occurred in overall survival between the groups (median, 97 days vs 112 days; hazard ratio, .97; 95% confidence interval, .66-1.4; P = .88). CONCLUSIONS: EUS-HGAS extended TRBO compared with EUS-HGS, whereas AEs, except for RBO and overall survival, did not differ. The longer TRBO of EUS-HGAS could benefit patients with longer life expectancy.

Adverse events of self-expandable metal stent placement for malignant distal biliary obstruction: a large multicenter study.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Endoscopic placement of self-expandable metal stents (SEMSs) for malignant distal biliary obstruction (MDBO) may be accompanied by several types of adverse events. The present study analyzed the adverse events occurring after SEMS placement for MDBO. METHODS: The present study retrospectively investigated the incidence and types of adverse events in patients who underwent SEMS placement for MDBO between April 2018 and March 2021 at 26 hospitals. Risk factors for acute pancreatitis, cholecystitis, and recurrent biliary obstruction (RBO) were evaluated by univariate and multivariate analyses. RESULTS: Of the 1425 patients implanted with SEMSs for MDBO, 228 (16.0%) and 393 (27.6%) experienced early adverse events and RBO, respectively. Pancreatic duct without tumor involvement (P = .023), intact papilla (P = .025), and SEMS placement across the papilla (P = .037) were independent risk factors for acute pancreatitis. Tumor involvement in the orifice of the cystic duct was an independent risk factor for cholecystitis (P < .001). Use of fully and partially covered SEMSs was an independent risk factor for food impaction and/or sludge. Use of fully covered SEMSs was an independent risk factor for stent migration. Use of uncovered SEMSs and laser-cut SEMSs was an independent risk factor for tumor ingrowth. CONCLUSIONS: Pancreatic duct without tumor involvement, intact papilla, and SEMS placement across the papilla were independent risk factors for acute pancreatitis, and tumor involvement in the orifice of the cystic duct was an independent risk factor for cholecystitis. The risk factors for food impaction and/or sludge, stent migration, and tumor ingrowth differed among types of SEMSs.

ERCP using balloon-assisted endoscopes versus EUS-guided treatment for common bile duct stones in Roux-en-Y gastrectomy.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: We compared ERCP using a balloon-assisted endoscope (BE-ERCP) with EUS-guided antegrade treatment (EUS-AG) for removal of common bile duct (CBD) stones in patients with Roux-en-Y (R-Y) gastrectomy. METHODS: Consecutive patients who had previous R-Y gastrectomy undergoing BE-ERCP or EUS-AG for CBD stones in 16 centers were retrospectively analyzed. RESULTS: BE-ERCP and EUS-AG were performed in 588 and 59 patients, respectively. Baseline characteristics were similar, except for CBD diameter and angle. The technical success rate was 83.7% versus 83.1% (P = .956), complete stone removal rate was 78.1% versus 67.8% (P = .102), and early adverse event rate was 10.2% versus 18.6% (P = .076) in BE-ERCP and EUS-AG, respectively. The mean number of endoscopic sessions was smaller in BE-ERCP (1.5 ± .8 vs 1.9 ± 1.0 sessions, P = .01), whereas the median total treatment time was longer (90 vs 61.5 minutes, P = .001). Among patients with biliary access, the complete stone removal rate was significantly higher in BE-ERCP (93.3% vs 81.6%, P = .009). Negative predictive factors were CBD diameter ≥15 mm (odds ratio [OR], .41) and an angle of CBD <90 degrees (OR, .39) in BE-ERCP and a stone size ≥10 mm (OR, .07) and an angle of CBD <90 degrees (OR, .07) in EUS-AG. The 1-year recurrence rate was 8.3% in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: Effectiveness and safety of BE-ERCP and EUS-AG were comparable in CBD stone removal for patients after R-Y gastrectomy, but complete stone removal after technical success was superior in BE-ERCP.

