EUS-guided gastrojejunostomy and hepaticogastrostomy for malignant duodenal and biliary obstruction.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Platt KD
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7859654 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Video 1Demonstration of deploying lumen-apposing metal stents for gastrogastrostomy and choledochoduodenostomy in a patient with Roux-en-Y gastric bypass anatomy, as well as EUS-guided fine needle biopsy for pancreatic mass.
| S-EPMC8186001 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES:Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is the method of choice for drainage in patients with distal malignant biliary obstruction, but it fails in up to 10% of cases. Percutaneous transhepatic cholangiography (PTC) and surgical bypass are the traditional drainage alternatives. This study aimed to compare technical and clinical success, quality of life, and survival of surgical biliary bypass or hepaticojejunostomy (HJT) and endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided choledochoduodenostomy (CDT) in patients with distal malignant bile duct obstruction and failed ERCP. PATIENTS AND METHODS:A prospective, randomized trial was conducted. From March 2011 to September 2013, 32 patients with malignant distal biliary obstruction and failed ERCP were studied. The HJT group consisted of 15 patients and the CDT group consisted of 14 patients. Technical and clinical success, quality of life, and survival were assessed prospectively. RESULTS:Technical success was 94% (15/16) in the HJT group and 88% (14/16) in the CDT group (P = 0.598). Clinical success occurred in 14 (93%) patients in the HJT group and in 10 (71%) patients in the CDT group (P = 0.169). During follow-up, a statistically significant difference was seen in mean functional capacity scores, physical health, pain, social functioning, and emotional and mental health aspects in both techniques (P < 0.05). The median survival time in both groups was the same (82 days). CONCLUSION:Data relating to technical and clinical success, quality of life, and survival were similar in patients who underwent HJT and CDT drainage after failed ERCP for malignant distal biliary obstruction.
| S-EPMC4568637 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC7483716 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC7806496 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) with transpapillary metal stenting is the standard palliation method for malignant distal biliary obstruction (MDBO); however, post-ERCP pancreatitis are not uncommon. Endoscopic ultrasonography-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) with transmural metal stenting has emerged as an option for primary palliation of MDBO. We compared the efficacy and safety of these procedures as first-line MDBO treatment. We searched for relevant English-language articles in PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases. The outcomes of interest were technical success, clinical success, adverse events, stent patency, reintervention rates, and procedure time. Subgroup analysis was performed for patients without duodenal invasion (eg, endoscopically accessible papilla; EUS-choledochoduodenostomy [CDS] vs. ERCP). Ten studies (3 randomized trials and 7 retrospective studies) with 756 patients were included. The cumulative technical and clinical success rates were high for both procedures (EUS-BD: 94.8% [294/310] and 93.8% [286/305], ERCP: 96.5% [386/400] and 95.7% [377/394]). The cumulative adverse event rates were 16.3% (54/331) for EUS-BD and 18.3% (78/425) for ERCP. In subgroup analysis for patients without duodenal invasion, EUS-CDS showed similar cumulative technical and clinical success rate with ERCP (technical success rate, EUS-CDS vs. ERCP: 94.2% [146/155] vs. 97.8% [237/242]; clinical success rate, EUS-CDS vs. ERCP: 94.2% [145/154] vs. 93.0% [225/242]). The cumulative rate of adverse events for EUS-CDS and ERCP was also comparable (15.5% [24/155] for EUS-CDS and 18.6% [45/242] for ERCP). As first-line palliation of MDBO, EUS-BD was similar to ERCP in technical and clinical success and safety; however, larger randomized trials comparing EUS-CDS and ERCP in this setting with endoscopically accessible papilla may be required.
| S-EPMC6851119 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background and study aims Although endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is standard of care for malignant biliary obstruction, endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) as a primary treatment has become increasingly utilized. The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of EUS-BD for primary treatment of malignant biliary obstruction and comparison to traditional ERCP. Methods Individualized search strategies were developed through November 2018 using PRISMA and MOOSE guidelines. A cumulative meta-analysis was performed by calculating pooled proportions. Subgroup analysis was performed for studies comparing EUS-BD versus ERCP. Heterogeneity was assessed with Cochran Q test or I 2 statistics, and publication bias by funnel plot and Egger's tests. Results Seven studies (n = 193 patients; 57.5 % males) evaluating primary EUS-BD for malignant biliary obstruction were included. Mean age was 67.4 years (2.3) followed an average of 5.4 months (1.0). For primary EUS-BD, pooled technical success, clinical success, and adverse event (AE) rates were 95 % (95 % CI 91 - 98), 97 % (95 % CI 93 - 100), and 19 % (95 % CI 11 - 29), respectively. Among EUS-BD and ERCP comparator studies, technical and clinical success, and total AEs were not different with lower rates of post-ERCP pancreatitis and reintervention among the EUS-BD group. Conclusion Primary EUS-BD is an effective treatment with few AE. Comparing EUS-BD versus ERCP, EUS-BD has comparable efficacy and improved safety as a primary treatment for malignant biliary obstruction. Further randomized trials should be performed to identify patient populations and clinical scenarios in which primary EUS-BD would be most appropriate.
