The additional value of the combined use of EUS and ERCP for the evaluation of unclear biliary strictures

Eszter Bényei,Antonio Molinaro,Per Hedenström,Riadh Sadik

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00365521.2024.2354403

2024-06-01

Scandinavian Journal of Gastroenterology

Abstract:Objective Assessing unclear biliary strictures is challenging. We analyzed the diagnostic performance of radiology, EUS, and ERCP.

gastroenterology & hepatology

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Accuracy of ASGE High-Risk Criteria in Evaluation of Patients with Suspected Common Bile Duct Stones

Huiqin He,Chenfei Tan,Jiaguo Wu,Ning Dai,Weiling Hu,Yawen Zhang,Loren Laine,James Scheiman,John J. Kim

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2017.01.039

IF: 10.396

2017-01-01

Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

Abstract:Background and Aims: ERCP is recommended for patients considered high risk for choledocholithiasis after biochemical testing and abdominal US. Our aim was to determine whether the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) guidelines accurately select patients for whom the risk of ERCP is justified.Methods: Consecutive patients hospitalized with suspected choledocholithiasis at Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital who received biochemical testing, abdominal US, and definitive testing for choledocholithiasis (MRCP, EUS, ERCP, intraoperative cholangiogram, and/or common bile duct [CBD] exploration) were identified. Patients with choledocholithiasis on abdominal US, with bilirubin levels >4 mg/dL (normal values <1.2 mg/dL), bilirubin levels >= 1.8 mg/dL plus a dilated CBD and/or clinical cholangitis were considered high risk per ASGE guidelines.Results: Of 2724 patients with suspected choledocholithiasis, 1171 (43%) met high-risk criteria. Definitive testing (MRCP in 2442 [90%], EUS in 67 [2%], ERCP in 659 [24%], intraoperative cholangiogram in 229 [8%], and CBD exploration in 447 [16%]) revealed choledocholithiasis in 1076 [40%] patients. The specificity of the ASGE high-risk criteria was 74% (95% confidence interval [CI], 72%-77%) and positive predictive value was 64% (95% CI, 61%-67%). Using a more restrictive criteria (choledocholithiasis on abdominal US, bilirubin >4 mg/dL plus dilated CBD) improved the specificity to 94% (95% CI, 93%-95%) and positive predictive value to 85% (95% CI, 82%-88%). Doubling or more of bilirubin to >4 mg/dL and >= 1.8 mg/dL at second testing had specificities of 98% (95% CI, 96%-99%) and 95% (95% CI, 93%-96%), with positive predictive values of 62% (95% CI, 48%-76%) and 54% (95% CI, 44%-65%), respectively.Conclusions: Although ASGE high-risk criteria demonstrated >50% probability of the patient having choledocholithiasis, more than a third of the patients would receive diagnostic ERCPs. Criteria with choledocholithiasis on abdominal US and/or bilirubin levels >4 mg/dL plus a dilated CBD showed higher specificity and positive predictive value.
Therapeutic role of endoscopic ultrasound in pancreaticobiliary disease: A comprehensive review.

Fan-Sheng Meng,Zhao-Hong Zhang,Feng Ji

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v21.i46.12996

IF: 5.374

2015-01-01

World Journal of Gastroenterology

Abstract:With the development of technology and accessories, the role of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) has evolved from diagnostics to therapeutics. In order to characterise the therapeutic role of EUS, we searched Web of Knowledge database and reviewed articles associated with therapeutic EUS. There are two modalities for the therapeutic purpose: drainage and fine-needle injection. EUS-guided drainage is a promising procedure for the treatment of peripancreatic fluid collection and biliary obstruction; EUS-guided fine-needle injections such as celiac plexus neurolysis, for the purpose of pain relief for pancreatic cancer and chronic pancreatitis, has emerged as a promising procedure. The aim of the study was to perform a comprehensive and conscientious review on the techniques, complications and clinical outcomes of those EUS-based procedures.
EUS vs MRCP for detection of choledocholithiasis

Dharmendra Verma,Asha Kapadia,Glenn M. Eisen,Douglas G. Adler

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2005.12.038

IF: 10.396

2006-08-01

Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

Abstract:BACKGROUND: Numerous published studies have shown the high diagnostic performance of both EUS and MRCP compared with ERCP for the detection of choledocholithiasis.DESIGN: We undertook a systematic review of all published randomized, prospective trials that compared EUS with MRCP with the primary aim being to compare the overall diagnostic accuracy for the detection of choledocholithiasis in patients with suspected biliary disease.METHODS: A MEDLINE review was performed. We identified 5 randomized, prospective, blinded trials comparing MRCP and EUS for the detection of choledocholithiasis, with subsequent ERCP or intraoperative cholangiography as a criterion standard. The study-specific variables for EUS and MRCP for choledocholithiasis were calculated from the data, and analyses were performed by using aggregated variables (sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and likelihood ratios).RESULTS: The pooled data set consisted of 301 patients. The aggregated sensitivities of EUS and MRCP for the detection of choledocholithiasis were 0.93 and 0.85, respectively, whereas their specificities were 0.96 and 0.93, respectively. The aggregated positive predictive values for EUS and MRCP were 0.93 and 0.87, respectively, with the corresponding negative predictive values of 0.96 and 0.92, respectively. Positive likelihood ratios were >10 for both tests, and corresponding negative likelihood ratios approached 0.10 for both tests. No statistically significant differences between EUS and MRCP were found in our analysis.CONCLUSIONS: EUS and MRCP have high diagnostic performance overall. Our analysis showed no statistically significant difference between the modalities. We recommend taking into consideration other factors, such as resource availability, experience, and cost considerations in deciding between these 2 tests.

