EUS-guided versus percutaneous liver abscess drainage: A multicenter collaborative study

Abstract

Management of hepatic abscesses has traditionally been performed by image-guided percutaneous techniques. More recently, EUS drainage has been shown to be efficacious and safe. The aim of this study is to compare EUS-guided versus percutaneous catheter drainage (PCD) of hepatic abscesses. Patients who underwent EUS-guided drainage or PCD of hepatic abscesses from January 2018 through November 2021 from 4 international academic centers were included in a dedicated registry. Demographics, clinical data preprocedure and postprocedure, abscess characteristics, procedural data, adverse events, and postprocedure care were collected. Seventy-four patients were included (mean age, 63.9 years; 45% male): EUS-guided (n = 30), PCD (n = 44). Preprocedure Charlson Comorbidity Index scores were 4.3 for the EUS group and 4.3 for the PCD group. The median abscess size was 8.45 × 6 cm (length × width) in the EUS group versus 7.3 × 5.5 cm in the PCD group. All of the abscesses in the EUS group were left-sided, whereas the PCD group contained both left- and right-sided abscesses (29 and 15, respectively). Technical success was 100% in both groups. Ten-millimeter-diameter stents were used in most cases in the EUS group, and 10F catheters were used in the PCD group. The duration to resolution of symptoms from the initial procedure was 10.9 days less in the EUS group compared with the PCD group (P < 0.00001). Hospital length of stay was shorter in the EUS group by 5.2 days (P = 0.000126). The EUS group had significantly fewer number of repeat sessions: mean of 2 versus 7.7 (P < 0.00001) and trended toward fewer number of procedure-related readmissions: 10% versus 34%. The PCD group had a significantly higher number of adverse events (n = 27 [61%]) when compared with the EUS group (n = 5 [17%]; P = 0.0001). EUS-guided drainage is an efficacious and safe intervention for the management of hepatic abscesses. EUS-guided drainage allows for quicker resolution of symptoms, shorter length of hospital stay, fewer adverse events, and fewer procedural sessions needed when compared with the PCD technique. However, EUS-guided drainage may not be feasible in right-sided lesions.