Endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage for malignant biliary obstruction with surgically altered anatomy: a multicenter prospective registration study.
EUS
EUS-guided biliary drainage
endoscopic ultrasound
interventional EUS
surgically altered anatomy
Journal
Therapeutic advances in gastroenterology
ISSN: 1756-283X
Titre abrégé: Therap Adv Gastroenterol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101478893
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2020
2020
Historique:
received:
21
11
2019
accepted:
11
05
2020
entrez:
11
8
2020
pubmed:
11
8
2020
medline:
11
8
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Endoscopic treatment for malignant biliary obstruction (MBO) in patients bearing surgically altered anatomy (SAA) is not well-established. Although endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) has emerged as a new treatment option for MBO, limited data are available regarding the efficacy and safety of EUS-BD in patients with SAA. We conducted a multicenter prospective registration study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of EUS-BD in this population. This study involved 10 referral centers in Japan. Patients with SAA who were scheduled to receive EUS-BD for unresectable MBO between May 2016 and September 2018 were prospectively registered. The primary endpoint was technical success and the secondary outcomes were clinical success, procedure time, procedure-related adverse events (AEs), stent patency, and overall survival. In total, 40 patients were prospectively enrolled. The surgical reconstruction methods were gastrectomy with Roux-en-Y reconstruction (47.5%), gastrectomy with Billroth-II reconstruction (15%), pancreaticoduodenectomy (27.5%), and hepaticojejunostomy with Roux-en-Y reconstruction (10%). EUS-BD was performed for primary biliary drainage in 31 patients and for rescue biliary drainage in nine patients. Transmural stenting alone (60%), antegrade stenting alone (5%), and a combination of the two techniques (35%) were selected for patients treated with EUS-BD. Technical and clinical success rates were 100% (95% confidence interval, 91.2-100.0%) and 95% (95% confidence interval, 83.1-99.4%), respectively. Mean procedure time was 36.5 min. Early AEs were noted in six patients (15%): three self-limited bile leak, one bile peritonitis, and two pneumoperitonea. Late AEs occurred in six patients (15%): one jejunal ulcer and five stent occlusions. Stent patency rate after 3 months of survival was 95.7% (22/23). Median overall survival was 96 days. EUS-BD for MBO in patients with SAA appears to be effective and safe not only as a rescue drainage technique after failed endoscopic retrograde cholangiography but also as a primary drainage technique. UMIN000022101.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Endoscopic treatment for malignant biliary obstruction (MBO) in patients bearing surgically altered anatomy (SAA) is not well-established. Although endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) has emerged as a new treatment option for MBO, limited data are available regarding the efficacy and safety of EUS-BD in patients with SAA. We conducted a multicenter prospective registration study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of EUS-BD in this population.
METHODS
METHODS
This study involved 10 referral centers in Japan. Patients with SAA who were scheduled to receive EUS-BD for unresectable MBO between May 2016 and September 2018 were prospectively registered. The primary endpoint was technical success and the secondary outcomes were clinical success, procedure time, procedure-related adverse events (AEs), stent patency, and overall survival.
RESULTS
RESULTS
In total, 40 patients were prospectively enrolled. The surgical reconstruction methods were gastrectomy with Roux-en-Y reconstruction (47.5%), gastrectomy with Billroth-II reconstruction (15%), pancreaticoduodenectomy (27.5%), and hepaticojejunostomy with Roux-en-Y reconstruction (10%). EUS-BD was performed for primary biliary drainage in 31 patients and for rescue biliary drainage in nine patients. Transmural stenting alone (60%), antegrade stenting alone (5%), and a combination of the two techniques (35%) were selected for patients treated with EUS-BD. Technical and clinical success rates were 100% (95% confidence interval, 91.2-100.0%) and 95% (95% confidence interval, 83.1-99.4%), respectively. Mean procedure time was 36.5 min. Early AEs were noted in six patients (15%): three self-limited bile leak, one bile peritonitis, and two pneumoperitonea. Late AEs occurred in six patients (15%): one jejunal ulcer and five stent occlusions. Stent patency rate after 3 months of survival was 95.7% (22/23). Median overall survival was 96 days.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
EUS-BD for MBO in patients with SAA appears to be effective and safe not only as a rescue drainage technique after failed endoscopic retrograde cholangiography but also as a primary drainage technique.
CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION
BACKGROUND
UMIN000022101.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32774461
doi: 10.1177/1756284820930964
pii: 10.1177_1756284820930964
pmc: PMC7391429
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
1756284820930964Informations de copyright
© The Author(s), 2020.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Conflict of interest: The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.
Références
Endosc Int Open. 2016 Dec;4(12):E1322-E1327
pubmed: 27995197
Endoscopy. 2015 Sep;47(9):794-801
pubmed: 25961443
Gastrointest Endosc. 2018 Aug;88(2):277-282
pubmed: 29605722
World J Gastrointest Endosc. 2019 Apr 16;11(4):281-291
pubmed: 31040889
J Gastrointest Surg. 2018 Jul;22(7):1213-1220
pubmed: 29532359
Gastrointest Endosc. 2013 Jul;78(1):91-101
pubmed: 23523301
Am J Gastroenterol. 2018 Jul;113(7):987-997
pubmed: 29961772
Dig Dis Sci. 2016 Mar;61(3):684-703
pubmed: 26518417
J Med Ultrason (2001). 2018 Jul;45(3):399-403
pubmed: 29235065
Medicine (Baltimore). 2017 Jan;96(3):e5154
pubmed: 28099327
J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci. 2019 Jul;26(7):249-269
pubmed: 31025816
Gut. 2018 Jul;67(7):1209-1228
pubmed: 29463614
World J Gastroenterol. 2020 Mar 7;26(9):947-959
pubmed: 32206005
Gastrointest Endosc. 2016 Jun;83(6):1218-27
pubmed: 26542374
J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci. 2014 May;21(5):328-34
pubmed: 24026963
Gastrointest Endosc. 2016 Dec;84(6):941-946
pubmed: 27237786
Gastrointest Endosc. 2017 May;85(5):1067-1075
pubmed: 27650270
World J Gastrointest Endosc. 2015 Mar 16;7(3):283-9
pubmed: 25789101
Endoscopy. 2001 Oct;33(10):898-900
pubmed: 11571690
Gastrointest Endosc. 2010 Mar;71(3):446-54
pubmed: 20189503
Gastrointest Endosc. 2012 Dec;76(6):1133-41
pubmed: 23021167
Dig Endosc. 2017 Mar;29(2):218-225
pubmed: 27862346
Sci Rep. 2019 Nov 12;9(1):16551
pubmed: 31719562
J Clin Gastroenterol. 2018 Feb;52(2):123-130
pubmed: 29095426
Gastrointest Endosc. 2015 Jul;82(1):9-19
pubmed: 25922248
Dig Endosc. 2018 Jan;30(1):38-47
pubmed: 28656640
Gastrointest Endosc. 2020 Apr 9;:
pubmed: 32278705
J Gastrointest Cancer. 2019 Sep;50(3):469-477
pubmed: 29656352
Transl Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2018 Nov 09;3:90
pubmed: 30603726
Dig Endosc. 2017 May;29(3):362-368
pubmed: 28066983
Dig Endosc. 2018 Mar;30(2):252-259
pubmed: 29055054
Saudi J Gastroenterol. 2017 May-Jun;23(3):150-160
pubmed: 28611338
Endoscopy. 2009 Oct;41(10):849-54
pubmed: 19750447
Gastrointest Endosc. 2015 Aug;82(2):390-396.e2
pubmed: 25936451
Endoscopy. 2005 Feb;37(2):139-45
pubmed: 15692929
Gastrointest Endosc. 2018 Jul;88(1):9-17
pubmed: 29574126
Endoscopy. 2009 Jun;41(6):532-8
pubmed: 19533558
Dig Endosc. 2019 Sep;31(5):575-582
pubmed: 30908711
Endosc Int Open. 2016 Apr;4(4):E487-96
pubmed: 27092334
Endoscopy. 2019 Oct;51(10):950-960
pubmed: 31121627
Endoscopy. 2018 Sep;50(9):910-930
pubmed: 30086596