Endoscopic ultrasound-guided gallbladder drainage reduces adverse events compared with percutaneous cholecystostomy in patients who are unfit for cholecystectomy.

Background and study aim There are no data comparing endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided gallbladder drainage (EGBD) with percutaneous cholecystostomy as a treatment for patients with acute cholecystitis. Patients and methods This was a 1 : 1 matched cohort study of all patients who were unfit for cholecystectomy and underwent EGBD or percutaneous cholecystostomy instead for the treatment of acute cholecystitis. The outcomes were matched for age, sex, and American Society of Anesthesiologists grade. Outcome measures included the technical and clinical success rates, adverse events, hospital stay, the number of unplanned admissions, and mortality. Results Between November 2011 and August 2014, a total of 118 patients were included in the study (59 EGBD, 59 percutaneous cholecystostomy). Technical and clinical success rates were similar. In the EGBD group, significantly fewer patients suffered from overall adverse events (19 [32.2 %] vs. 44 [74.6 %]; P < 0.001) and serious adverse events (14 [23.7 %] vs. 44 [74.6 %]; P < 0.001) compared to the percutaneous cholecystostomy group. Patients in the EGBD group required fewer unplanned admissions (4 [6.8 %] vs. 42 [71.2 %]; P < 0.001), which were due to problems related to the cholecystostomy tube in 95.2 %. The 30-day adverse event rates were similar between the groups (17 [28.8 %] vs. 10 [16.9 %]; P = 0.13). For instance, recurrent acute cholecystitis occurred in 0 patients in the EGBD group and in 4 (6.8 %) patients in the percutaneous cholecystostomy group (P = 0.12). The 30-day mortality rates were non-significantly higher in the EGBD group (5 [8.5 %] vs. 1 [1.7 %]; P = 0.21). Conclusions EGBD and percutaneous cholecystostomy were both effective means of achieving gallbladder drainage. EGBD may be a promising alternative to percutaneous cholecystostomy for treatment of acute cholecystitis in patients who are unfit for surgery, provided that experienced endosonographers are available.

Interventional EUS Using a Flexible 19-Gauge Needle: An International Multicenter Experience in 162 Patients.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: To facilitate access for interventional EUS, flexible (nitinol) 19-G needles have been introduced to permit needle puncture even when the echoendoscope is in an angulated position, such as in the second part of the duodenum. The aims of the study were to evaluate the performance of a flexible 19-G needle during interventional EUS procedures and compare outcomes when the echoendoscope was in the straight versus angulated position. METHODS: A retrospective review was undertaken of 162 consecutive patients that underwent a variety of interventional EUS procedures with a flexible 19-G needle across five centers. Patients were subdivided into categories (straight or angulated) depending on the echoendoscope position used for obtaining access to the area of interest (Fig. 1). Fig. 1 Flexible 19-G needle design. a The needle is able to exit the sheath despite the rotated position. b The needle beveled needle tip RESULTS: In the entire cohort, needle-specific technical success was achieved in 93.2 %, procedural success in 85.2 %, and overall clinical success in 76.5 % of cases at a mean follow-up of 3.1 months. Needle-specific technical success was similar between the straight and angulated cohorts (94.0 vs. 91.2 %, p = 0.74). Procedural success (86.7 vs. 77.2 %, p = 0.05), and rate of clinical success was similar between the cohorts (83.3 vs. 86.4 %, p = 0.79), respectively. Overall adverse events were noted in 14.2 % of patients with no difference between the straight and angulated cohorts (p = 0.48). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates equivalent technical success, clinical success and safety of using a flexible 19-G needle in straight and angulated endoscope positions for interventional EUS. Therefore, a flexible needle may be considered where an angulated echoendoscope position is encountered.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided gastrojejunostomy with a lumen-apposing metal stent: a multicenter, international experience.