gastroenterology & hepatology
EUS- Versus ERCP-guided Biliary Drainage for Malignant Biliary Obstruction: Evidence from Randomized Controlled Studies

Ke Chen,Zheling Chen,Weiwei Jin,Qicong Zhu,Chao Lu,Yuanyu Wang,Yucheng Zhou,Yiping Mou

DOI: https://doi.org/10.21037/apc.2019.08.01

2019-01-01

Annals of Pancreatic Cancer

Abstract:Background: Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography-guided biliary drainage (ERCP-BD) is the first-line technique for the management of malignant biliary obstruction. Previous evidence demonstrated that endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) is technically safe and feasible, and EUS-BD has been used as the alternative palliative treatment when ERCP fails. We aimed to compare the therapeutic efficacies and procedure-associated complications of EUS-BD and ERCP as the first treatment option. Methods: Studies comparing efficacies and complications of EUS-BD and ERCP-BD for the management of malignant biliary obstruction published before January 25, 2019 were searched. The patient characteristics, variables regarding to the therapeutic efficacies and procedure-associated complications of EUS-BD were compared to that of ERCP-BD by meta-analyses. Results: After screening 821 studies, three randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing the therapeutic efficacies and complications of EUS-BD and ERCP-BD for the palliative treatment of malignant obstructive jaundice were included. No significant difference was found between EUS-BD and ERCP-BD regarding to the technical success rate, clinical success rate, procedure time, and stent patency at 3 months and 6 months. The incidence of overall adverse events was also similar between the two groups. EUS-BD showed higher frequency of stent patency at 12 months. In addition, EUS-BD showed significant decreased incidence of procedure-associated pancreatitis [odds ratio (OR) =0.08, 95% confidence intervals (CI): 0.01 to 0.62, P=0.02) and reintervention rate (OR =0.25, 95% CI: 0.12 to 0.54, P=0.004). Conclusions: Compared to ERCP-BD, EUS-BD showed equivalent therapeutic efficacy with decreased incidence of pancreatitis and reintervention rate. EUS-BD, like ERCP-BD, could be the first-line technique for the management of malignant biliary obstruction.
Comparison of EUS and ERCP in the investigation with suspected biliary obstruction caused by choledocholithiasis: a randomized study.

Yuk Tong Lee,Francis K L Chan,W K Leung,Henry L Y Chan,Justin C Y Wu,Man Yee Yung,Enders K W Ng,James Y W Lau,Joseph J Y Sung

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2007.07.025

IF: 10.396

2008-01-01

Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

Abstract:In patients suspected to have biliary obstructive disease, EUS is a safe and accurate test to select patients for therapeutic ERCP.
The Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography and Endoscopic Ultrasound Connection: Unity Is Strength, or the Endoscopic Ultrasonography Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography Concept

Claudio Giovanni De Angelis,Eleonora Dall'Amico,Maria Teresa Staiano,Marcantonio Gesualdo,Mauro Bruno,Silvia Gaia,Marco Sacco,Federica Fimiano,Anna Mauriello,Simone Dibitetto,Chiara Canalis,Rosa Claudia Stasio,Alessandro Caneglias,Federica Mediati,Rodolfo Rocca

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics13203265

2023-10-20

Abstract:Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) are both crucial for the endoscopic management of biliopancreatic diseases: the combination of their diagnostic and therapeutic potential is useful in many clinical scenarios, such as indeterminate biliary stenosis, biliary stones, chronic pancreatitis and biliary and pancreatic malignancies. This natural and evident convergence between EUS and ERCP, which by 2006 we were calling the "Endoscopic ultrasonography retrograde colangiopancreatography (EURCP) concept", has become a hot topic in the last years, together with the implementation of the therapeutic possibilities of EUS (from EUS-guided necrosectomy to gastro-entero anastomoses) and with the return of ERCP to its original diagnostic purpose thanks to ancillary techniques (extraductal ultrasound (EDUS), intraductal ultrasound (IDUS), cholangiopancreatoscopy with biopsies and probe-based confocal laser endomicroscopy (pCLE)). In this literary review, we retraced the recent history of EUS and ERCP, reported examples of the clinical applicability of the EURCP concept and explored the option of performing the two procedures in only one endoscopic session, with its positive implications for the patient, the endoscopist and the health care system. In the last few years, we also evaluated the possibility of combining EUS and ERCP into a single endoscopic instrument in a single step, but certain obstacles surrounding this approach remain.
EUS versus MRCP in patients with intermediate risk of choledocholithiasis: clinical and statistical viewpoint

