Forward viewing liner echoendoscopy for therapeutic interventions.

Therapeutic endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) procedures using the forward-viewing convex EUS (FV-EUS) have been reviewed based on the articles reported to date. The earliest reported procedure is the drainage of pancreatic pseudocysts using FV-EUS. However, the study on drainage of pancreatic pseudocysts focused on showing that drainage is possible with FV-EUS rather than leveraging its features. Subsequently, studies describing the characteristics of FV-EUS have been reported. By using FV-EUS in EUS-guided choledochoduodenostomy, double punctures in the gastrointestinal tract can be avoided. In postoperative modified anatomical cases, using the endoscopic function of FV-EUS, procedures such as bile duct drainage from anastomosis, pancreatic duct drainage from the afferent limb, and abscess drainage from the digestive tract have been reported. When a perpendicular puncture to the gastrointestinal tract is required or when there is a need to insert the endoscope deep into the gastrointestinal tract, FV-EUS is considered among the options.

Efficacy of primary drainage by endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage for unresectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma.

Background and Aim: Obstructive jaundice induced by pancreatic adenocarcinoma is typically treated with biliary drainage with endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP)-guided biliary drainage (ERCP-BD). Recently, endoscopic ultrasonography-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) was employed as an alternative method after ERCP-BD failed. We aimed to determine the efficacy and safety of EUS-BD for primary biliary drainage. Methods: Between December 2011 and February 2019, at Kawasaki General Medical Center, we retrospectively enrolled 33 patients who had undergone endoscopic biliary drainage with a metal stent, in a first attempt to relieve obstructive jaundice caused by unresectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma. We compared the technical and clinical outcomes between ERCP-BD and EUS-BD. Results: Twenty-three patients underwent ERCP-BD and 10 underwent EUS-BD. Both groups achieved 100% technical success. The clinical success rates were similar between the groups: 91% (21/23 patients) for ERCP-BD and 100% (10/10 patients) for EUS-BD (P = 0.48). Biliary obstruction recurred in 6/23 patients (26%) treated with ERCP-BD and 1/10 patients (10%) treated with EUS-BD (P = 0.40). Other adverse events occurred in 4/23 patients (17%) in the ERCP-BD group and 1/10 patients (10%) in the EUS-BD group (P = 0.99). Conclusion: We suggest that EUS-BD could be employed for primary biliary drainage in patients with obstructive jaundice caused by unresectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided hepaticogastrostomy versus hepaticogastrostomy with antegrade stenting for malignant distal biliary obstruction.

BACKGROUND: Recurrent biliary obstruction (RBO) is a possible complication of endoscopic ultrasound-guided hepaticogastrostomy (EUS-HGS) in patients with malignant distal biliary obstruction (MDBO). Therefore, adding antegrade stenting across MDBO, followed by EUS-HGS (EUS-HGAS), may prolong the time to RBO (TRBO). We aimed to compare the outcomes of EUS-HGS and HGAS. METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated consecutive patients who underwent EUS-HGS or HGAS between July 2016 and November 2020. The TRBO, overall survival (OS), and adverse event (AE) rate were compared between the groups. The risk factors for RBO were determined using a multivariable Cox proportional hazards model. RESULTS: This study included 96 patients (EUS-HGS, n = 58; HGAS, n = 38). There was a significant difference in the cause of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography failure and the HGS stent type between the groups. A significant difference was found in TRBO (234 days vs not reached, P = .036), whereas no significant difference was found in the OS (123 vs 126 days, P = .76). The AE rate was not significantly different. Multivariable analysis revealed that EUS-HGS was an independent risk factor for RBO (hazard ratio: 4.01, 95% confidence interval: 1.16-13.9). CONCLUSIONS: Endoscopic ultrasound-guided hepaticogastrostomy prolonged the TRBO compared with EUS-HGS for biliary drainage in patients with MDBO.

Lumen-apposing metal stents for malignant biliary obstruction: Is this the ultimate horizon of our experience?

In the last years, endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) has evolved from a purely diagnostic technique to a more and more complex interventional procedure, with the possibility to perform several type of therapeutic interventions. Among these, EUS-guided biliary drainage (BD) is gaining popularity as a therapeutic approach after failed endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in distal malignant biliary obstruction (MBO), due to the avoidance of external drainage, a lower rate of adverse events and re-interventions, and lower costs compared to percutaneous trans-hepatic BD. Initially, devices created for luminal procedures (e.g., luminal biliary stents) have been adapted to the new trans-luminal EUS-guided interventions, with predictable shortcomings in technical success, outcome and adverse events. More recently, new metal stents specifically designed for transluminal drainage, namely lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMS), have been made available for EUS-guided procedures. An electrocautery enhanced delivery system (EC-LAMS), which allows direct access of the delivery system to the target lumen, has subsequently simplified the classic multi-step procedure of EUS-guided drainages. EUS-BD using LAMS and EC-LAMS has been demonstrated effective and safe, and currently seems one of the most performing techniques for EUS-BD. In this Review, we summarize the evolution of the EUS-BD in distal MBO, focusing on the novelty of LAMS and analyzing the unresolved questions about the possible role of EUS as the first therapeutic option to achieve BD in this setting of patients.

