内镜超声引导胆囊引流术治疗黄疸:严格筛选入选者的二线策略。

IF 5 2区 医学 Q1 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY
Giuseppe Vanella, Francesco Frigo, Paolo Giorgio Arcidiacono
{"title":"内镜超声引导胆囊引流术治疗黄疸:严格筛选入选者的二线策略。","authors":"Giuseppe Vanella,&nbsp;Francesco Frigo,&nbsp;Paolo Giorgio Arcidiacono","doi":"10.1111/den.14876","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>We extend our sincere congratulations to Debourdeau <i>et al</i>. for their GALLBLADEUS Study,<span><sup>1</sup></span> a pioneering retrospective comparative analysis of endoscopic ultrasound-guided choledochoduodenostomy (EUS-CDS) versus gallbladder drainage (EUS-GBD) following failed endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) for managing distal malignant biliary obstruction (dMBO).</p><p>While commending the authors for their objective and balanced reporting of results, this letter aims to dissect and underscore critical points to accurately convey the study's conclusions and avoid a superficial interpretation suggesting equivalence between EUS-CDS and EUS-GBD.</p><p>First, the two study arms appear mutually exclusive, as EUS-GBD seemingly acted as a third-line rescue in patients with failed ERCP and anticipated more challenging EUS-CDS (see significantly lower median bile duct diameter). Second, EUS-GBD exhibited a slower reduction in bilirubin levels at 7 and 30 days compared to EUS-CDS, despite similar chemotherapy access. Moreover, the higher rate of adverse events in the EUS-CDS group mainly stems from dysfunction events, occurring in a population where about 50% of patients presented with duodenal stenosis, an increasingly recognized risk factor for EUS-CDS dysfunction,<span><sup>2-4</sup></span> if not a proper contraindication to EUS-CDS. The study's exclusive focus on transgastric EUS-GBD, likely chosen to avoid the problem of duodenal invasion and mitigate tumor interference, further complicates generalizability. Finally, it is important to remember that EUS-GBD for jaundice inherently relies on a careful assessment of a patent's cystic duct.</p><p>Consequently, while the GALLBLADEUS study implies EUS-GBD as a viable option for selected patients with dMBO where ERCP and EUS-CDS are unfeasible, it falls short of suggesting equivalence between techniques and lots of prerequisites need to be ascertained.</p><p>Notably, EUS-GBD remains untested against EUS-hepaticogastrostomy, which exhibits promising performance, especially in the case of duodenal infiltration.<span><sup>3, 5</sup></span></p><p>The game in the realm of EUS-guided biliary drainage strategies remains open, but our comprehension of the players involved is certainly growing deeper.</p><p>Authors declare no conflict of interest for this article.</p>","PeriodicalId":159,"journal":{"name":"Digestive Endoscopy","volume":"37 1","pages":"130"},"PeriodicalIF":5.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/den.14876","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Endoscopic ultrasound-guided gallbladder drainage for jaundice: Second-line strategy with a strict entry selection\",\"authors\":\"Giuseppe Vanella,&nbsp;Francesco Frigo,&nbsp;Paolo Giorgio Arcidiacono\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/den.14876\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>We extend our sincere congratulations to Debourdeau <i>et al</i>. for their GALLBLADEUS Study,<span><sup>1</sup></span> a pioneering retrospective comparative analysis of endoscopic ultrasound-guided choledochoduodenostomy (EUS-CDS) versus gallbladder drainage (EUS-GBD) following failed endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) for managing distal malignant biliary obstruction (dMBO).</p><p>While commending the authors for their objective and balanced reporting of results, this letter aims to dissect and underscore critical points to accurately convey the study's conclusions and avoid a superficial interpretation suggesting equivalence between EUS-CDS and EUS-GBD.</p><p>First, the two study arms appear mutually exclusive, as EUS-GBD seemingly acted as a third-line rescue in patients with failed ERCP and anticipated more challenging EUS-CDS (see significantly lower median bile duct diameter). Second, EUS-GBD exhibited a slower reduction in bilirubin levels at 7 and 30 days compared to EUS-CDS, despite similar chemotherapy access. Moreover, the higher rate of adverse events in the EUS-CDS group mainly stems from dysfunction events, occurring in a population where about 50% of patients presented with duodenal stenosis, an increasingly recognized risk factor for EUS-CDS dysfunction,<span><sup>2-4</sup></span> if not a proper contraindication to EUS-CDS. The study's exclusive focus on transgastric EUS-GBD, likely chosen to avoid the problem of duodenal invasion and mitigate tumor interference, further complicates generalizability. Finally, it is important to remember that EUS-GBD for jaundice inherently relies on a careful assessment of a patent's cystic duct.</p><p>Consequently, while the GALLBLADEUS study implies EUS-GBD as a viable option for selected patients with dMBO where ERCP and EUS-CDS are unfeasible, it falls short of suggesting equivalence between techniques and lots of prerequisites need to be ascertained.</p><p>Notably, EUS-GBD remains untested against EUS-hepaticogastrostomy, which exhibits promising performance, especially in the case of duodenal infiltration.<span><sup>3, 5</sup></span></p><p>The game in the realm of EUS-guided biliary drainage strategies remains open, but our comprehension of the players involved is certainly growing deeper.</p><p>Authors declare no conflict of interest for this article.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":159,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Digestive Endoscopy\",\"volume\":\"37 1\",\"pages\":\"130\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/den.14876\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Digestive Endoscopy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/den.14876\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Digestive Endoscopy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/den.14876","RegionNum":2,"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

