Effectiveness of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided choledochoduodenostomy vs. EUS-guided gallbladder drainage for jaundice in patients with malignant distal biliary obstruction after failed endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: Retrospective, multicenter study (GALLBLADEUS Study).

Antoine Debourdeau, Jules Daniel, Ludovic Caillo, Eric Assenat, Martin Bertrand, Thomas Bardol, François-Régis Souche, Philippe Pouderoux, Romain Gerard, Diane Lorenzo, Jean-François Bourgaux
{"title":"Effectiveness of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided choledochoduodenostomy vs. EUS-guided gallbladder drainage for jaundice in patients with malignant distal biliary obstruction after failed endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: Retrospective, multicenter study (GALLBLADEUS Study).","authors":"Antoine Debourdeau, Jules Daniel, Ludovic Caillo, Eric Assenat, Martin Bertrand, Thomas Bardol, François-Régis Souche, Philippe Pouderoux, Romain Gerard, Diane Lorenzo, Jean-François Bourgaux","doi":"10.1111/den.14750","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The aim of this study was to compare endoscopic ultrasound-guided choledochoduodenostomy (EUS-CDS) vs. EUS-gallbladder drainage (EUS-GBD) in cases of failed endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) for jaundice resulting from malignant distal biliary obstruction (MDBO).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This multicenter retrospective study included patients with obstructive jaundice secondary to MDBO who underwent EUS-GBD or EUS-CDS with lumen-apposing metal stents after failed ERCP. The primary end-point was clinical success rate. Secondary end-points were technical success, periprocedural adverse events rate (<24 h), late adverse events rate (>24 h), overall survival, and time to recurrent biliary obstruction.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 78 patients were included: 41 underwent EUS-GBD and 37 underwent EUS-CDS. MDBO was mainly the result of pancreatic cancer (n = 63/78, 80.7%). Clinical success rate was similar for both procedures: 87.8% for EUS-GBD and 89.2% for EUS-CDS (P = 0.8). Technical success rate was 100% for EUS-GBD and 94.6% for EUS-CDS (P = 0.132). Periprocedural morbidity (<24 h) rates were similar between both groups: 4/41 (9.8%) for EUS-GBD and 5/37 (13.5%) for EUS-CDS (P = 0.368). There was a significantly higher rate of late morbidity (>24 h) among patients in the EUS-CDS group (8/37 [21.6%]) than in the EUS-GBD group (3/41 [7.3%]) (P = 0.042). The median follow-up duration was 4.7 months. Overall survival and time to recurrent biliary obstruction did not significantly differ between the groups.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>After failed ERCP for MDBO, EUS-GBD and EUS-CDS show comparable clinical success rates and technical success. EUS-GBD appears to be a promising alternative for MDBO, even as a second-line treatment after failed ERCP. Further studies are needed to validate these findings and compare the long-term outcomes of EUS-GBD and EUS-CDS.</p>","PeriodicalId":72813,"journal":{"name":"Digestive endoscopy : official journal of the Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Digestive endoscopy : official journal of the Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/den.14750","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: The aim of this study was to compare endoscopic ultrasound-guided choledochoduodenostomy (EUS-CDS) vs. EUS-gallbladder drainage (EUS-GBD) in cases of failed endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) for jaundice resulting from malignant distal biliary obstruction (MDBO).

Methods: This multicenter retrospective study included patients with obstructive jaundice secondary to MDBO who underwent EUS-GBD or EUS-CDS with lumen-apposing metal stents after failed ERCP. The primary end-point was clinical success rate. Secondary end-points were technical success, periprocedural adverse events rate (<24 h), late adverse events rate (>24 h), overall survival, and time to recurrent biliary obstruction.

Results: A total of 78 patients were included: 41 underwent EUS-GBD and 37 underwent EUS-CDS. MDBO was mainly the result of pancreatic cancer (n = 63/78, 80.7%). Clinical success rate was similar for both procedures: 87.8% for EUS-GBD and 89.2% for EUS-CDS (P = 0.8). Technical success rate was 100% for EUS-GBD and 94.6% for EUS-CDS (P = 0.132). Periprocedural morbidity (<24 h) rates were similar between both groups: 4/41 (9.8%) for EUS-GBD and 5/37 (13.5%) for EUS-CDS (P = 0.368). There was a significantly higher rate of late morbidity (>24 h) among patients in the EUS-CDS group (8/37 [21.6%]) than in the EUS-GBD group (3/41 [7.3%]) (P = 0.042). The median follow-up duration was 4.7 months. Overall survival and time to recurrent biliary obstruction did not significantly differ between the groups.

Discussion: After failed ERCP for MDBO, EUS-GBD and EUS-CDS show comparable clinical success rates and technical success. EUS-GBD appears to be a promising alternative for MDBO, even as a second-line treatment after failed ERCP. Further studies are needed to validate these findings and compare the long-term outcomes of EUS-GBD and EUS-CDS.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
内镜逆行胰胆管造影术失败后的恶性远端胆道梗阻患者,内镜超声(EUS)引导下胆总管十二指肠造口术与 EUS 引导下胆囊引流术治疗黄疸的效果对比:回顾性多中心研究(GALLBLADEUS 研究)。
研究目的本研究旨在比较内镜超声引导下胆总管十二指肠造口术(EUS-CDS)与内镜逆行胰胆管造影术(ERCP)治疗恶性远端胆道梗阻(MDBO)所致黄疸失败病例的内镜胆囊引流术(EUS-GBD):这项多中心回顾性研究纳入了因恶性远端胆道梗阻(MDBO)引起的梗阻性黄疸患者,这些患者在ERCP失败后接受了EUS-GBD或EUS-CDS,并使用了腔内金属支架。主要终点是临床成功率。次要终点为技术成功率、围手术期不良事件发生率(24 小时)、总生存率和复发胆道梗阻时间:结果:共纳入 78 名患者:结果:共纳入 78 例患者:41 例接受了 EUS-GBD 术,37 例接受了 EUS-CDS 术。MDBO主要由胰腺癌引起(n = 63/78,80.7%)。两种手术的临床成功率相似:EUS-GBD为87.8%,EUS-CDS为89.2%(P = 0.8)。EUS-GBD 的技术成功率为 100%,EUS-CDS 为 94.6%(P = 0.132)。EUS-CDS 组患者的围手术期发病率(24 h)(8/37 [21.6%])高于 EUS-GBD 组(3/41 [7.3%])(P = 0.042)。中位随访时间为 4.7 个月。两组患者的总生存率和复发胆道梗阻时间无明显差异:讨论:ERCP治疗MDBO失败后,EUS-GBD和EUS-CDS的临床成功率和技术成功率相当。EUS-GBD似乎是治疗MDBO的一种很有前景的选择,即使是ERCP失败后的二线治疗。还需要进一步的研究来验证这些发现,并比较 EUS-GBD 和 EUS-CDS 的长期疗效。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Diagnostic ability and adverse events of mucosal incision-assisted biopsy for gastric subepithelial tumors: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Is endoscopic ultrasound-guided gastroenterostomy better than surgical gastrojejunostomy or duodenal stenting? Current status and future perspectives for endoscopic treatment of local complications in chronic pancreatitis. Proposal of classification and terminology of interventional endoscopic ultrasonography/endosonography. Comorbidity burden and outcomes of endoscopic ultrasound-guided treatment of pancreatic fluid collections: Multicenter study with nationwide data-based validation.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1