Anurag Sachan,Harshal S Mandavdhare

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/gutjnl-2022-327239

IF: 24.5

2022-03-08

Gut

Abstract:We read with great interest the study by Jagtap et al and commend the authors on this large randomised controlled study that compared endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) and magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) as a screening modality before ERCP in patients with intermediate risk of choledocholithiasis as per the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) guidelines.1 The authors concluded that EUS and MRCP did not differ in sensitivity or specificity when compared with ERCP taken as gold standard. We would like to bring forward few concerns regarding the study. First, the data regarding the baseline cholelithiasis status and timing of cholecystectomy after procedure have not been provided. This becomes important as the definition of recurrence taken in the study is 6 months which is classically defined post cholecystectomy and common bile duct (CBD) clearance.2 The chance of a new stone slipping into the CBD with gallbladder in...

gastroenterology & hepatology
Role of endoscopic ultrasound in evaluation of patients with missed common bile duct stones

Mohamed Eissa,Hussein Hassan Okasha,Mohamed Abbasy,Ahmed Kamal Khamis,Abeer Abdellatef,Mohamed Akl Rady

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4253/wjge.v14.i9.564

2022-09-16

Abstract:Background: Choledocholithiasis develops in up to 20% of patients with gall bladder stones. The challenge in diagnosis usually occurs with small stones that may be missed by magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP). Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) is accurate in detecting common bile duct (CBD) stones missed by MRCP, especially the small ones or those impacted at the distal CBD or the papillary region. Aim: To evaluate the accuracy of EUS in detecting CBD stones missed by MRCP. Methods: Patients with an intermediate likelihood of choledocholithiasis according to ESGE guidelines and those with acute pancreatitis of undetermined cause were included. The presence of choledocholithiasis was evaluated by MRCP and EUS, and then results were confirmed by endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). The sensitivity and specificity of EUS and MRCP were compared regarding the presence of stones, the size, and the number of detected stones. Results: Ninety out of 100 involved patients had choledocholithiasis, while ten patients were excluded as they had pancreatic or gall bladder masses during EUS examination. In choledocholithiasis patients, the mean age was 52.37 ± 14.64 years, and 52.2% were males. Most patients had biliary obstruction (74.4%), while only 23 (25.6%) patients had unexplained pancreatitis. The overall prevalence of choledocholithiasis was 83.3% by EUS, 41.1% by MRCP, and 74.4% by ERCP. Also, the number and size of CBD stones could be detected accurately in 78.2% and 75.6% by EUS and 41.1% and 70.3% by MRCP, respectively. The sensitivity of EUS was higher than that of MRCP (98.51% vs 55.22%), and their predictive value was statistically different (P < 0.001). Combination of both tools raised the sensitivity to 97.22% and specificity to 100%. Conclusion: EUS could be a useful tool in assessing patients with suspected choledocholithiasis especially if combined with MRCP. However, its usefulness depends on its availability and the experience of the local centers.
EUS versus MRCP to perform ERCP in patients with intermediate likelihood of choledocholithiasis: a randomised controlled trial

Nitin Jagtap,J Kiran Kumar,Radhika Chavan,Jahangeer Basha,Manu Tandan,Sundeep Lakhtakia,Rakesh Kalapala,Zaheer Nabi,Rajesh Gupta,Mohan Ramchandani,Rupjyoti Talukdar,Manohar Reddy,Raghavendra Yarlagadda,Jagadish Singh,Sana Fatima Memon,G Venkat Rao,D Nageshwar Reddy

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/gutjnl-2021-325080

IF: 24.5

2022-02-10

Gut

Abstract:Objective In patients with an intermediate likelihood of choledocholithiasis, European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) guidelines recommend endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) or magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) to diagnose choledocholithiasis to make the indication for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) treatment; there is no randomised control trial to compare both in this setting. Design Patients with suspected choledocholithiasis satisfying ESGE guideline’s intermediate likelihood were screened for this single-centre randomised controlled trial between November 2019 and May 2020. The enrolled patients were randomised to either EUS or MRCP. ERCP was performed in stone positive cases or if clinical suspicion persisted during follow-up. Negative cases underwent a further 6-month clinical follow-up. Main outcome was accuracy (sensitivity/specificity) of both tests to diagnose choledocholithiasis, with ERCP or follow-up as a gold standard. Results Of 266 patients, 224 patients (mean age: 46.77±14.57 years; 50.9 % female) were enrolled; overall prevalence of choledocholithiasis was 49.6%, with a higher frequency in the MRCP group (63/112 vs 46/112 for EUS). Both sensitivity of EUS and MRCP were similarly high (92%–98%), without significant differences between the two groups. The negative predictive value and likelihood ratio + were significantly higher in EUS arm (p<0.05). The percentage of ERCPs either incorrectly halted back (false negatives: EUS: 2 vs MRCP: 5) or performed unnecessarily (false positives: EUS: 1 vs MRCP: 2) was low in both groups. Conclusion The performance parameters of both EUS and MRCP are comparable for detecting choledocholithiasis in the intermediate-risk group of choledocholithiasis and the choice of a test should be based on local expertise, availability of resources and patient preference. Trial registration number NCT04173624 .