Comprehensive review on EUS-guided biliary drainage.

Feasibility of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) for biliary drainage is not always applicable due to anatomical alterations or to inability to access the papilla. Percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage has always been considered the only alternative for this indication. However, endoscopic ultrasonography-guided biliary drainage represents a valid option to replace percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage when ERCP fails. According to the access site to the biliary tree, two kinds of approaches may be described: the intrahepatic and the extrahepatic. Endoscopic ultrasonography-guided rendez-vous transpapillary drainage is performed where the second portion of the duodenum is easily reached but conventional ERCP fails. The recent introduction of self-expandable metal stents and lumen-apposing metal stents has improved this field. However, the role of the latter is still controversial. Echoendoscopic transmural biliary drainage can be challenging with potential severe adverse events. Therefore, trained endoscopists, in both ERCP and endoscopic ultrasonography are needed with surgical and radiological backup.

Long-term outcomes and risk factors of biliary stent dysfunction after endoscopic double stenting for malignant biliary and duodenal obstructions.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Few reports describe the endoscopic double-stenting procedure for malignant biliary and duodenal obstructions. We evaluated the clinical outcomes from double stenting, and analyzed the risk factors for biliary stent dysfunction following double stenting. METHODS: Eighty-one patients who underwent endoscopic double stenting for malignant biliary and duodenal obstructions were retrospectively analyzed. We determined the stent dysfunction rate and the biliary stent dysfunction risk factors, and analyzed the endoscopic reintervention results. RESULTS: Overall survival time and survival time following double stenting were 365 (38-1673) days and 73 (20-954) days, respectively. After double stenting, the 3-month and 6-month duodenal stent dysfunction rates were 14% and 41%, respectively. Reintervention technical success rate was 100% (10/10), and mean gastric outlet obstruction scoring system scores improved from 0.7 to 2.4 points (P < 0.001). The 3-month and 6-month biliary stent dysfunction rates were 26% and 41%, respectively. The reintervention technical and clinical success rates were 95% (20/21) and 81% (17/21), respectively. Risk factors for biliary stent dysfunction following double stenting were events associated with duodenal stent dysfunction (odds ratio [OR], 11.1; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.09-87.4; P = 0.0044) and the biliary stent end's location (OR, 6.93; 95% CI, 1.37-40.2; P = 0.0019). CONCLUSIONS: Some patients had stent dysfunction irrespective of the survival period after double stenting. Endoscopic reintervention was technically feasible and clinically effective even after double stenting. Duodenal stent dysfunction and biliary stent end's location were risk factors for biliary stent dysfunction.

Endoscopic ultrasonography-guided biliary drainage: Who, when, which, and how?

Both endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS)-guided choledochoduodenostomy (EUS-CDS) and EUS-guided hepaticogastrostomy (EUS-HGS) are relatively well established as alternatives to percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD). Both EUS-CDS and EUS-HGS have high technical and clinical success rates (more than 90%) in high-volume centers. Complications for both procedures remain high at 10%-30%. Procedures performed by endoscopists who have done fewer than 20 cases sometimes result in severe or fatal complications. When learning EUS-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD), we recommend a mentor's supervision during at least the first 20 cases. For inoperable malignant lower biliary obstruction, a skillful endoscopist should perform EUS-BD before EUS-guided rendezvous technique (EUS-RV) and PTBD. We should be select EUS-BD for patients having altered anatomy from malignant tumors before balloon-enteroscope-assisted endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, EUS-RV, and PTBD. If both EUS-CDS and EUS-HGS are available, we should select EUS-CDS, according to published data. EUS-BD will potentially become a first-line biliary drainage procedure in the near future.

Endoscopic ultrasonography-guided transhepatic antegrade stone removal in patients with surgically altered anatomy: case series and technical review (with videos).