Safety of biliary drainage with 6-mm metallic stent for preoperative obstructive jaundice in pancreatic cancer: PURPLE SIX STUDY.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: The 10-mm self-expandable metal stent (SEMS) is the standard for endoscopic transpapillary biliary drainage before pancreatic cancer surgery. However, the efficacy of stents thinner than 10 mm has not been adequately validated. Therefore, we aimed to evaluate the safety of a 6-mm fully covered SEMS (FCSEMS) for distal malignant biliary obstruction (DMBO) during preoperative chemotherapy for pancreatic cancer. METHODS: This was a single-arm, multicenter, prospective phase II study of endoscopic transpapillary initial biliary drainage for DMBO before pancreatic cancer surgery. The primary endpoint was stent-related adverse events, and the key secondary endpoint was the non-recurrent biliary obstruction (non-RBO) rate during the observation period for both resectable (R) and borderline resectable (BR) pancreatic cancers. RESULTS: The study enrolled 33 patients, among whom 32 received the study treatment. There were 23 and 9 cases of R and BR pancreatic cancers, respectively. The technical and clinical success rates were 97.0% and 90.1%, respectively. The stent-related adverse event rate was 3.1% (n = 1, acute pancreatitis) (95% confidential interval, 0.00-16.2), which met the criteria to be considered safe. The overall non-RBO rate during the observation period (median 96 days) was 78.1% (82.6% and 66.7% for R and BR pancreatic cancer cases, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The 6-mm FCSEMS is an extremely safe metallic stent with a low stent-related adverse event rate of 3.1% for preoperative biliary drainage in pancreatic cancer. It is considered the optimal stent for preoperative biliary drainage in terms of the non-RBO rate. UMIN Clinical Trial Registry (UMIN-CTR 000041704).

Red Dichromatic Imaging (RDI) Confirms Endoscopic Hemostasis after PuraStat® Application for Bleeding During Endoscopic Sphincterotomy.

We herein describe the use of red dichromatic imaging for judging the effectiveness of PuraStat for achieving endoscopic hemostasis of bleeding during endoscopic sphincterotomy.

Propensity score matching analysis for clinical impact of braided-type versus laser-cut-type covered self-expandable metal stents for endoscopic ultrasound-guided hepaticogastrostomy.

BACKGROUND: To prevent stent migration during endoscopic ultrasound-guided hepaticogastrostomy (EUS-HGS), intra-scope channel release technique is important, but is unfamiliar to non-expert hands. The self-expandable metal stent (SEMS) is an additional factor to prevent stent migration. However, no comparative studies of laser-cut-type and braided-type during EUS-HGS have been reported. The aim of this study was to compare the distance between the intrahepatic bile duct and stomach wall after EUS-HGS among laser-cut-type and braided-type SEMS. METHODS: To evaluate stent anchoring function, we measured the distance between the hepatic parenchyma and stomach wall before EUS-HGS, one day after EUS-HGS, and 7 days after EUS-HGS. Also, propensity score matching was performed to create a propensity score for using laser-cut-type group and braided-type group. RESULTS: A total of 142 patients were enrolled in this study. Among them, 24 patients underwent EUS-HGS using a laser-cut-type SEMS, and 118 patients underwent EUS-HGS using a braided-type SEMS. EUS-HGS using the laser-cut-type SEMS was mainly performed by non-expert endoscopists (n = 21); EUS-HGS using braided-type SEMS was mainly performed by expert endoscopists (n = 98). The distance after 1 day was significantly shorter in the laser-cut-type group than that in the braided-type group [2.00 (1.70-3.75) vs. 6.90 (3.72-11.70) mm, P < 0.001]. In addition, this distance remained significantly shorter in the laser-cut-type group after 7 days. Although these results were similar after propensity score matching analysis, the distance between hepatic parenchyma and stomach after 7 days was increased by 4 mm compared with the distance after 1 day in the braided-type group. On the other hand, in the laser-cut-type group, the distance after 1 day and 7 days was almost the same. CONCLUSIONS: EUS-HGS using a laser-cut-type SEMS may be safe to prevent stent migration, even in non-expert hands.