gastroenterology & hepatology
How to Perform EUS-guided Biliary Drainage

Christoph F. Dietrich,Barbara Braden,Sean Burmeister,Lars Aabakken,Paolo Giorgio Arciadacono,Manoop S. Bhutani,Manuela Gotzberger,Andrew J. Healey,Michael Hocke,Stephan Hollerbach,Andre Ignee,Christian Jenssen,Christian Jurgensen,Alberto Larghi,Kathleen Moeller,Bertrand Napoleon,Mihai Rimbas,Adrian Saftoiu,Siyu Sun,Anthony Yuen Bun Teoh,Giuseppe Vanella,Pietro Fusaroli,Silvia Carrara,Uwe Will,Yi Dong,Eike Burmester

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4103/eus-d-21-00188

2022-01-01

Endoscopic Ultrasound

Abstract:EUS-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) has recently gained widespread acceptance as a minimally invasive alternative method for biliary drainage. Even in experienced endoscopy centers, ERCP may fail due to inaccessibility of the papillary region, altered anatomy (particularly postsurgical alterations), papillary obstruction, or neoplastic gastric outlet obstruction. Biliary cannulation fails at first attempt in 5%-10% of cases even in the absence of these factors. In such cases, alternative options for biliary drainage must be provided since biliary obstruction is responsible for poor quality of life and even reduced survival, particularly due to septic cholangitis. The standard of care in many centers remains percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD). However, despite the high technical success rate with experienced operators, the percutaneous approach is more invasive and associated with poor quality of life. PTBD may result in long-term external catheters for biliary drainage and carry the risk of serious adverse events (SAEs) in up to 10% of patients, including bile leaks, hemorrhage, and sepsis. PTBD following a failed ERCP also requires scheduling a second procedure, resulting in prolonged hospital stay and additional costs. EUS-BD may overcome many of these limitations and offer some distinct advantages in accessing the biliary tree. Current data suggest that EUS-BD is safe and effective when performed by experts, although SAEs have been also reported. Despite the high number of clinical reports and case series, high-quality comparative studies are still lacking. The purpose of this article is to report on the current status of this procedure and to discuss the tools and techniques for EUS-BD in different clinical scenarios.
Application Value of Contrast-enhanced Ultrasonography in the Diagnosis of Biliary Diseases

Bo Zhao,Jin-rui Wang,Li-ying Miao,Jing-ying Yang,Wen Chen,Li-gang Cui,Jian-wen Jia

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3881/j.issn.1000-503x.2010.01.022

2010-01-01

Abstract:OBJECTIVE:To evaluate the usefulness of contrast-enhanced ultrasonography (CEUS) in the diagnosis of biliary diseases. METHODS:CEUS was performed in 57 patients with biliary diseases. The contrast enhancement characteristics and the morphologic features were observed. The ultrasonographic results were compared with those obtained through conventional 2-D ultrasound (2D-US), color Doppler flow ultrasound (CDFI), and clinical, surgical, and laboratory findings. In some cases, the ultrasonographic results were also compared with those obtained from contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CECT). RESULTS:The diagnostic accuracy of 2D-US combined with CEUS was significantly higher than that of 2D-US combined with CDFI 87.7% vs 71.9%; chi(2) = 4.41, P < 0.05). CEUS clearly showed the presence/absence of blood supply in biliary lesions and offered real-time imaging of the microcirculation perfusion in the lesions. It also offered useful information to differentiate biliary tumors from stones, bile mud, and/or blood clots. It distinctly displayed the size and contour of the lesions as well as the infiltrated range, depth, and the involved area. However, CEUS is most useful in reflecting blood perfusion patterns; it had limited value in differentiating the malignancies of polypoid lesions. The diagnostic accuracy (87.0% vs 91.3%;chi(2) = 0. 45, P > 0.05) and the size and range of the lesions displayed (0.4-6.2 cm vs 0.4-6.0 cm, P = 0.721) were not significantly different between CEUS and CECT. CONCLUSION:CEUS is a useful tool in the routine ultrasonography of biliary diseases.
Comparison of SSFSE-MRCP、 M3D-MRCP and ERCP in the Diagnosis of Biliary Calculi

