Long-term outcomes of EUS-guided transluminal stent deployment for benign biliary disease: Multicenter clinical experience (with videos).
Benign disease
EUS
EUS biliary drainage
EUS hepaticogastrostomy
EUS-guided biliary drainage
Journal
Endoscopic ultrasound
ISSN: 2303-9027
Titre abrégé: Endosc Ultrasound
Pays: China
ID NLM: 101622292
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Historique:
pubmed:
26
9
2019
medline:
26
9
2019
entrez:
26
9
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Biliary drainage (BD) under EUS guidance is usually indicated for malignant biliary obstruction. Recently, EUS-guided transluminal treatment has been applied to benign biliary disease (BBD). This multicenter retrospective study evaluated the clinical impact of EUS-guided transluminal stent deployment for BBD with long-term follow-up. This retrospective study investigated patients treated between September 2015 and October 2016 at participating hospitals in the therapeutic endoscopic group. The inclusion criteria comprised complications with BBD obstructive jaundice or cholangitis and failed endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography or inaccessible ampulla of Vater. Twenty-six patients underwent EUS-guided transluminal stent deployment. Indications for EUS-guided transluminal stent deployment comprised anastomotic biliary stricture (n = 17), bile duct stones (n = 5), inflammatory biliary stricture (n = 3), and acute pancreatitis prevention (n = 1). Thirteen of these 26 patients underwent scheduled reintervention, with technical success achieved in all 13 patients. None of the deployed stents became dysfunctional. Among the 13 patients who underwent reintervention on demand, stents had become dysfunctional in six patients (stent patency: 48, 90, 172, 288, 289, and 608 days). Reintervention was successfully performed in all patients. During follow-up (median, 749 days), severe adverse events were not seen in any patients. We concluded that EUS-guided transluminal stent deployment for BBD is feasible and safe. Because metal stent dysfunction was more frequent when deployed on demand, such stents should be exchanged for plastic stents in a scheduled manner if a metal stent is used.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES
OBJECTIVE
Biliary drainage (BD) under EUS guidance is usually indicated for malignant biliary obstruction. Recently, EUS-guided transluminal treatment has been applied to benign biliary disease (BBD). This multicenter retrospective study evaluated the clinical impact of EUS-guided transluminal stent deployment for BBD with long-term follow-up.
PATIENTS AND METHODS
METHODS
This retrospective study investigated patients treated between September 2015 and October 2016 at participating hospitals in the therapeutic endoscopic group. The inclusion criteria comprised complications with BBD obstructive jaundice or cholangitis and failed endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography or inaccessible ampulla of Vater.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Twenty-six patients underwent EUS-guided transluminal stent deployment. Indications for EUS-guided transluminal stent deployment comprised anastomotic biliary stricture (n = 17), bile duct stones (n = 5), inflammatory biliary stricture (n = 3), and acute pancreatitis prevention (n = 1). Thirteen of these 26 patients underwent scheduled reintervention, with technical success achieved in all 13 patients. None of the deployed stents became dysfunctional. Among the 13 patients who underwent reintervention on demand, stents had become dysfunctional in six patients (stent patency: 48, 90, 172, 288, 289, and 608 days). Reintervention was successfully performed in all patients. During follow-up (median, 749 days), severe adverse events were not seen in any patients.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
We concluded that EUS-guided transluminal stent deployment for BBD is feasible and safe. Because metal stent dysfunction was more frequent when deployed on demand, such stents should be exchanged for plastic stents in a scheduled manner if a metal stent is used.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31552912
pii: 267836
doi: 10.4103/eus.eus_45_19
pmc: PMC6927148
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
398-403Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
None
Références
Gastrointest Endosc. 2018 Sep;88(3):547-554
pubmed: 29729226
Gastrointest Endosc. 2002 May;55(6):680-6
pubmed: 11979250
J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci. 2016 Oct;23(10):628-635
pubmed: 27474880
Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am. 2018 Apr;28(2):171-185
pubmed: 29519330
Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 1988 Apr;11(2):65-71
pubmed: 2455599
Gastroenterology. 2014 Aug;147(2):385-95; quiz e15
pubmed: 24801350
Gastrointest Endosc. 2007 Jul;66(1):44-51
pubmed: 17591473
BMC Gastroenterol. 2018 Jan 18;18(1):14
pubmed: 29347923
Curr Opin Gastroenterol. 2016 May;32(3):232-7
pubmed: 26959514
Gastrointest Endosc. 2001 Aug;54(2):162-8
pubmed: 11474384
J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci. 2016 Apr;23(4):227-33
pubmed: 26849099
Gastrointest Endosc. 2010 Mar;71(3):446-54
pubmed: 20189503
Dig Endosc. 2018 Apr;30 Suppl 1:67-74
pubmed: 29658650
J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci. 2013 Apr;20(4):413-20
pubmed: 23179560
Dig Endosc. 2017 Mar;29(2):198-210
pubmed: 27681297
Gastrointest Endosc. 2017 May;85(5):904-914
pubmed: 28063840
Dig Endosc. 2018 Jan;30(1):38-47
pubmed: 28656640
Tech Vasc Interv Radiol. 2001 Sep;4(3):200-6
pubmed: 11748558
Dig Dis Sci. 2018 Mar;63(3):787-796
pubmed: 29349694
Endoscopy. 2015;47 Suppl 1 UCTN:E340-1
pubmed: 26218039
Arch Surg. 2001 Apr;136(4):391-8
pubmed: 11296108
J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2017 Jul;32(7):1348-1354
pubmed: 28019036
Radiology. 1984 Aug;152(2):343-6
pubmed: 6739796
Dig Endosc. 2016 Apr;28 Suppl 1:96-101
pubmed: 26786389
Gastrointest Endosc. 2012 Apr;75(4):783-9
pubmed: 22325806
J Gastrointest Surg. 2007 Dec;11(12):1704-11
pubmed: 17929105
Gut. 2018 Jul;67(7):1209-1228
pubmed: 29463614
Gut Liver. 2018 Jul 15;12(4):457-462
pubmed: 29409310
Gastrointest Endosc. 2016 Feb;83(2):394-400
pubmed: 26089103
J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci. 2014 Dec;21(12):E86-93
pubmed: 25231935