TOKYO criteria 2024 for the assessment of clinical outcomes of endoscopic biliary drainage.

The consensus-based TOKYO criteria were proposed as a standardized reporting system for endoscopic transpapillary biliary drainage. The primary objective was to address issues arising from the inconsistent reporting of stent outcomes across studies, which has complicated the comparability and interpretation of study results. However, the original TOKYO criteria were not readily applicable to recent modalities of endoscopic biliary drainage such as biliary drainage based on endoscopic ultrasound or device-assisted endoscopy. There are increasing opportunities for managing hilar biliary obstruction and benign biliary strictures through endoscopic drainage. Biliary ablation has been introduced to manage benign and malignant biliary strictures. In addition, the prolonged survival times of cancer patients have increased the importance of evaluating overall outcomes during the period requiring endoscopic biliary drainage rather than solely focusing on the patency of the initial stent. Recognizing these unmet needs, a committee has been established within the Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society to revise the TOKYO criteria for current clinical practice. The revised criteria propose not only common reporting items for endoscopic biliary drainage overall, but also items specific to various conditions and interventions. The term "stent-demanding time" has been defined to encompass the entire duration of endoscopic biliary drainage, during which the overall stent-related outcomes are evaluated. The revised TOKYO criteria 2024 are expected to facilitate the design and reporting of clinical studies, providing a goal-oriented approach to the evaluation of endoscopic biliary drainage.

Short-term Outcomes of Laparoscopic and Open Distal Pancreatectomy Using Propensity Score Analysis: A Real-world Retrospective Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare the short-term outcomes between laparoscopic and open distal pancreatectomy for lesions of the distal pancreas from a real-world database. BACKGROUND: Reports on the benefits of laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy include 2 randomized controlled trials; however, large-scale, real-world data are scarce. METHODS: We analyzed the data of patients undergoing laparoscopic or open distal pancreatectomy for benign or malignant pancreatic tumors from April 2008 to May 2020 from a Japanese nationwide inpatient database. We performed propensity score analyses to compare the inhospital mortality, morbidity, readmission rate, reoperation rate, length of postoperative stay, and medical cost between the 2 groups. RESULTS: From 5502 eligible patients, we created a pseudopopulation of patients undergoing laparoscopic and open distal pancreatectomy using inverse probability of treatment weighting. Laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy was associated with lower inhospital mortality during the period of admission (0.0% vs 0.7%, P <0.001) and within 30 days (0.0% vs 0.2%, P =0.001), incidence of reoperation during the period of admission (0.7% vs 1.7%, P =0.018), postpancreatectomy hemorrhage (0.4% vs 2.0%, P <0.001), ileus (1.1% vs 2.8%, P =0.007), and shorter postoperative length of stay (17 vs 20 d, P <0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The propensity score analysis revealed that laparoscopic distal pancreatectomy was associated with better outcomes than open surgery in terms of inhospital mortality, reoperation rate, postoperative length of stay, and incidence of postoperative complications such as postpancreatectomy hemorrhage and ileus.

Clinical evaluation of a novel drill dilator as the first-line tract dilation technique during EUS-guided biliary drainage by nonexpert hands (with videos).