Hongbin Han

2007-01-01

Abstract:Objective: To evaluate the value of SSFSE-MRCP、 M3D-MRCP and ERCP in the diagnosis of biliary calculi.Methods: The images of SSFSE-MRCP、 M3D-MRCP and ERCP of 60 cases were retrospectively reviewed.To compare their advantage and defect in diagnosing biliary calculi.Results: The two methods of MRCP have clear image,100% succeed.The diagnostic accuracy of SSFSE-MRCP is 92% while M3D-MRCP is 95%.The diagnostic accuracy of ERCP is 97%.Two cases were unsuccessful.The rate of failure is 3.3%,and 1 case appeared complications.Conclusions:The thin-layer original images of M3D-MRCP is one of the best methods in diagnosing biliary calculi.Combining with SSFSE-MRCP、 M3D-MRCP and FIESTA technique can supply frank credible image information.
A Comparative Study Between Combined and Separate EUS and ERCP under Anesthesia for Pancreaticobiliary Diseases

黄平,张筱凤,张啸,吕文,郭英辉,林秀英,袁庆丰,范震,王霞

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3760/cma.j.issn.1007-5232.2013.12.005

2013-01-01

Abstract:Objective To explore the therapeutic value of endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) combined with endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) for the diagnosis and treatment of pancreaticobiliary diseases.Methods Clinical data were analysed retrospectively in patients who underwent both EUS and ERCP in a single anesthetic session (Group A) and separate procedure in two different sessions (Group B).The following variables of both groups were evaluated:procedural time,propofol dose,cardiopulmonary complications,endoscopic complications and diagnostic yield,and therapeutic procedures.Results Proceduraltime [GroupAvs.GroupB:(78.56 ±-15.88) min vs.(97.78±34.56)min] andthe dose of propofol [Group A vs.Group B:(314.21 ±223.54)mg vs.(521.23 ±245.12)mg] differed significantly between both groups (P ＜ 0.05).In Group A,the diagnostic rates of EUS and ERCP,cardiopulmonary complications rate and endoscopic complications rate were 91.4％ (96/105),81.9％ (86/105),6.67％ (7/105),3.81％ (4/105),respectively,and these variables of group B were 94.4％ (85/90),82.2％ (74/90),5.56％ (5/90),3.33％ (3/90).There were no significant differences in the diagnostic yield,cardiopulmonary complications and endoscopic complications between the two groups (P ＞ 0.05).Conclusion It is safe and feasible that EUS combined with ERCP is performed under anesthesia in a single session.It needs a significantly shorter procedural time and smaller dose of propofol compared with separate procedures for pancreaticobiliary diseases.
Tu1621 Single Session EUS-Rendezvous ERCP Versus Percutaneous Biliary Drainage in Patients with Failed Common Bile Duct Access after ERCP

Anthony Y. Teoh,Takuji Iwashita,Tsuyoshi Mukai,Vinay K. Dhir,Amit P. Maydeo,Francis K. L. Chan,James Y. Lau

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2015.03.1810

IF: 10.396

2015-01-01

Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

Abstract:Common bile duct access (CBD) may fail in less than 5% of the patients undergoing ERCP. Traditionally, these patients will require percutaneous biliary drainage. However, the advent of EUS-biliary drainage provides another endoscopic means of achieving CBD access at the same session of failed ERCP. However, how single session EUS-rendezvous ERCP (ERV) compares to percutaneous biliary drainage is not known.
Tissue Sampling through Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine Needle Aspiration versus Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatographic Brushing Cytology Technique in Suspicious Malignant Biliary Stricture

Elham Sobhrakhshankhah,Masoudreza Sohrabi,Hamid Reza Norouzi,Farhad Zamani,Hossein Ajdarkosh,Mehdi Nikkhah,Mahmood Reza Khoonsari,Amir Hossein Faraji

DOI: https://doi.org/10.34172/mejdd.2021.238

2021-06-13

Middle East Journal of Digestive Diseases

Abstract:BACKGROUND Differentiation of benign and malignant biliary strictures plays a pivotal role in managing biliary strictures. Brush cytology via endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) are two diagnostic methods. In the present study, we aimed to compare the accuracy of the results of EUS-FNA and ERCP-based sampling of biliary strictures. METHODS In a prospective study, between January 2019 and March 2020, patients with indeterminate biliary strictures who had no history of hepatobiliary surgery, opium usage, cancer of pancratobiliary system, and acute liver disease were selected. They underwent EUS and ERCP in the same session. They were followed up for 6 months, and the sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and accuracy of these imaging modalities were compared. RESULTS A total of 60 patients were enrolled. 28 lesions were located in the distal and 32 lesions in the proximal parts of the biliary tree. 55 malignant and 5 benign lesions were diagnosed. The sensitivity and accuracy of EUS-FNA and ERCP tissue sampling were 78.2% and 80.0% versus 50.9% and 55.0%, respectively (p = 0.024). The combination of both methods improved the sensitivity and accuracy to 85.5% and 86.7%, respectively. Regarding the location, EUS-FNA is superior to ERCP-brush cytology in diagnosing proximal lesions with sensitivity and specificity of 73.3% and 75.0% vs. 50.0% and 53.1%, respectively (p = 0.04). CONCLUSION EUS-FNA is superior to ERCP brushing in the diagnosis of indeterminate biliary strictures, particularly in distal lesions. Combining ERCP brushing and EUS-FNA improves the diagnosis accuracy.
EUS-guided biliary interventions for benign diseases and unsuccessful ERCP - a prospective unicenter feasibility study on a large consecutive patient cohort

