Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Endosc Int Open. 2016 Dec;4(12):E1322-E1327. Epub 2016 Aug 30.

EUS-guided biliary drainage or enteroscopy-assisted ERCP in patients with surgical anatomy and biliary obstruction: an international comparative study.

Author information

1
Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, The Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore, MD, United States.
2
Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Temple University Hospital, Philadelphia, PA, United States.
3
Hospital Ana Costa. Santos, Brazil.
4
Division of Hepatology and Gastroenterology, Virginia Mason Medical Center, Seattle, WA, United States.
5
Department of Gastroenterology, Graduate School of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan.
6
Department of Internal Medicine, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Asan Medical Center, Seoul, South Korea.
7
Department of Surgical Gastroenterology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark.
8
Department of Surgery, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China.
9
Hospital Universitario Rio Hortega, Valladolid University, Valladolid, Spain.
10
Department of Hepatology, KU leuven, Leuven, Belgium.

Abstract

Background and study aims: How enteroscopy-assisted ERCP (e-ERCP) and endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) compare in patients with surgically altered upper gastrointestinal anatomy is currently unknown. The aims of this study were to compare efficacy and safety of both techniques and study predictors of these outcomes. Patients and methods: This was an international, multicenter comparative cohort study at 10 tertiary centers. Outcomes data included technical success (biliary access with cholangiography and stent placement [when indicated]), clinical success (resolution of biliary obstruction) and adverse events (AEs) (graded according to the ASGE lexicon). Results: A total of 98 patients underwent EUS-BD (n = 49) or e-ERCP (n = 49). Technical success was achieved in 48 (98 %) patients in the EUS-BD group as compared to 32 (65.3 %) patients in the e-ERCP group (OR 12.48, P = 0.001). Clinical success was attained in 88 % of patients in EUS-BD group as compared to 59.1 % in the e-ERCP group (OR 2.83, P = 0.03). Procedural time was significantly shorter in the EUS-BD group (55 min vs 95 min, P < 0.0001). AEs occurred more commonly in the EUS-BD group (20 % vs. 4 %, P = 0.01). However, the majority (90 %) of AEs were mild/moderate. Length of stay was significantly longer in the EUS-BD group (6.6 d vs. 2.4 d, P < 0.0001). Conclusions: EUS-BD can be performed with a higher degree of clinical efficacy and shorter procedure time than e-ERCP in patients with surgically-altered upper gastrointestinal anatomy. Whether or not this approach should be first-line therapy in this patient population is highly dependent on the indication for the procedure, the patient's anatomy, and local practice and expertise.

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Georg Thieme Verlag Stuttgart, New York Icon for PubMed Central
Loading ...
Support Center