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: In cases in which tract dilation fails using the initially selected dilation device during EUS-guided hepaticogastrostomy (EUS-HGS), dilation should be re-attempted using another device. However, switching from one device to another during the procedure is often associated with prolonged procedure time and deviation from the correct axis. Therefore, it is highly desired that the initial tract dilation succeeds on the first attempt. Recently, a novel drill dilator has become available in Japan. Because there have been no previous studies comparing this novel device versus others as an initial dilation device, this article reports on the technical feasibility of this novel device for use during EUS-HGS and compares it with a balloon catheter. METHODS: This retrospective study included patients who underwent EUS-HGS using a self-expandable metal stent between October 2021 and October 2022. Excluded from the study were patients who underwent EUS-HGS using a plastic stent or stent deployment without tract dilation. The primary outcome in this study was the technical success rate of initial tract dilation using the drill dilator. This dilator has been available at our hospital since June 2022. Thus, EUS-HGS was performed using this device as the primary dilation device from June 2022 to October 2022. As the control group, we corrected patients who underwent EUS-HGS using a 4-mm balloon catheter as the primary dilation device from October 2021 to May 2022. RESULTS: A total of 49 patients were included: 19 underwent EUS-HGS using the drill dilator and 30 underwent EUS-HGS using a balloon catheter. EUS-HGS using the drill dilator initially was performed mainly by nonexpert hands (n = 19), whereas only some procedures in the balloon catheter group were performed by nonexpert hands (n = 2). Although the initial tract dilation was successful in all patients in the drill dilator group (19 of 19 [100%]) and in 29 (97%) of 30 in the balloon catheter group, additional tract dilation was needed in 73.7% (14 of 19) of the drill dilator group upon insertion of the 8.5F stent delivery system. In contrast, the stent delivery system insertion was successful without additional tract dilation in all patients in the balloon catheter group. CONCLUSIONS: The novel drill dilator might be useful as a dilation device; however, the balloon dilation technique should be selected first upon deploying a dedicated metal stent with an 8.5F stent delivery system.

Gastrojejunostomy versus endoscopic duodenal stent placement for gastric outlet obstruction in patients with unresectable pancreatic cancer: a propensity score-matched analysis.

BACKGROUND: Treatments for patients with gastric outlet obstruction (GOO) due to unresectable pancreatic cancers (URPC) include gastrojejunostomy (GJJ) and endoscopic duodenal stent placement (EDSP). This study compared the efficacy and safety of GJJ and EDSP in patients with GOO due to URPC. METHODS: This study retrospectively evaluated consecutive patients with GOO due to URPC who underwent GJJ or EDSP between April 2016 and March 2020. The efficacy and safety of GJJ and EDSP were compared with propensity score analysis. Subgroup analyses of overall survival (OS) were compared after propensity matching. RESULTS: Data were obtained from 54 patients who underwent GJJ and from 73 who underwent EDSP at five tertiary care hospitals. After propensity matching, OS was significantly longer in patients who underwent GJJ than EDSP (110 vs. 63 days, respectively; p = 0.019). Evaluation of long-term adverse events showed that the frequency of cholangitis and obstructive jaundice was significantly lower in the matched GJJ than in the matched EDSP group (p = 0.012). Subgroup analyses showed that OS in patients with good performance status (PS; p = 0.041), biliary obstruction (p = 0.007), and duodenal obstruction near the papilla (p = 0.027), and those receiving chemotherapy (p = 0.010), was significantly longer in the matched GJJ group than in matched EDSP group. CONCLUSION: GJJ provides longer OS than EDSP for patients with GOO caused by URPC, especially for patients with good PS, biliary obstruction, and duodenal obstruction near the papilla, and those receiving chemotherapy.

Clinical Outcomes of Inside Stents and Conventional Plastic Stents as Bridge-to-Surgery Options for Malignant Hilar Biliary Obstruction.

BACKGROUND: The appropriate method of preoperative endoscopic biliary drainage (EBD) for cholangiocarcinoma with hilar biliary obstruction remains controversial. The inside-stent technique is a method of placing plastic stents entirely inside the bile duct. Several studies of patients with unresectable stage have reported longer stent patency compared with conventional endoscopic biliary stenting (EBS). Inside-stent techniques have been introduced as a bridge-to-surgery option and as an alternative to conventional EBS. AIMS: We aimed to evaluate the clinical outcomes of inside stent use and conventional EBS. METHODS: During this retrospective multicenter study, we reviewed consecutive patients with cholangiocarcinoma who underwent radical surgery after conventional EBS or inside-stent insertion. Adverse event (AE) rates after EBD and post-surgical AEs were compared. A multivariable analysis was performed to identify factors affecting cholangitis after EBD. RESULTS: Conventional EBS and inside-stent procedures were performed for 56 and 73 patients, respectively. Patient backgrounds were similar between groups, except for percutaneous transhepatic portal vein embolization. The waiting time before surgery was similar between groups (28.5 days vs. 30 days). There were no significant differences in the cholangitis rate (21.4% vs. 26.0%; P = 0.68) and all AEs (25.0% vs. 30.1%; P = 0.56) between groups. The post-surgical AE rate was similar between the groups. The multivariable analysis found that preprocedural cholangitis was a risk factor for cholangitis after EBD (odds ratio: 5.67; 95% confidence interval: 1.61-19.9). CONCLUSIONS: The outcomes of inside-stent techniques and conventional EBS for the management of preoperative EBD are comparable for patients with cholangiocarcinoma.