Frank Füldner,Frank Meyer,Uwe Will

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1055/a-1540-7975

Abstract:Background and study aim: Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is the gold standard for the treatment of biliary obstruction of any etiology. However, cannulation failure of the common bile duct (CBD) by ERCP occurs in 5-10%. Alternatives after a failed ERCP are re-ERCP by an expert endoscopist, percutaneous transhepatic cholangio drainage (PTCD), (balloon) enteroscopy-assisted ERCP, or surgery. Endoscopic ultrasonography-guided drainage of the bile ducts (EUS-BD) is becoming the standard of care in tertiary referral centers for cases of failed ERCP in patients with malignant obstruction of the CBD. In expert hands, EUS-guided biliary drainage has excellent technical/clinical success rates and lower complication rates compared to PTCD. Despite the successful performance of EUS-BD in malignant cases, its use in benign cases is limited. The aim of this study (design, systematic prospective clinical observational study on quality assurance in daily clinical practice) was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of EUS-BD in benign indications. Patients and methods: Patients with cholestasis and failed ERCP were recruited from a prospective EUS-BD registry (2004-2020). One hundred and three patients with EUS-BD and benign cholestasis were extracted from the registry (nTotal = 474). Indications of EUS-BDs included surgically altered anatomy (n = 65), atypical bile duct percutaneous transhepatic cholangio orifice at the duodenal junction from the longitudinal to the horizontal segment (n = 1), papilla of Vater not reached due to the gastric outlet/duodenal stenoses (n = 6), papilla that cannot be catheterized (n = 24), and proximal bile duct stenosis (n = 7). The primary endpoint was technical and clinical success. Secondary endpoints were procedure-related complications during the hospital stay. Results: 103 patients with EUS-BD and benign cholestasis were extracted from the registry (nTotal=474). Different transluminal access routes were used to reach the bile ducts: transgastric (n = 72/103); -duodenal (n = 16/103); -jejunal (n = 14/103); combined -duodenal and -gastric (n = 1/103). The technical success rate was 96 % (n = 99) for cholangiography. Drainage was not required in 2 patients; balloon dilatation including stone extraction was sufficient in 17 cases (16.5 %; no additional or prophylactic insertion of a drain). Transluminal drainage was achieved in n = 68/103 (66 %; even higher in patients with drain indication only) by placement of a plastic stent (n = 29), conventional biliary metal stents (n = 24), HotAXIOS stents (n = 5; Boston Scientific, Ratingen, Germany), Hanaro stents (n = 6; Olympus, Hamburg, Germany), HotAXIOS stents and plastic stents (n = 1), HotAXIOS stents and metal stents (n = 1) and metal stents and plastic stents (n = 2). Techniques for stone extraction alone (nSuccessful=17) or stent insertion (nTotal = 85; nSuccessful=85 - rate, 100 %) and final EUS-BD access pathway included: Rendezvous technique (n = 14/85; 16.5 %), antegrade internal drainage (n = 20/85; 23.5 %), choledochointestinostomy (n = 7/85; 8.2 %), antegrade internal and hepaticointestinostomy (n = 22/85; 25.9 %), hepaticointestinostomy (n = 21/85; 24.7 %), choledochointestinostomy and hepaticointestinostomy (n = 1/85; 1.2 %).The complication rate was 25 % (n = 26) - the spectrum comprised stent dislocation (n = 11), perforation (n = 1), pain (n = 2), hemorrhage (n = 6), biliary ascites/leakage (n = 3) and bilioma/liver abscess (n = 3; major complication rate, n = 12/68 - 17.6 %). Re-interventions were required in 19 patients (24 interventions in total). Discussion: EUS-BD can be considered an elegant and safe alternative to PTCD or reoperation for failed ERCP to achieve the necessary drainage of the biliary system even in underlying benign diseases. An interventional EUS-based internal procedure can resolve cholestasis, avoid PTCD or reoperation, and thus improve quality of life. Due to the often complex (pathological and/or postoperative) anatomy, EUS-BD should only be performed in centers with interventional endoscopy/EUS experience including adequate abdominal surgery and interventional radiology expertise in the background. This enables adequately adapted therapeutic management in the event of challenging complications. It seems appropriate to conduct further studies with larger numbers of cases to systematize the approach and peri-interventional management and to successively develop specific equipment.
Comparison of ERCP, EUS, and ERCP combined with EUS in diagnosing pancreatic neoplasms: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Hongyu Li,Zhigang Hu,Jiang Chen,Xiaozhong Guo

