EUS-Guided Choledocho-duodenostomy Using Lumen Apposing Stent Versus ERCP With Covered Metallic Stents in Patients With Unresectable Malignant Distal Biliary Obstruction: A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial (DRA-MBO Trial).

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Several studies have compared primary endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided biliary drainage to endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) with insertion of metal stents in unresectable malignant distal biliary obstruction (MDBO) and the results were conflicting. The aim of the current study was to compare the outcomes of the procedures in a large-scale study. METHODS: This was a multicenter international randomized controlled study. Consecutive patients admitted for obstructive jaundice due to unresectable MDBO were recruited. Patients were randomly allocated to receive EUS-guided choledocho-duodenostomy (ECDS) or ERCP for drainage. The primary outcome was the 1-year stent patency rate. Other outcomes included technical success, clinical success, adverse events, time to stent dysfunction, reintervention rates, and overall survival. RESULTS: Between January 2017 and February 2021, 155 patients were recruited (ECDS 79, ERCP 76). There were no significant differences in 1-year stent patency rates (ECDS 91.1% vs ERCP 88.1%, P = .52). The ECDS group had significantly higher technical success (ECDS 96.2% vs ERCP 76.3%, P < .001), whereas clinical success was similar (ECDS 93.7% vs ERCP 90.8%, P = .559). The median (interquartile range) procedural time was significantly shorter in the ECDS group (ECDS 10 [5.75-18] vs ERCP 25 [14-40] minutes, P < .001). The rate of 30-day adverse events (P = 1) and 30-day mortality (P = .53) were similar. CONCLUSION: Both procedures could be options for primary biliary drainage in unresectable MDBO. ECDS was associated with higher technical success and shorter procedural time then ERCP. Primary ECDS may be preferred when difficult ERCPs are anticipated. This study was registered to Clinicaltrials.gov NCT03000855.

Perception of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Personnel on Society Recommendations on Personal Protective Equipment, Case Selection, and Scope Cleaning During Covid-19 Pandemic: An International Survey Study

Background/Aims@#The Thai Association for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy published recommendations on safe endoscopy during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. This study aimed to assess the practicality and applicability of the recommendations and the perceptions of endoscopy personnel on them. @*Methods@#A validated questionnaire was sent to 1290 endoscopy personnel globally. Of these, the data of all 330 responders (25.6%) from 15 countries, related to the current recommendations on proper personal protective equipment (PPE), case selection, scope cleaning, and safety perception, were analyzed. Ordinal logistic regression was used to determine the relationships between the variables. @*Results@#Despite an overwhelming agreement with the recommendations on PPE (94.5%) and case selection (95.5%), their practicality and applicability on PPE recommendations and case selection were significantly lower (p=0.001, p=0.047, p<0.001, and p=0.032, respectively). Factors that were associated with lower sense of safety in endoscopy units were younger age (p=0.004), less working experience (p=0.008), in-training status (p=0.04), and higher national prevalence of COVID-19 (p=0.003). High prevalent countries also had more difficulty implementing the guidelines (p<0.001) and they considered the PPE recommendations less practical and showed lower agreement with them (p<0.001 and p=0.008, respectively). A higher number of in-hospital COVID-19 patients was associated with less agreement with PPE recommendations (p=0.039). @*Conclusions@#Using appropriate PPE and case selection in endoscopic practice during a pandemic remains a challenge. Resource availability and local prevalence are critical factors influencing the adoption of the current guidelines.

What You Need to Know Before Performing Endoscopic Ultrasound-guided Hepaticogastrostomy

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is the primary treatment modality for bile duct obstruction. When ERCP is unsuccessful, percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage can be an alternative method. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) has emerged as a treatment option for biliary obstruction, especially after ERCP failure. EUS-BD offers transluminal intrahepatic and extrahepatic drainage through a transgastric and transduodenal approach. EUS-guided hepaticogastrostomy (EUS-HGS) is an excellent choice for patients with hilar strictures or those with a surgically altered anatomy. The optimal steps in EUS-HGS are case selection, bile duct visualization, puncture-site selection, wire insertion and manipulation, tract dilation, and stent placement. Caution should be taken at each step to prevent complications. Dedicated devices for EUS-HGS have been developed to improve the technical success rate and reduce complications. This technical review focuses on the essential practical points at each step of EUS-HGS.

What You Need to Know Before Performing Endoscopic Ultrasound-guided Hepaticogastrostomy

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is the primary treatment modality for bile duct obstruction. When ERCP is unsuccessful, percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage can be an alternative method. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) has emerged as a treatment option for biliary obstruction, especially after ERCP failure. EUS-BD offers transluminal intrahepatic and extrahepatic drainage through a transgastric and transduodenal approach. EUS-guided hepaticogastrostomy (EUS-HGS) is an excellent choice for patients with hilar strictures or those with a surgically altered anatomy. The optimal steps in EUS-HGS are case selection, bile duct visualization, puncture-site selection, wire insertion and manipulation, tract dilation, and stent placement. Caution should be taken at each step to prevent complications. Dedicated devices for EUS-HGS have been developed to improve the technical success rate and reduce complications. This technical review focuses on the essential practical points at each step of EUS-HGS.

Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Vascular Therapy for Portoduodenal Fistula

Portoenteric fistula is a rare cause of massive upper gastrointestinal bleeding. Most cases can be treated with radiointervention or surgery, but portoenteric fistula is associated with a high mortality. We reported a case of intermittent massive upper gastrointestinal bleeding in a 33-year-old man with cholangiocarcinoma who underwent surgical resection followed by chemoradiation. A portoduodenal fistula due to chronic duodenal ulceration was identified. The bleeding was successfully controlled by endoscopic ultrasound-guided coil placement through the duodenal bulb using the anchoring technique. Follow-up endoscopy and computed tomography scan showed multiple coil placements between a part of the portal vein and the duodenal bulb without any evidence of portal vein thrombosis. There were no complications, and bleeding did not recur during the 8-month follow-up period.

Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Vascular Therapy for Portoduodenal Fistula

Portoenteric fistula is a rare cause of massive upper gastrointestinal bleeding. Most cases can be treated with radiointervention or surgery, but portoenteric fistula is associated with a high mortality. We reported a case of intermittent massive upper gastrointestinal bleeding in a 33-year-old man with cholangiocarcinoma who underwent surgical resection followed by chemoradiation. A portoduodenal fistula due to chronic duodenal ulceration was identified. The bleeding was successfully controlled by endoscopic ultrasound-guided coil placement through the duodenal bulb using the anchoring technique. Follow-up endoscopy and computed tomography scan showed multiple coil placements between a part of the portal vein and the duodenal bulb without any evidence of portal vein thrombosis. There were no complications, and bleeding did not recur during the 8-month follow-up period.