Does endoscopic sphincterotomy contribute to the prevention of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis after endoscopic biliary stenting for malignant biliary obstruction? A multicenter prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: There is no consensus on the necessity of endoscopic sphincterotomy (ES) to prevent post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis (PEP) after endoscopic stenting in patients with malignant biliary obstruction. We investigated the incidence of PEP after endoscopic biliary stenting for malignant biliary obstruction with or without ES in a multicenter prospective cohort study. METHODS: We enrolled 807 patients who underwent endoscopic biliary stenting for malignant biliary obstruction with a native papilla at 36 hospitals between April 2017 and March 2018. The incidence of PEP in patients with or without ES was compared for subgroups based on stent type, placement method, and patient background. Univariate and multivariate analysis was performed to investigate the incidence of PEP in all stenting patients. RESULTS: Plastic and metal stents (MS) were inserted in 598 and 209 patients, respectively. The incidence of PEP in patients with or without ES was 7.9% and 7.4%, respectively among all stenting patients. The incidences of PEP with or without ES in plastic stent insertion patients, patients with MS insertion, stent insertions across the papilla, stent insertions across the papilla in patients without main pancreatic duct obstruction, and fully covered MS insertions across the papilla were compared. There was no overall significant difference in the incidence of PEP between those with or without ES. Multivariate logistic regression analysis for the incidence of PEP in all stenting patients revealed obstruction of the main pancreatic duct at the pancreatic head and epinephrine spraying on the papilla were significant factors; there was no significant difference in the incidence of PEP between patients with or without ES. CONCLUSION: Endoscopic sphincterotomy may not contribute to the prevention of PEP after endoscopic biliary stenting for malignant biliary obstruction, even in cases of insertion with a fully covered MS across the papilla.

Endoscopic nasobiliary drainage versus endoscopic biliary stenting for preoperative biliary drainage in patients with malignant hilar biliary obstruction: Propensity score-matched multicenter comparative study.

OBJECTIVES: For preoperative biliary drainage (PBD) of malignant hilar biliary obstruction (MHBO), current guidelines recommend endoscopic nasobiliary drainage (ENBD) due to the higher risk of cholangitis after endoscopic biliary stenting (EBS) during the waiting period before surgery. However, few studies have supported this finding. Therefore, we aimed to compare the outcomes of preoperative ENBD and EBS in patients with MHBO. METHODS: Patients with MHBO who underwent laparotomy for radical surgery after ENBD or EBS were included from retrospectively collected data from 13 centers (January 2014 to December 2018). We performed a 1:1 propensity score matching between the ENBD and EBS groups. These patients were compared for the following: cholangitis and all adverse events (AEs) after endoscopic biliary drainage (EBD) until surgery, time to cholangitis development after EBD, postsurgical AEs, and in-hospital death after surgery. RESULTS: Of the 414 patients identified, 355 were analyzed in this study (226 for ENBD and 129 for EBS). The matched cohort included 63 patients from each group. The proportion of cholangitis after EBD was similar between the two groups (20.6% vs. 25.4%, P = 0.67), and no significant difference was observed in the time to cholangitis development. The proportions of surgical site infections, bile leaks, and in-hospital mortality rates were similar between the groups. CONCLUSION: For PBD of MHBO, the proportion of AEs, including cholangitis, after EBD until surgery was similar when either ENBD or EBS was used.

