Rate of suitable cases for primary EUS-guided biliary drainage in distal malignant biliary obstruction

IF 23 1区 医学 Q1 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY
Gut Pub Date : 2025-02-26 DOI:10.1136/gutjnl-2025-334979
Ji Young Bang, Maryam Faraj Agha, Robert Hawes, Shyam Varadarajulu
{"title":"Rate of suitable cases for primary EUS-guided biliary drainage in distal malignant biliary obstruction","authors":"Ji Young Bang, Maryam Faraj Agha, Robert Hawes, Shyam Varadarajulu","doi":"10.1136/gutjnl-2025-334979","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) has been suggested as the primary modality in lieu of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) for drainage of malignant distal biliary obstruction. However, the presence of a dilated bile duct (≥12 mm) is a prerequisite for the success of the EUS approach. In a retrospective study, we found that 44.9% of 439 ERCP patients over a 3-year period had insufficiently dilated bile duct that was not conducive for an EUS-based intervention. 29 patients were treated by a salvage EUS approach, with median bile duct diameter of 16 mm (IQR 13–18 mm). Although indispensable as a rescue technique, adopting current techniques and technology, this study does not suggest a universal primary role for EUS in this setting. Although ERCP is the preferred therapeutic strategy for malignant distal biliary obstruction, duodenal invasion by tumour can limit technical success. Also, stent dysfunction from tumour ingrowth and post-ERCP pancreatitis are well recognised limitations. Since the early 2000s, EUS-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) has emerged as a promising treatment alternative for ERCP. The ability to bypass tumour invasion and avoid instrumentation of the pancreatic duct increases the likelihood of technical success and minimises risk for pancreatitis. A recent meta-analysis of six randomised controlled trials (RCT) comparing EUS and ERCP involving 570 subjects found that patients undergoing EUS-BD required fewer reinterventions and had reduced risk of postprocedure pancreatitis.1 Given these promising observations, it has been suggested that EUS could potentially replace ERCP as the primary treatment modality. However, technical manoeuvres such as accessing the bile duct using a 19-gauge fine needle aspiration (FNA) device to enable guidewire passage or cauterised delivery tip to facilitate lumen-apposing metal stent (LAMS) placement require the presence of a dilated common bile duct (CBD). In two of six RCTs, CBD diameter of ≥12 mm was specified as eligibility criteria …","PeriodicalId":12825,"journal":{"name":"Gut","volume":"36 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":23.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Gut","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/gutjnl-2025-334979","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) has been suggested as the primary modality in lieu of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) for drainage of malignant distal biliary obstruction. However, the presence of a dilated bile duct (≥12 mm) is a prerequisite for the success of the EUS approach. In a retrospective study, we found that 44.9% of 439 ERCP patients over a 3-year period had insufficiently dilated bile duct that was not conducive for an EUS-based intervention. 29 patients were treated by a salvage EUS approach, with median bile duct diameter of 16 mm (IQR 13–18 mm). Although indispensable as a rescue technique, adopting current techniques and technology, this study does not suggest a universal primary role for EUS in this setting. Although ERCP is the preferred therapeutic strategy for malignant distal biliary obstruction, duodenal invasion by tumour can limit technical success. Also, stent dysfunction from tumour ingrowth and post-ERCP pancreatitis are well recognised limitations. Since the early 2000s, EUS-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) has emerged as a promising treatment alternative for ERCP. The ability to bypass tumour invasion and avoid instrumentation of the pancreatic duct increases the likelihood of technical success and minimises risk for pancreatitis. A recent meta-analysis of six randomised controlled trials (RCT) comparing EUS and ERCP involving 570 subjects found that patients undergoing EUS-BD required fewer reinterventions and had reduced risk of postprocedure pancreatitis.1 Given these promising observations, it has been suggested that EUS could potentially replace ERCP as the primary treatment modality. However, technical manoeuvres such as accessing the bile duct using a 19-gauge fine needle aspiration (FNA) device to enable guidewire passage or cauterised delivery tip to facilitate lumen-apposing metal stent (LAMS) placement require the presence of a dilated common bile duct (CBD). In two of six RCTs, CBD diameter of ≥12 mm was specified as eligibility criteria …
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Gut
Gut 医学-胃肠肝病学
CiteScore
45.70
自引率
2.40%
发文量
284
审稿时长
1.5 months
期刊介绍: Gut is a renowned international journal specializing in gastroenterology and hepatology, known for its high-quality clinical research covering the alimentary tract, liver, biliary tree, and pancreas. It offers authoritative and current coverage across all aspects of gastroenterology and hepatology, featuring articles on emerging disease mechanisms and innovative diagnostic and therapeutic approaches authored by leading experts. As the flagship journal of BMJ's gastroenterology portfolio, Gut is accompanied by two companion journals: Frontline Gastroenterology, focusing on education and practice-oriented papers, and BMJ Open Gastroenterology for open access original research.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信