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13277-014-2154-z

2014-01-01

Abstract:In the current study, we performed a systematic review of literature pertaining to the diagnostic value of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS), and combined ERCP plus EUS to pancreatic cancer. We searched MEDLINE, OVID, and the Cochrane Library for studies evaluating diagnostic validity of ERCP, EUS, and ERCP plus EUS between January 1989 and May 2014. We obtained pooled estimates of sensitivity, specificity, and summary receiver operating characteristic curves (SROC). A total of 10 studies that included 669 patients who fulfilled all of the inclusion criteria were considered for inclusion in the analysis. The pooled sensitivities of EUS, ERCP, and EUS plus ERCP were 76.7, 57.9, and 79.9 %, respectively. The pooled specificities were 91.7, 90.6, and 94.2 %, respectively. The *Q index estimates were 0.828, 0.862, and 0.896, respectively. The *Q indices for EUS and EUS plus ERCP were significantly higher compared with ERCP ( P = 0.010 and 0.008, respectively). Our meta-analysis showed that ERCP plus EUS was associated with a high diagnostic value for the detection of pancreatic neoplasms compared with ERCP and EUS alone.
Multicenter study comparing EUS‐guided hepaticogastrostomy and ERCP for malignant biliary obstruction in patients with accessible papillae

Takeshi Ogura,Hirotoshi Ishiwatari,Susumu Hijioka,Kotaro Takeshita,Junya Sato,Mamoru Takenaka,Tomohiro Fukunaga,Shunsuke Omoto,Nao Fujimori,Akihisa Ohno,Keiichi Hatamaru,Takaaki Tamura,Hajime Imai,Masanori Yamada,Akitoshi Hakoda,Hiroki Nishikawa,Masayuki Kitano

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/jhbp.12055

2024-07-19

Journal of Hepato-Biliary-Pancreatic Sciences

Abstract:Background One advantage of endoscopic ultrasound‐guided hepaticogastrostomy (EUS‐HGS) is that it is difficult for reflux cholangitis, caused by duodenal pressure increasing due to duodenal obstruction, to occur. In addition, since stent deployment is performed away from the malignant stricture site, longer stent patency than with endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) may be obtained. However, no study has previously compared EUS‐HGS and ERCP for patients without duodenal obstruction or surgically altered anatomy. The aim of the present study was to compare clinical outcomes between EUS‐HGS and ERCP in normal anatomy patients without duodenal obstruction. Method In the ERCP group, patients who initially underwent biliary drainage were included. In the EUS‐HGS group, patients who underwent EUS‐HGS due to failed biliary cannulation were included. Patients with an inaccessible papilla, such as with surgically altered anatomy or duodenal obstruction, were excluded. Results A total of 314 patients who underwent ERCP and EUS‐HGS were enrolled in this study. Of the 314 patients, 289 underwent biliary stenting under ERCP guidance, and 25 patients underwent biliary stenting under EUS‐HGS. After propensity score‐matching analysis, the adverse event rate tended to be lower in the EUS‐HGS group than in the ERCP group. Although overall survival was not significantly different between the EUS‐HGS and ERCP groups (p = .228), stent patency was significantly longer in the EUS‐HGS group (median 366.0 days) than in the ERCP group (median 76.5 days). Conclusions EUS‐HGS had a lower adverse event rate, shorter procedure time, and longer stent patency than ERCP in cases of normal anatomy without duodenal obstruction.

gastroenterology & hepatology,surgery
[EUS-guided therapy of cholangiolithiasis in surgically altered anatomy of the upper GI tract - a unicenter case study]

Frank Fueldner,Frank Meyer,Uwe Will

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1055/a-1250-8834

Abstract:Aim: To investigate feasibility and outcome the novel and favorable option of an endoscopic ultrasonography(EUS)-guided antegrade or even retrograde gall stone extraction via a transhepatic route in patients (pats.) with no option for the usual gold standard, ERCP. Material/methods: All consecutive pats. with cholangiolithiasis and surgically altered anatomy of the upper GI tract with and without previous attempts of an ERCP were enrolled in this unicenter case study and were characterized with regard to the technical and clinical success of this approach. Results: From 2004 to 03/2020, overall 449 pats. underwent EUS-guided cholangiodrainage (n = 37 pats. with cholangiolithiasis). In 8 of these 37 pats., gall stone extraction was achieved using EUS-ERCP rendezvous technique (not included in the study since there was no surgically altered anatomy of the upper GI tract). In 13 of the remaining 29 subjects (45 %), there was a failure of previous attempts to reach the papilla of Vater or biliodigestive anastomosis using balloon-enteroscopy-guided ERCP. EUS-guided access to the biliary system was achieved in all 29 pats. Stone extraction was performed in 26 individuals (90 %) by means of antegrade push-technique after balloon dilatation of the papilla of Vater and biliodigestive anastomosis, respectively, before. In 11/29 cases (42 %), double pigtail prostheses were subsequently placed to track papilla of Vater/biliodigestive anastomosis ("ring drainage"), which were removed with gastroscopy three months later after previous ultrasound- and lab parameter-based follow-up control. In two pats. (7 %), gall stones were extracted via a retrograde route using a transhepatic access site; in one patient (3 %), stones were removed by means of a combined ante-/retrograde technique. In two subjects (7 %), cholangioscopy with electrohydraulic lithotripsy was used.Technical as well as clinical success rate was 100 % (29 of 29 pats.). Re-interventions became necessary in 6/29 cases (21 %), complications occurred in 6 individuals (21 %). Conclusion: EUS-guided stone extraction in antegrade or retrograde technique for pats. with surgically altered anatomy of the upper GI tract can be considered a favorable and safe but challenging approach of interventional endoscopy/EUS. It can provide high technical and clinical success and low complication rates; it has the potential to substitute the time-consuming balloon-enteroscopy-guided ERCP as well as, in particular, PTCD and, thus, secundary and tertiary therapeutic alternatives.
Long term outcome of EUS-based strategy for suspected choledocholithiasis but negative CT finding