Prospective comparison study between 19-gauge needle with .025-inch guidewire and 22-gauge needle with novel .018-inch guidewire during EUS-guided transhepatic biliary drainage (with video).

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: If the diameter of the intrahepatic bile duct is much less dilated, bile duct puncture with a 19-gauge needle can be challenging during EUS-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD). These characteristics can decrease the difficulty of bile duct puncture, but use of a 22-gauge needle is less feasible because of poor visibility, maneuverability, and stiffness of the conventional .018-inch guidewire. A novel, improved .018-inch guidewire has recently become available. We conducted a prospective study to evaluate the technical feasibility and safety of EUS-BD in patients with insufficient bile duct dilatation using a 22-gauge needle and the new .018-inch guidewire. METHODS: A 22-gauge needle was used as the puncture needle for intrahepatic bile ducts of diameters <1.5 mm, and a 19-gauge needle was selected for diameters ≥1.5 mm. As the primary endpoint of the study, the technical success rate of EUS-BD using a 22-gauge needle with the novel .018-inch guidewire was evaluated in patients with insufficient dilation of the intrahepatic bile duct. RESULTS: Forty-one patients who required EUS-BD were enrolled (22-gauge needle group, n = 18; 19-gauge needle group, n = 23). Technical success was obtained in all patients in the 19-gauge needle group. In the 22-gauge needle group, technical failure occurred in 2 patients because of nonidentification of the intrahepatic bile duct on EUS (technical success rate, 88.9%), and puncture of the bile duct itself was not performed in these patients. Mean procedure time was similar between the groups. Adverse events were observed in 16.7% of patients (3/16) in the 22-gauge needle group and in 34.8% of patients (8/23) in the 19-gauge needle group. CONCLUSIONS: Outcomes of using a 22-gauge needle with a novel .018-inch guidewire were comparable with a 19-gauge needle with a .025-inch guidewire, even in the case of insufficient intrahepatic bile duct dilatation. These results require verification in a prospective, randomized trial comparing 22-gauge and 19-gauge needles with a larger sample size. (Clinical trial registration number: UMIN000044441.).

Comparison of 22-gauge standard and Franseen needles in EUS-guided tissue acquisition for diagnosing solid pancreatic lesions: a multicenter randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: This large multicenter randomized controlled trial compared the diagnostic yields of 22-gauge standard and 22-gauge Franseen needles for EUS-guided tissue acquisition (EUS-TA) of solid pancreatic lesions. METHODS: Consecutive patients with solid pancreatic lesions were prospectively randomized to EUS-TA using standard or Franseen needles. Samples obtained with the first needle pass and with second and subsequent passes were evaluated separately. The primary endpoint was the rate of accuracy for diagnosis of malignancy. Other endpoints were technical success rate, sample cellularity, adverse events, diagnostic accuracy in patient subgroups, and the diagnostic accuracy and numbers of second and subsequent needle passes. RESULTS: Of 523 patients undergoing EUS-TA, 260 were randomized to using standard 22-gauge needles and 263 to 22-gauge Franseen needles. The technical success rate in each group was 99.6%, with similar adverse event rates in the standard (1.5%) and Franseen (.8%) needle groups. First-pass EUS-TA using the Franseen needle resulted in significantly greater diagnostic accuracy (84.0% vs 71.2%, P < .001) and sensitivity (82.4% vs 66.7%, P < .001) than first-pass EUS-TA using a standard needle and also resulted in superior diagnostic accuracy in patients requiring immunostaining. Second and subsequent EUS-TA using Franseen needles showed significantly greater accuracy (94.7% vs 90.0%, P = .049) and sensitivity (94.0% vs 88.6%, P = .047) and required fewer needle passes (1.81 vs 2.03, P = .008) than using standard needles. CONCLUSIONS: EUS-TA with the Franseen needle is superior to EUS-TA with a standard needle with respect to diagnostic accuracy per pass, particularly in patients who require immunostaining, and number of passes when using macroscopic on-site evaluation. (Clinical trial registration numbers: UMIN000030634 and jRCTs052180062.).

