Sedative effects of propofol and risk factors for excessive sedation in the endoscopic treatment of biliary and pancreatic diseases.

Objectives: The safety and effectiveness of propofol in more complex endoscopic procedures, such as endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, remain unknown. Thus, we aimed to evaluate propofol sedation during endoscopic cholangiopancreatography, ultrasound-guided intervention, and gastroduodenal stenting and examine risk factors for excessive sedation. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed data from 870 patients who underwent endoscopic treatment with propofol sedation for biliary and pancreatic disease between October 2020 and September 2021. Sedation included propofol and fentanyl, with continuous monitoring of vital signs and the bispectral index. The assessed risk factors included age, complications, body mass index, treatment duration, and specialty. Results: Distal bile duct treatment (n = 367), hilar bile duct treatment (n = 197), post-small-intestinal reconstruction treatment (n = 75), endoscopic ultrasound-guided intervention (n = 140), and gastrointestinal obstruction treatment (n = 91) were performed. The rates of excessive sedation, hypoxemia, and hypotension were 7.8%, 6.0%, and 1.8%, respectively. Post-small-intestinal reconstruction treatment had the highest incidence rate of excessive sedation (16%), whereas endoscopic ultrasound-guided intervention had the lowest incidence rate (4.3%). Multivariate analysis revealed significant associations between excessive sedation and comorbid sleep apnea, obesity, and prolonged procedural time. Conclusions: Obesity, sleep apnea syndrome, and prolonged procedure time are risk factors for excessive sedation related to propofol use. Thus, sedation techniques should be tailored for these patients.

History of the Interventional Pancreaticobiliary Endoscopy.

With the introduction of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography and linear endoscopic ultrasound, interventional pancreaticobiliary (PB) endoscopy has had an enormous impact in the management of pancreatic and biliary diseases. Continuous efforts to improve various devices and techniques have revolutionized these treatment modalities as viable alternatives to surgery. In recent years, trends toward combining endoscopic techniques with other modalities, such as laparoscopic and radiological interventions, for complex PB diseases have emerged using a multidisciplinary approach. Ongoing research and clinical experience will lead to refinements in interventional PB endoscopic techniques and subsequently improve outcomes and reduce complication rates.

Late-onset hemobilia due to pseudoaneurysm rupture after endoscopic ultrasound-guided hepaticogastrostomy.

We report the case of a 65-year-old man who experienced hemobilia due to rupture of a pseudoaneurysm of the left hepatic artery after endoscopic ultrasound-guided hepaticogastrostomy (EUS-HGS). The patient was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer and underwent endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography for obstructive jaundice. Biliary drainage was converted to EUS-HGS due to tumor invasion in the superior duodenal angle. A partially covered metal stent was placed in the B3 intrahepatic bile duct. The procedure was completed without early complications, but 50 days later, the patient developed fever, elevated hepatobiliary enzymes, and shock. Contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT) showed that the hepatic end of the HGS stent had moved slightly toward the stomach compared to the previous CT. A 6-mm pseudoaneurysm was also observed near the A3 and A4 branches of the left hepatic artery, coinciding with the hepatic end of the EUS-HGS stent. Hemostasis was achieved with coil embolization. Biliary hemorrhage due to rupture of a pseudoaneurysm should be considered in the differential diagnosis of biliary obstruction accompanied by bleeding after EUS-HGS.

Endoscopic ultrasound guided interventions in the management of pancreatic cancer.

There has been a growing interest in developing endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided interventions for pancreatic cancer, some of which have become standard of care. There are two main factors that drive these advancements to facilitate treatment of patients with pancreatic cancer, ranging from direct locoregional therapy to palliation of symptoms related to inoperable pancreatic cancer. Firstly, an upper EUS has the capability to access the entire pancreas-lesions in the pancreatic head and uncinate process can be accessed from the duodenum, and lesions in the pancreatic body and tail can be accessed from the stomach. Secondly, there has been a robust development of devices that allow through-the-needle interventions, such as placement of fiducial markers, brachytherapy, intratumoral injection, gastroenterostomy creation, and ablation. While these techniques are rapidly emerging, data from a multicenter randomized controlled trial for some procedures are awaited prior to their adoption in clinical settings.

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 cross-over. 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.

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.

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.

Forward-viewing endoscopic ultrasound-guided NOTES interventions: a study on peritoneoscopic potential.

AIM: To evaluate the feasibility of diagnostic and therapeutic transgastric (TG) peritoneoscopic interventions with a forward-viewing endoscopic ultrasound (FV-EUS). METHODS: This prospective endoscopic experimental study used an animal model. Combined TG peritoneoscopic interventions and EUS examination of the intra-abdominal organs were performed using an FV-EUS on 10 animal models (1 porcine and 9 canine). The procedures carried out include EUS evaluation and endoscopic biopsy of intraperitoneal organs, EUS-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA), EUS-guided radiofrequency ablation (EUS-RFA), and argon plasma coagulation (APC) for hemostatic control. The animals were kept alive for 7 d, and then necropsy was performed to evaluate results and complications. RESULTS: In all 10 animals, TG peritoneoscopy, followed by endoscopic biopsy for the liver, spleen, abdominal wall, and omentum, was performed successfully. APC helped control minor bleeding. Visualization of intra-abdominal solid organs with real-time EUS was accomplished with ease. Intraperitoneal EUS-FNA was successfully performed on the liver, spleen, and kidney. Similarly, a successful outcome was achieved with EUS-RFA of the hepatic parenchyma. No adverse events were recorded during the study. CONCLUSION: Peritoneoscopic natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) interventions through FV-EUS were feasible in providing evaluation and performing endoscopic procedures. It promises potential as a platform for future EUS-based NOTES.