Endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage: Complications and their management

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD), EUS-guided choledochoduodenostomy (EUS-CDS), and EUS-guided hepaticogastrostomy (EUS-HGS) can effectively palliate obstructive jaundice, but have not been well established yet. The incidence of complications is about 30% in EUSBD and higher for EUS-HGS. Several complications have been reported such as bleeding, perforation and peritonitis. Bleeding occurs due to puncture of portal vein, hepatic vein and artery, and we should use color Doppler. When a cautery dilator is used for fistula dilation, burn effects may cause delayed bleeding. Endoscopic hemostasis is only effective for anastomotic bleeding and embolization with interventional radiology technique is required for pseudo aneurysm. There are some types of perforation: failed stent placement after puncture or fistula dilation, double puncture during CDS procedure, and stent migration. Peritonitis with perforation requires surgery and can be fatal. Stent migration before mature fistula formation causes severe peritonitis because EUS-BD makes fistula between two unattached organs. Stents with flaps or long covered self-expandable metallic stents (cSEMSs) are effective to prevent migration. Recent development of lumen apposing stents may reduce early migration in EUS-CDS. Peritonitis without migration can be due to 1) leakage of bile juice or gastric/duodenal contents during EUS-BD or 2) leakage along the placed stent. We should make procedure time as short as possible, and cSEMSs reduce bile leak along the stent by occluding the dilated fistula. In summary, we should understand the mechanism of complications and the technique to prevent and manage complications. Development of dedicated devices to increase the success rate and reduce complications is required.

Evaluation of the Feasibility and Efficacy of Forward-Viewing Endoscopic Ultrasound

BACKGROUND/AIMS: We aimed to evaluate the feasibility and efficacy of a forward-viewing linear endoscopic ultrasound (FV-EUS) in diagnostic EUS procedures compared to standard oblique-viewing EUS (OV-EUS). METHODS: This study was a prospective, randomized study that permitted crossover. Fifty-one patients with subepithelial pancreatobiliary and upper gastrointestinal lesions underwent FV-EUS and OV-EUS sequentially, in random order. The EUS visualization was performed by a novice endosonographer, and the image quality of specific lesions was scored by an expert endosonographer. If fine-needle aspiration (FNA) was indicated, it was performed using both echoendoscopes by an expert endosonographer. RESULTS: Both of the EUS procedures had similar visualization times and image quality. In general, the visualization time was inversely related to the diameter of the specific lesions. In subepithelial lesions of the stomach and duodenum, the visualization time (98.8+/-62.2 seconds vs 139.0+/-66.6 seconds, p=0.008) and image quality (4.1+/-1.3 vs 3.3+/-1.7, p=0.02) of FV-EUS were significantly superior to OV-EUS. FV-EUS-guided FNA of pancreatic masses was successful in seven patients (87.5%). CONCLUSIONS: FV-EUS may increase the ease of access to gastrointestinal subepithelial lesions compared to conventional OV-EUS. The performance of FV-EUS for evaluating pancreatobiliary diseases and performing interventions was comparable to conventional OV-EUS.

Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Treatment beyond Drainage: Hemostasis, Anastomosis, and Others

Since the introduction of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) in the 1990s, it has evolved from a primarily diagnostic modality into an instrument that can be used in various therapeutic interventions. EUS-guided fine-needle injection was initially described for celiac plexus neurolysis. By using the fundamentals of this method, drainage techniques emerged for the biliary and pancreatic ducts, fluid collections, and abscesses. More recently, EUS has been used for ablative techniques and injection therapies for patients with for gastrointestinal malignancies. As the search for minimally invasive techniques continued, EUS-guided hemostasis methods have also been described. The technical advances in EUS-guided therapies may appear to be limitless; however, in many instances, these procedures have been described only in small case series. More data are required to determine the efficacy and safety of these techniques, and new accessories will be needed to facilitate their implementation into practice.