Jae Keun Park,Jong Kyun Lee,Ju Il Yang,Keol Lee,Joo Kyung Park,Kwang Hyuck Lee,Kyu Taek Lee

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00365521.2018.1524021

Abstract:Objectives: The American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) guidelines offered the risk-stratified approach in suspected choledocholithiasis. Previous studies have raised concern about the insufficient accuracy of the guideline, especially in high probability group. The purposes of this study were to authenticate the stratification and clinical predictors of the guidelines for suspected choledocholithiasis with no visible choledocholithiasis on computed tomography (CT) and to make clear the clinical strategy of endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS). Materials and methods: We carried out the retrospective single-center study of 156 patients with suspected choledocholithiasis but negative findings on CT who underwent EUS for about 8 years at Samsung Medical Center. We assessed the clinical predictors of the ASGE guidelines in predicting the presence of choledocholithiasis and the outcome of the EUS. Results: Fifty-three of the 156 patients had positive findings on EUS that included choledocholithiasis (n = 43, 27.6%) or obstructive papillitis (n = 10, 6.4%). Among the 53 patients, 51 (96.2%) had choledocholithiasis or obstructive papillitis on ERCP. The 101 patients of 103 patients with negative finding on EUS did not show biliary events during follow-up period. EUS accuracy was 98.7% (sensitivity 100%; specificity 98.1%). Among the 49 patients with high probability, 21 (42.9%) had choledocholithiasis on ERCP. In 107 patients who were classified as intermediate probability, 30 (27.3%) had choledocholithiasis. There were no complications related to EUS. Conclusions: Not only intermediate probability group but also high probability group without definite acute cholangitis may require EUS. Application of EUS for suspected choledocholithiasis is highly accurate, safe and reduces unnecessary invasive ERCP in 57.1% of patients with high probability group.

The additional value of the combined use of EUS and ERCP for the evaluation of unclear biliary strictures

Accuracy of ASGE High-Risk Criteria in Evaluation of Patients with Suspected Common Bile Duct Stones

Therapeutic role of endoscopic ultrasound in pancreaticobiliary disease: A comprehensive review.

EUS vs MRCP for detection of choledocholithiasis

EUS- Versus ERCP-guided Biliary Drainage for Malignant Biliary Obstruction: Evidence from Randomized Controlled Studies

Comparison of EUS and ERCP in the investigation with suspected biliary obstruction caused by choledocholithiasis: a randomized study.

The Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography and Endoscopic Ultrasound Connection: Unity Is Strength, or the Endoscopic Ultrasonography Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography Concept

EUS versus MRCP in patients with intermediate risk of choledocholithiasis: clinical and statistical viewpoint

Role of endoscopic ultrasound in evaluation of patients with missed common bile duct stones

EUS versus MRCP to perform ERCP in patients with intermediate likelihood of choledocholithiasis: a randomised controlled trial

How to Perform EUS-guided Biliary Drainage

Application Value of Contrast-enhanced Ultrasonography in the Diagnosis of Biliary Diseases

Comparison of SSFSE-MRCP、 M3D-MRCP and ERCP in the Diagnosis of Biliary Calculi

A Comparative Study Between Combined and Separate EUS and ERCP under Anesthesia for Pancreaticobiliary Diseases

Tu1621 Single Session EUS-Rendezvous ERCP Versus Percutaneous Biliary Drainage in Patients with Failed Common Bile Duct Access after ERCP

Tissue Sampling through Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine Needle Aspiration versus Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatographic Brushing Cytology Technique in Suspicious Malignant Biliary Stricture

EUS-guided biliary interventions for benign diseases and unsuccessful ERCP - a prospective unicenter feasibility study on a large consecutive patient cohort

Comparison of ERCP, EUS, and ERCP combined with EUS in diagnosing pancreatic neoplasms: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Multicenter study comparing EUS‐guided hepaticogastrostomy and ERCP for malignant biliary obstruction in patients with accessible papillae

[EUS-guided therapy of cholangiolithiasis in surgically altered anatomy of the upper GI tract - a unicenter case study]

Long term outcome of EUS-based strategy for suspected choledocholithiasis but negative CT finding