Antoine Debourdeau, Jules Daniel, Ludovic Caillo, Eric Assenat, Martin Bertrand, Thomas Bardol, François-Régis Souche, Philippe Pouderoux, Romain Gerard, Diane Lorenzo, Jean-François Bourgaux
{"title":"内镜逆行胰胆管造影术失败后的恶性远端胆道梗阻患者，内镜超声（EUS）引导下胆总管十二指肠造口术与 EUS 引导下胆囊引流术治疗黄疸的效果对比：回顾性多中心研究（GALLBLADEUS 研究）。","authors":"Antoine Debourdeau, Jules Daniel, Ludovic Caillo, Eric Assenat, Martin Bertrand, Thomas Bardol, François-Régis Souche, Philippe Pouderoux, Romain Gerard, Diane Lorenzo, Jean-François Bourgaux","doi":"10.1111/den.14750","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The aim of this study was to compare endoscopic ultrasound-guided choledochoduodenostomy (EUS-CDS) vs. EUS-gallbladder drainage (EUS-GBD) in cases of failed endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) for jaundice resulting from malignant distal biliary obstruction (MDBO).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This multicenter retrospective study included patients with obstructive jaundice secondary to MDBO who underwent EUS-GBD or EUS-CDS with lumen-apposing metal stents after failed ERCP. The primary end-point was clinical success rate. Secondary end-points were technical success, periprocedural adverse events rate (<24 h), late adverse events rate (>24 h), overall survival, and time to recurrent biliary obstruction.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 78 patients were included: 41 underwent EUS-GBD and 37 underwent EUS-CDS. MDBO was mainly the result of pancreatic cancer (n = 63/78, 80.7%). Clinical success rate was similar for both procedures: 87.8% for EUS-GBD and 89.2% for EUS-CDS (P = 0.8). Technical success rate was 100% for EUS-GBD and 94.6% for EUS-CDS (P = 0.132). Periprocedural morbidity (<24 h) rates were similar between both groups: 4/41 (9.8%) for EUS-GBD and 5/37 (13.5%) for EUS-CDS (P = 0.368). There was a significantly higher rate of late morbidity (>24 h) among patients in the EUS-CDS group (8/37 [21.6%]) than in the EUS-GBD group (3/41 [7.3%]) (P = 0.042). The median follow-up duration was 4.7 months. Overall survival and time to recurrent biliary obstruction did not significantly differ between the groups.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>After failed ERCP for MDBO, EUS-GBD and EUS-CDS show comparable clinical success rates and technical success. EUS-GBD appears to be a promising alternative for MDBO, even as a second-line treatment after failed ERCP. Further studies are needed to validate these findings and compare the long-term outcomes of EUS-GBD and EUS-CDS.</p>","PeriodicalId":72813,"journal":{"name":"Digestive endoscopy : official journal of the Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Effectiveness of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided choledochoduodenostomy vs. EUS-guided gallbladder drainage for jaundice in patients with malignant distal biliary obstruction after failed endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: Retrospective, multicenter study (GALLBLADEUS Study).\",\"authors\":\"Antoine Debourdeau, Jules Daniel, Ludovic Caillo, Eric Assenat, Martin Bertrand, Thomas Bardol, François-Régis Souche, Philippe Pouderoux, Romain Gerard, Diane Lorenzo, Jean-François Bourgaux\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/den.14750\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The aim of this study was to compare endoscopic ultrasound-guided choledochoduodenostomy (EUS-CDS) vs. EUS-gallbladder drainage (EUS-GBD) in cases of failed endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) for jaundice resulting from malignant distal biliary obstruction (MDBO).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This multicenter retrospective study included patients with obstructive jaundice secondary to MDBO who underwent EUS-GBD or EUS-CDS with lumen-apposing metal stents after failed ERCP. The primary end-point was clinical success rate. Secondary end-points were technical success, periprocedural adverse events rate (<24 h), late adverse events rate (>24 h), overall survival, and time to recurrent biliary obstruction.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 78 patients were included: 41 underwent EUS-GBD and 37 underwent EUS-CDS. MDBO was mainly the result of pancreatic cancer (n = 63/78, 80.7%). Clinical success rate was similar for both procedures: 87.8% for EUS-GBD and 89.2% for EUS-CDS (P = 0.8). Technical success rate was 100% for EUS-GBD and 94.6% for EUS-CDS (P = 0.132). Periprocedural morbidity (<24 h) rates were similar between both groups: 4/41 (9.8%) for EUS-GBD and 5/37 (13.5%) for EUS-CDS (P = 0.368). There was a significantly higher rate of late morbidity (>24 h) among patients in the EUS-CDS group (8/37 [21.6%]) than in the EUS-GBD group (3/41 [7.3%]) (P = 0.042). The median follow-up duration was 4.7 months. Overall survival and time to recurrent biliary obstruction did not significantly differ between the groups.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>After failed ERCP for MDBO, EUS-GBD and EUS-CDS show comparable clinical success rates and technical success. EUS-GBD appears to be a promising alternative for MDBO, even as a second-line treatment after failed ERCP. Further studies are needed to validate these findings and compare the long-term outcomes of EUS-GBD and EUS-CDS.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":72813,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Digestive endoscopy : official journal of the Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-02-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Digestive endoscopy : official journal of the Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/den.14750\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Digestive endoscopy : official journal of the Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/den.14750","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Effectiveness of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided choledochoduodenostomy vs. EUS-guided gallbladder drainage for jaundice in patients with malignant distal biliary obstruction after failed endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: Retrospective, multicenter study (GALLBLADEUS Study).
Objectives: The aim of this study was to compare endoscopic ultrasound-guided choledochoduodenostomy (EUS-CDS) vs. EUS-gallbladder drainage (EUS-GBD) in cases of failed endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) for jaundice resulting from malignant distal biliary obstruction (MDBO).
Methods: This multicenter retrospective study included patients with obstructive jaundice secondary to MDBO who underwent EUS-GBD or EUS-CDS with lumen-apposing metal stents after failed ERCP. The primary end-point was clinical success rate. Secondary end-points were technical success, periprocedural adverse events rate (<24 h), late adverse events rate (>24 h), overall survival, and time to recurrent biliary obstruction.
Results: A total of 78 patients were included: 41 underwent EUS-GBD and 37 underwent EUS-CDS. MDBO was mainly the result of pancreatic cancer (n = 63/78, 80.7%). Clinical success rate was similar for both procedures: 87.8% for EUS-GBD and 89.2% for EUS-CDS (P = 0.8). Technical success rate was 100% for EUS-GBD and 94.6% for EUS-CDS (P = 0.132). Periprocedural morbidity (<24 h) rates were similar between both groups: 4/41 (9.8%) for EUS-GBD and 5/37 (13.5%) for EUS-CDS (P = 0.368). There was a significantly higher rate of late morbidity (>24 h) among patients in the EUS-CDS group (8/37 [21.6%]) than in the EUS-GBD group (3/41 [7.3%]) (P = 0.042). The median follow-up duration was 4.7 months. Overall survival and time to recurrent biliary obstruction did not significantly differ between the groups.
Discussion: After failed ERCP for MDBO, EUS-GBD and EUS-CDS show comparable clinical success rates and technical success. EUS-GBD appears to be a promising alternative for MDBO, even as a second-line treatment after failed ERCP. Further studies are needed to validate these findings and compare the long-term outcomes of EUS-GBD and EUS-CDS.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