BACKGROUND: Surgical gastrojejunostomy and enteral self-expanding metal stents are efficacious for the management of gastric outlet obstruction but limited by high complication rates and short-term efficacy. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided gastrojejunostomy (EUS-GJ) is a novel alternative option. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients who underwent EUS-GJ between March 2014 and September 2015 as part of a prospective multicenter registry at four academic centers in two countries were included. Technical success was defined as successful placement of a gastrojejunal lumen-apposing metal stent. Clinical success was defined as the ability of the patient to tolerate an oral diet. Post-procedural adverse events were recorded. RESULTS: The study included 26 patients, of whom 11 (42 %) were male. Technical success was achieved in 24 patients (92 %). Clinical success was achieved in 22 patients (85 %). Of the 4 patients in whom clinical success was not achieved, 2 had persistent nausea and vomiting despite a patent EUS-GJ and required enteral feeding for nutrition, 1 died before the initiation of an oral diet, and 1 underwent surgery for suspected perforation. Adverse events, including peritonitis, bleeding, and surgery, occurred in 3 patients (11.5 %). CONCLUSION: EUS-GJ is an emerging procedure that has efficacy and safety comparable with those of current therapies and should hold a place as a new minimally invasive option for patients with gastric outlet obstruction. Clinical trial identification number: NCT01522573.

International collaborative study on EUS-guided gallbladder drainage: Are we ready for prime time?

BACKGROUND: Cholecystectomy remains the gold standard treatment of cholecystitis. Endoscopic treatment of cholecystitis includes transpapillary gallbladder drainage. Recently, endoscopic ultrasound-guided transmural drainage of the gallbladder (EUS-GBD) has been reported. This study reports the cumulative experience of an international group performing EUS-GBD. METHODS: Cases of EUS-GBD from January 2012 to November 2013 from 3 tertiary-care institutions were captured in a registry. Patient demographics, disease characteristics, procedural and clinical outcomes were recorded. RESULTS: 35 patients (15 malignant, 20 benign) were included. Median age was 81 years (SD=13.76 years), sixteen (46%) were males. Median follow-up was 91.5 days (SD=157 days). Transmural access was obtained from the stomach (n=17) or duodenum (n=18). Stents placed included plastic (n=6), metal (n=20), or combination (n=7). Technical success was achieved in 91.4% (n=32). Immediate adverse events (14%) included: bleeding, stent migration, cholecystitis and hemoperitoneum. Delayed adverse events (11%) included abscess formation and recurrence of cholecystitis. Long-term clinical success rate was 89%. Stent type and puncture site were not associated with immediate (p=0.88, p=0.62), or long-term (p=0.47, p=0.27) success. CONCLUSIONS: EUS-GBD appears to be feasible, safe, and effective. Prospective studies are needed to confirm these findings and identify the best technique to use. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01522573.

EUS-guided biliary drainage or enteroscopy-assisted ERCP in patients with surgical anatomy and biliary obstruction: an international comparative study.

Background and study aims: How enteroscopy-assisted ERCP (e-ERCP) and endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) compare in patients with surgically altered upper gastrointestinal anatomy is currently unknown. The aims of this study were to compare efficacy and safety of both techniques and study predictors of these outcomes. Patients and methods: This was an international, multicenter comparative cohort study at 10 tertiary centers. Outcomes data included technical success (biliary access with cholangiography and stent placement [when indicated]), clinical success (resolution of biliary obstruction) and adverse events (AEs) (graded according to the ASGE lexicon). Results: A total of 98 patients underwent EUS-BD (n = 49) or e-ERCP (n = 49). Technical success was achieved in 48 (98 %) patients in the EUS-BD group as compared to 32 (65.3 %) patients in the e-ERCP group (OR 12.48, P = 0.001). Clinical success was attained in 88 % of patients in EUS-BD group as compared to 59.1 % in the e-ERCP group (OR 2.83, P = 0.03). Procedural time was significantly shorter in the EUS-BD group (55 min vs 95 min, P < 0.0001). AEs occurred more commonly in the EUS-BD group (20 % vs. 4 %, P = 0.01). However, the majority (90 %) of AEs were mild/moderate. Length of stay was significantly longer in the EUS-BD group (6.6 d vs. 2.4 d, P < 0.0001). Conclusions: EUS-BD can be performed with a higher degree of clinical efficacy and shorter procedure time than e-ERCP in patients with surgically-altered upper gastrointestinal anatomy. Whether or not this approach should be first-line therapy in this patient population is highly dependent on the indication for the procedure, the patient's anatomy, and local practice and expertise.