Recently, endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS)-guided transhepatic antegrade interventions have been introduced in patients with a surgically altered anatomy. Herein, we focused on and reviewed EUS-guided transhepatic antegrade stone removal (EUS-TASR) in patients with a surgically altered anatomy and native papilla. The basic technique of EUS-TASR involves the following steps: (1) EUS-guided needle puncture; (2) guidewire placement; (3) tract dilation; (4) balloon sphincteroplasty; (5) stone removal; and (6) stent placement if needed. Based on reports in the literature including our cases, the complete stone extraction rate is 71.4% (10/14) including five of our cases (60% success rate) at one session without serious complications. In conclusion, EUS-TASR appears to be feasible and useful in selected patients although its application may be limited depending on anatomical factors and current devices used.

Multicenter study on endoscopic ultrasound-guided expandable biliary metal stent placement: choice of access route, direction of stent insertion, and drainage route.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Endoscopic ultrasonography-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) using expandable biliary metal stents has emerged as an acceptable alternative in patients with failed endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography for malignant biliary obstruction. However, there is no consensus over the preferred access route (transhepatic or extrahepatic), direction of stent insertion (antegrade or retrograde) or drainage route (transluminal or transpapillary) in patients potentially suitable for multiple methods. The present study compares success and complication rates in patients undergoing EUS-BD via different methods. METHODS: This was a multicenter retrospective analysis. Records of patients who underwent EUS-BD for malignant obstructive jaundice at four centers were entered in a standard database. Success and complications were compared for different techniques. RESULTS: Sixty-eight patients were analyzed. EUS-BD was successful in 65 patients (95.6%). There was no significant difference in the success rates of different techniques. Complications were seen in 14 patients (20.6%) and mortality in three patients (4.4%). Complications were significantly higher for the transhepatic route compared to the transduodenal route (30.5% vs 9.3%, P=0.03). There was no significant difference in complication rates among transluminal and transpapillary stent placements, or direct and rendezvous stenting. Logistic regression analysis showed transhepatic access to be the only independent risk factor for complications (P=0.031, t=2.2). CONCLUSION: EUS-BD can be carried out with high success rates regardless of the choice of access route, stent direction or drainage route. However, complications are significantly higher with transhepatic access. The transduodenal route should be chosen for EUS-guided and rendezvous stent placements, when both routes are available.

Interventional endoscopic ultrasonography for pancreatic cancer.

Endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) represents the combination of endoscopy and intraluminal ultrasonography. This allows use of a high-frequency transducer (5-20 MHz) that, due to the short distance to the target lesion, provides ultrasonographic images of higher resolution than those obtained from other imaging modalities, including multiple-detector-row-computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, and positron emission tomography. EUS is now a widely accepted modality for diagnosing pancreatic diseases. However, the most important limitation of EUS has been the lack of specificity in differentiating between benign and malignant changes. In 1992, EUS-guided fine needle aspiration (FNA) of lesions in the pancreas head was introduced into clinical practice, using a curved linear-array echoendoscope. Since then, EUS has evolved from EUS imaging to EUS-FNA and wider applications. Interventional EUS for pancreatic cancer includes EUS-FNA, EUS-guided fine needle injection, EUS-guided biliary drainage and anastomosis, EUS-guided celiac neurolysis, radiofrequency ablation, brachytherapy, and delivery of a growing number of anti-tumor agents. This review focuses on interventional EUS, including EUS-FNA and therapeutic EUS for pancreatic cancer.

EUS-Guided Biliary Drainage.

Endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) combines endoscopy and intraluminal ultrasonography, and allows imaging with a high-frequency transducer over a short distance to generate high-resolution ultrasonographic images. EUS is now a widely accepted modality for diagnosing pancreatobiliary diseases. EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) using a curved linear-array echoendoscope was initially described more than 20 years ago, and since then many researchers have expanded its indications to sample diverse lesions and have also used it for various therapeutic purposes. EUS-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) is one of the therapeutic procedures that has been developed using a curved linear-array echoendoscope. Technically, EUS-BD includes rendezvous techniques via transesophageal, transgastric, and transduodenal routes, EUS-guided choledochoduodenostomy (EUS-CDS), and EUS-guided hepaticogastrostomy (EUS-HGS). Published data have demonstrated a high success rate, albeit with a comparatively high rate of nonfatal complications for EUS-CDS and EUS-HGS, and a comparatively low success rate with a low complication rate for the rendezvous technique. At present, these procedures represent an alternative to surgery or percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD) for patients with obstructive jaundice when endoscopic biliary drainage (EBD) has failed. However, these procedures should be performed in centers with extensive experience in linear EUS and therapeutic biliary ERCP. Large prospective studies are needed in the near future to establish standardized EUS-BD procedures as well as to perform controlled comparative trials between EUS-BD and PTBD, between rendezvous techniques and direct-access techniques (EUS-CDS and EUS-HGS), and between EBD and EUS-BD.