Efficacy of EUS-guided celiac plexus neurolysis in combination with EUS-guided celiac ganglia neurolysis for pancreatic cancer-associated pain: a multicenter prospective trial.

OBJECTIVES: This study evaluated the efficacy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided celiac plexus neurolysis (EUS-CPN) in combination with EUS-guided celiac ganglia neurolysis (EUS-CGN) for pancreatic cancer-associated pain. METHODS: This multicenter prospective trial was registered in the University Hospital Medical Information Network (UMIN000031228). Fifty-one consecutive patients with pancreatic cancer-associated pain who presented at one of five Japanese referral centers between February 2018 and March 2021 were enrolled. EUS-CGN was added in cases of visible celiac ganglia. The primary endpoint was effectiveness, defined as a decrease in the numerical rating scale (NRS) by ≥ 3 points. NRS data were prospectively acquired at 1 week after the procedure to evaluate its effectiveness and the extent of pain relief. RESULTS: The technical success rates of EUS-CPN and EUS-CGN were 100% and 80.4%, respectively. The overall efficacy rate was 82.4% [90% confidence interval (CI) 71.2-90.5, P < 0.0001]. The complete pain relief rate was 27.4%. The adverse events rate was 15.7%. The average pain relief period was 72 days. The efficacy rate was higher in the EUS-CPN plus EUS-CGN group than in the EUS-CPN alone group. EUS-CPN plus EUS-CGN was superior to EUS-CPN alone for achieving complete pain relief (P = 0.045). EUS-CGN did not improve the average length of the pain relief period. CONCLUSIONS: EUS-CPN combined with EUS-CGN is safe, feasible, and effective for pain relief in patients with pancreatic cancer. The patients who received additional EUS-CGN had a better short-term response. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: UMIN000031228.

Transluminal intrahepatic bile duct stone removal using a novel spiral basket catheter via the endoscopic ultrasound-guided hepaticogastrostomy route (with video).

Recently, endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided biliary drainage has been developed as an alternative biliary drainage technique for failed endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) or inaccessible papilla. Among the various EUS-guided biliary drainage procedures, EUS-guided hepaticogastrostomy (HGS) can be performed in patients with surgically altered anatomy. More recently, various transluminal treatments have been described after EUS-HGS, such as antegrade stone removal. In patients with hepaticojejunostomy strictures, stone extraction into the intestine might be challenging even after performing hepaticojejunostomy stricture dilation using a balloon catheter. In such cases, transluminal stone removal is considered an alternative method. With transluminal stone removal, a small stone that escapes from the conventional basket or from a balloon catheter could migrate into the branch bile ducts. The novel spiral basket catheter available in Japan. The wires form a helix shape, wherein each wire is wound counterclockwise, and the winding pitch becomes gradually tighter from the proximal portion to the tip. As the winding pitch is smaller and the wires are in closer contact with the bile duct wall as compared with conventional basket catheter, small bile duct stones can be easily captured by simply pulling back the catheter while the basket is open. In addition, even during withdrawal inside the bile duct, a high retrieval performance is assured by the special design that maintains the opening width on the top end. Therefore, transluminal stone removal using this novel basket catheter might be clinically useful, although further prospective evaluation of a larger number of cases is needed.

Expanding indications for endoscopic ultrasound-guided hepaticogastrostomy for patients with insufficient dilatation of the intrahepatic bile duct using a 22G needle combined with a novel 0.018-inch guidewire (with video).

