Endoscopic ultrasonography-guided gastroenterostomy versus uncovered duodenal metal stenting for unresectable malignant gastric outlet obstruction (DRA-GOO): a multicentre randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic ultrasonography-guided gastroenterostomy (EUS-GE) is a novel endoscopic method to palliate malignant gastric outlet obstruction. We aimed to assess whether the use of EUS-GE with a double balloon occluder for malignant gastric outlet obstruction could reduce the need for reintervention within 6 months compared with conventional duodenal stenting. METHODS: The was an international, multicentre, randomised, controlled trial conducted at seven sites in Hong Kong, Belgium, Brazil, India, Italy, and Spain. Consecutive patients (aged ≥18 years) with malignant gastric outlet obstruction due to unresectable primary gastroduodenal or pancreatobiliary malignancies, a gastric outlet obstruction score (GOOS) of 0 (indicating an inability in intake food or liquids orally), and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score of 3 or lower were included and randomly allocated (1:1) to receive either EUS-GE or duodenal stenting. The primary outcome was the 6-month reintervention rate, defined as the percentage of patients requiring additional endoscopic intervention due to stent dysfunction (ie, restenosis of the stent due to tumour ingrowth, tumour overgrowth, or food residue; stent migration; or stent fracture) within 6 months, analysed in the intention-to-treat population. Prespecified secondary outcomes were technical success (successful placement of a stent), clinical success (1-point improvement in gastric outlet obstruction score [GOOS] within 3 days), adverse events within 30 days, death within 30 days, duration of stent patency, GOOS at 1 month, and quality-of-life scores. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03823690) and is completed. FINDINGS: Between Dec 1, 2020, and Feb 28, 2022, 185 patients were screened and 97 (46 men and 51 women) were recruited and randomly allocated (48 to the EUS-GE group and 49 to the duodenal stent group). Mean age was 69·5 years (SD 12·6) in the EUS-GE group and 64·8 years (13·0) in the duodenal stent group. All randomly allocated patients completed follow-up and were analysed. Reintervention within 6 months was required in two (4%) patients in the EUS-GE group and 14 (29%) in the duodenal stent group [p=0·0020; risk ratio 0·15 [95% CI 0·04-0·61]). Stent patency was longer in the EUS-GE group (median not reached in either group; HR 0·13 [95% CI 0·08-0·22], log-rank p<0·0001). 1-month GOOS was significantly better in the EUS-GE group (mean 2·41 [SD 0·7]) than the duodenal stent group (1·91 [0·9], p=0·012). There were no statistically significant differences between the EUS-GE and duodenal stent groups in death within 30 days (ten [21%] vs six [12%] patients, respectively, p=0·286), technical success, clinical success, or quality-of-life scores at 1 month. Adverse events occurred 11 (23%) patients in the EUS-GE group and 12 (24%) in the duodenal stent group within 30 days (p=1·00); three cases of pneumonia (two in the EUS-GE group and one in the duodenal stent group) were considered to be procedure related. INTERPRETATION: In patients with malignant gastric outlet obstruction, EUS-GE can reduce the frequency of reintervention, improve stent patency, and result in better patient-reported eating habits compared with duodenal stenting, and the procedure should be used preferentially over duodenal stenting when expertise and required devices are available. FUNDING: Research Grants Council (Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, China) and Sociedad Española de Endoscopia Digestiva.

EUS-Guided Choledocho-duodenostomy Using Lumen Apposing Stent Versus ERCP With Covered Metallic Stents in Patients With Unresectable Malignant Distal Biliary Obstruction: A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial (DRA-MBO Trial).

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Several studies have compared primary endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided biliary drainage to endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) with insertion of metal stents in unresectable malignant distal biliary obstruction (MDBO) and the results were conflicting. The aim of the current study was to compare the outcomes of the procedures in a large-scale study. METHODS: This was a multicenter international randomized controlled study. Consecutive patients admitted for obstructive jaundice due to unresectable MDBO were recruited. Patients were randomly allocated to receive EUS-guided choledocho-duodenostomy (ECDS) or ERCP for drainage. The primary outcome was the 1-year stent patency rate. Other outcomes included technical success, clinical success, adverse events, time to stent dysfunction, reintervention rates, and overall survival. RESULTS: Between January 2017 and February 2021, 155 patients were recruited (ECDS 79, ERCP 76). There were no significant differences in 1-year stent patency rates (ECDS 91.1% vs ERCP 88.1%, P = .52). The ECDS group had significantly higher technical success (ECDS 96.2% vs ERCP 76.3%, P < .001), whereas clinical success was similar (ECDS 93.7% vs ERCP 90.8%, P = .559). The median (interquartile range) procedural time was significantly shorter in the ECDS group (ECDS 10 [5.75-18] vs ERCP 25 [14-40] minutes, P < .001). The rate of 30-day adverse events (P = 1) and 30-day mortality (P = .53) were similar. CONCLUSION: Both procedures could be options for primary biliary drainage in unresectable MDBO. ECDS was associated with higher technical success and shorter procedural time then ERCP. Primary ECDS may be preferred when difficult ERCPs are anticipated. This study was registered to Clinicaltrials.gov NCT03000855.

International cross-sectional survey on endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography training by the World Endoscopy Organization.

OBJECTIVES: Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) has revolutionized the treatment of many pancreaticobiliary conditions. However, little is known about the global practices, training programs, and credentialing of the procedure. The aim of the current study is to address the above questions. METHODS: This was an international cross-sectional survey conducted between October 2020 and May 2021. Participating countries were requested to complete an online survey on ERCP services and training. RESULTS: Eighty-nine countries responded to the survey. There were significant increases in the proportion of ERCP services provided by the government (P < 0.0001), number of endoscopists per million of population (P < 0.0001), and number of institutions per million of population (P < 0.0001) from low to high human development index (HDI). Eighteen percent of the countries offer the procedure as part of a standard training program, 68.5% do not follow a standardized training curriculum. Risk factors for higher incidence and mortality from pancreatic cancers include higher HDI category, smaller population, a larger number of endoscopists proficient in ERCP, and lower number of institutions providing ERCP training. Countries with very high HDI have four times higher incidence and mortality from pancreatic cancers as compared to those with low HDI. CONCLUSIONS: There is still an ongoing need for improving ERCP training in low to very high HDI countries. A structured training program is still lacking in many parts of the world. With increasing incidence and mortality of pancreatic cancers, particularly in high HDI countries, there is a need for further increasing facilities for ERCP training.