| S-EPMC6805205 | biostudies-literature
Project description:There is a paucity of evidence regarding whether biliary stents influence endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition using either fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) or fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA), among patients with head of pancreas (HOP) lesions. We aimed at assessing the diagnostic accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue sampling in patients with or without bile duct stents. A total of seven studies with 2458 patients were included. The main aim was to assess overall pooled diagnostic accuracy. A pairwise meta-analysis was performed using a random effects model. Outcomes were expressed as odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We found that pooled accuracy was 85.4% (CI 78.8-91.9) and 88.1% (CI 83.3-92.9) in patients with and without stents, respectively. There was no statistically significant difference between the two (OR 0.74; p = 0.07). Furthermore, patients with metal stents demonstrated a significant difference (OR 0.54, 0.17-0.97; p = 0.05), which was not seen with plastic stents. EUS-FNB showed poorer diagnostic accuracy with concurrent biliary stenting (OR 0.64, 0.43-0.95; p = 0.03); however, the same was not observed with EUS-FNA. Compared to plastic stents, metal biliary stenting further impacted the diagnostic accuracy of EUS-guided tissue acquisition for pancreatic head lesions. There was no difference in the rate of procedure-related adverse events between the stent and no-stent groups.
| S-EPMC10046620 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC9258012 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background/purposeThis study aimed to evaluate the feasibility of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided antegrade covered stent placement with long duodenal extension (EASL) for malignant distal biliary obstruction (MDBO) with duodenal obstruction (DO) or surgically altered anatomy (SAA) after failed endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP).MethodsOutcomes were technical and clinical success, reintervention rate, adverse events, stent patency, and overall survival. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) and competing-risk analysis were performed to compare with conventional EUS-BD.ResultsTwenty-five patients (DO, n = 18; SAA, n = 7) were included. The technical and clinical success rates were 96% and 84%, respectively. Reintervention occurred in two patients (8.3%). Adverse events occurred in six patients (24%; two cholangitis, 16%; four mild postprocedural pancreatitis [24% (n = 4/17) in patients with non-pancreatic cancers]). The median patency was 9.4 months, and the overall survival was 2.73 months. After IPTW adjustment, the median patency in the EASL (n = 25) and conventional EUS-BD (n = 29) were 10.1 and 6.5 months, respectively (P = .018).ConclusionsEASL has acceptable clinical outcomes with a low reintervention rate but higher rate of postprocedural pancreatitis in patients with non-pancreatic cancers. Randomized trials comparing EASL and conventional EUS-BD for MDBO with pancreatic cancers and DO/SAA after failed ERCP are needed to validate our findings.
| S-EPMC9290461 | biostudies-literature
Project description:INTRODUCTION:Data about the efficacy of palliative double stenting for malignant duodenal and biliary obstruction are limited. METHODS:A systematic literature search was performed to assess the feasibility and optimal method of double stenting for malignant duodenobiliary obstruction compared with surgical double bypass in terms of technical and clinical success, adverse events, reinterventions, and survival. Event rates with 95% confidence intervals were calculated. RESULTS:Seventy-two retrospective and 8 prospective studies published until July 2018 were included. Technical and clinical success rates of double stenting were 97% (95%-99%) and 92% (89%-95%), respectively. Clinical success of endoscopic biliary stenting was higher than that of surgery (97% [94%-99%] vs 86% [78%-92%]). Double stenting was associated with less adverse events (13% [8%-19%] vs 28% [19%-38%]) but more frequent need for reintervention (21% [16%-27%] vs 10% [4%-19%]) than double bypass. No significant difference was found between technical and clinical success and reintervention rate of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), percutaneous transhepatic drainage, and endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage. ERCP was associated with the least adverse events (3% [1%-6%]), followed by percutaneous transhepatic drainage (10% [0%-37%]) and endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage (23% [15%-33%]). DISCUSSION:Substantially high technical and clinical success can be achieved with double stenting. Based on the adverse event profile, ERCP can be recommended as the first choice for biliary stenting as part of double stenting, if feasible. Prospective comparative studies with well-defined outcomes and cohorts are needed.
| S-EPMC7263659 | biostudies-literature