A prerequisite for endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided hepaticogastrostomy (HGS) is adequate dilation of the intrahepatic bile duct. Compared with a 19G needle, the 22G needle offers more flexible manipulation and superior ability to achieve bile duct puncture. However, evidence regarding EUS-HGS using a 22G needle remains limited. The present study evaluated the feasibility and safety of EUS-HGS using a novel 0.018-inch guidewire and 22G needle for patients with insufficient intrahepatic bile duct dilation. If the bile duct diameter was <1.5 mm, a 22G needle was used, and the diameter was ≥1.5 mm; puncture with a 19G needle was first attempted, with the 22G needle being inserted if initial bile duct puncture failed. EUS-HGS using the 22G needle was attempted in a total of 10 patients, including one patient with failed insertion of a 19G needle. Median diameter of the puncture site was 1.2 mm (range 0.5-2.5 mm). Bile duct puncture using the 22G needle was successful in all patients. Insertion of the novel 0.018-inch guidewire was also successful in all patients. However, since tract dilation using an ultra-tapered mechanical dilator failed in two patients, tract dilation was performed using a balloon dilator. Finally, stent deployment was successfully performed in all patients. EUS-HGS using a 22G needle with a novel 0.018-inch guidewire appears safe and feasible.

Endoscopic placement of covered versus uncovered self-expandable metal stents for palliation of malignant gastric outlet obstruction.

OBJECTIVE: Stenting is an established endoscopic therapy for malignant gastric outlet obstruction (mGOO). The choice of stent (covered vs uncovered) has been examined in prior randomised studies without clear results. DESIGN: In a multicentre randomised prospective study, we compared covered (CSEMS) with uncovered self-expandable metal stents (UCSEMS) in patients with mGOO; main outcomes were stent dysfunction and patient survival, with subgroup analyses of patients with extrinsic and intrinsic tumours. RESULTS: Overall survival was poor with no difference between groups (probability at 3 months 49.7% for covered vs 48.4% for uncovered stents; log-rank for overall survival p=0.26). Within that setting of short survival, the proportion of stent dysfunction was significantly higher for uncovered stents (35.2% vs 23.4%, p=0.01) with significantly shorter time to stent dysfunction. This was mainly relevant for patients with extrinsic tumours (stent dysfunction rates for uncovered stents 35.6% vs 17.5%, p<0.01). Subgrouping was also relevant with respect to tumour ingrowth (lower with covered stents for intrinsic tumours; 1.6% vs 27.7%, p<0.01) and stent migration (higher with covered stents for extrinsic tumours: 15.3% vs 2.5%, p<0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Due to poor patient survival, minor differences between covered and uncovered stents may be less relevant even if statistically significant; however, subgroup analysis would suggest to use covered stents for intrinsic and uncovered stents for extrinsic malignancies.

Usefulness of a newly designed laser-cut metal stent with an anchoring hook and thin delivery system for EUS-guided hepaticogastrostomy in experimental settings (with video).

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: EUS-guided hepaticogastrostomy (EUS-HGS) is associated with high rates of adverse events. The present study evaluated the feasibility of a newly designed stent equipped with a dilatation and antimigration system for EUS-HGS in phantom and animal models. METHODS: The newly designed stent was a partially covered laser-cut stent with antimigration anchoring hooks and a thin tapered tip (7.2F). The feasibility of these stents for biliary obstruction was compared with that of conventional stents. Evaluated outcomes were resistance force to migration in phantom and ex vivo models, rates of technical success and adverse events, and histology in an in vivo model. RESULTS: The resistance forces on the distal (3.59 vs 1.73 N and 6.21 vs 1.74 N) and proximal (3.58 vs 1.5 N and 5.97 vs 1.67 N) sides in phantom and ex vivo models were significantly higher for hook stents than for conventional stents. Although EUS-HGS was successfully performed in all cases with both stents (100% [10/10] vs 100% [8/8]), the success rate of EUS-HGS without using a fistulous tract dilation device was significantly higher with hook stents (100% [10/10]) than with conventional stents (13% [1/8]). No adverse events occurred with either stent. Pathologic examination showed adhesion between the stomach and liver. CONCLUSIONS: The strong resistance to migration and the absence of the dilation step are important advantages of newly designed hook stents. These stents may therefore be feasible and safe for EUS-HGS.