摘要

本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Endoscopic ultrasound-guided gallbladder drainage for jaundice: Second-line strategy with a strict entry selection

We extend our sincere congratulations to Debourdeau et al. for their GALLBLADEUS Study,1 a pioneering retrospective comparative analysis of endoscopic ultrasound-guided choledochoduodenostomy (EUS-CDS) versus gallbladder drainage (EUS-GBD) following failed endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) for managing distal malignant biliary obstruction (dMBO).

While commending the authors for their objective and balanced reporting of results, this letter aims to dissect and underscore critical points to accurately convey the study's conclusions and avoid a superficial interpretation suggesting equivalence between EUS-CDS and EUS-GBD.

First, the two study arms appear mutually exclusive, as EUS-GBD seemingly acted as a third-line rescue in patients with failed ERCP and anticipated more challenging EUS-CDS (see significantly lower median bile duct diameter). Second, EUS-GBD exhibited a slower reduction in bilirubin levels at 7 and 30 days compared to EUS-CDS, despite similar chemotherapy access. Moreover, the higher rate of adverse events in the EUS-CDS group mainly stems from dysfunction events, occurring in a population where about 50% of patients presented with duodenal stenosis, an increasingly recognized risk factor for EUS-CDS dysfunction,2-4 if not a proper contraindication to EUS-CDS. The study's exclusive focus on transgastric EUS-GBD, likely chosen to avoid the problem of duodenal invasion and mitigate tumor interference, further complicates generalizability. Finally, it is important to remember that EUS-GBD for jaundice inherently relies on a careful assessment of a patent's cystic duct.

Consequently, while the GALLBLADEUS study implies EUS-GBD as a viable option for selected patients with dMBO where ERCP and EUS-CDS are unfeasible, it falls short of suggesting equivalence between techniques and lots of prerequisites need to be ascertained.

Notably, EUS-GBD remains untested against EUS-hepaticogastrostomy, which exhibits promising performance, especially in the case of duodenal infiltration.3, 5

The game in the realm of EUS-guided biliary drainage strategies remains open, but our comprehension of the players involved is certainly growing deeper.

Authors declare no conflict of interest for this article.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Digestive Endoscopy
Digestive Endoscopy 医学-外科
CiteScore
10.10
自引率
15.10%
发文量
291
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Digestive Endoscopy (DEN) is the official journal of the Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society, the Asian Pacific Society for Digestive Endoscopy and the World Endoscopy Organization. Digestive Endoscopy serves as a medium for presenting original articles that offer significant contributions to knowledge in the broad field of endoscopy. The Journal also includes Reviews, Original Articles, How I Do It, Case Reports (only of exceptional interest and novelty are accepted), Letters, Techniques and Images, abstracts and news items that may be of interest to endoscopists.
×
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