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

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: Endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) can be performed entirely transgastrically (hepatogastrostomy/EUS-HG) or transduodenally (choledochoduodenostomy/EUS-CDS). It is unknown how both techniques compare. The aims of this study were to compare efficacy and safety of both techniques and identify predictors of adverse events. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Consecutive jaundiced patients with distal malignant biliary obstruction who underwent EUS-BD at multiple international centers were included. Technical/clinical success, adverse events, stent complications, and survival were assessed. RESULTS: A total of 121 patients underwent EUS-BD (CDS 60, HG 61). Technical success was achieved in 112 (92.56 %) patients (EUS-CDS 93.3 %, EUS-HG 91.8 %, P = 0.75). Clinical success was attained in 85.5 % of patients who underwent EUS-CDS group as compared to 82.1 % of patients who underwent EUS-HG (P = 0.64). Adverse events occurred more commonly in the EUS-HG group (19.67 % vs. 13.3 %, P = 0.37). Both plastic stenting (OR 4.95, 95 %CI 1.41 - 17.38, P = 0.01) and use of non-coaxial electrocautery (OR 3.95, 95 %CI 1.16 - 13.40, P = 0.03) were independently associated with adverse events. Length of hospital stay was significantly shorter in the CDS group (5.6 days vs. 12.7 days, P < 0.001). Mean follow-up duration was 151 ±â€Š159 days. The 1-year stent patency probability was greater in the EUS-CDS group [0.98 (95 %CI 0.76 - 0.96) vs 0.60 (95 %CI 0.35 - 0.78)] but overall patency was not significantly different. There was no difference in median survival times between the groups (P = 0.36) CONCLUSIONS: Both EUS-CDS and EUS-HG are effective and safe techniques for the treatment of distal biliary obstruction after failed ERCP. However, CDS is associated with shorter hospital stay, improved stent patency, and fewer procedure- and stent-related complications. Metallic stents should be placed whenever feasible and non-coaxial electrocautery should be avoided when possible as plastic stenting and non-coaxial electrocautery were independently associated with occurrence of adverse events.

Prospective international multicenter study on endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage for patients with malignant distal biliary obstruction after failed endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) has emerged as an alternative to traditional radiologic and surgical drainage procedures after failed endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). However, prospective multicenter data are lacking. The aims of this study were to prospectively assess the short- and long-term efficacy and safety of EUS-BD in patients with malignant distal biliary obstruction. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Consecutive patients at 12 tertiary centers (5 US, 5 European, 1 Asian, 1 South American) with malignant distal biliary obstruction and failed ERCP underwent EUS-BD. Technical success was defined as successful stent placement in the desired position. Clinical success was defined as a reduction in bilirubin by 50 % at 2 weeks or to below 3 mg/dL at 4 weeks. Adverse events were prospectively tracked and graded according to the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) lexicon's severity grading system. Overall survival and duration of stent patency were calculated using Kaplan-Meier analysis. RESULTS: A total of 96 patients (mean age 66 years, female 45 %, pancreatic cancer 55 %) underwent EUS-BD. Stent placement (technical success) was achieved in 92 (95.8 %) patients (metallic stent 84, plastic stent 8). Mean procedure time was 40 minutes. Clinical success was achieved in 86 (89.5 %) patients. A total of 10 (10.5 %) adverse events occurred: pneumoperitoneum (n = 2), sheared wire (n = 1), bleeding (n = 1), bile leak (n = 3), cholangitis (n = 2), and unintentional perforation (n = 1); 4 graded as mild, 4 moderate, 1 severe, and 1 fatal (due to perforation). A total of 38 (44 %) patients died of disease progression during the study period. The median patient survival was 167 days (95 %CI 112 - 221) days. The 6-month stent patency rate was 95 % (95 %CI 94.94 - 95.06 %) and the 1-year stent patency was 86 % (95 %CI 85.74 - 86.26 %). CONCLUSION: This study on EUS-BD demonstrates excellent efficacy and safety of EUS-BD when performed by experts. STUDY REGISTRATION: NCT01889953.