Tugrul Purnak1, Ihab I El Hajj2, Stuart Sherman3, Evan L Fogel3, Lee McHenry3, Glen Lehman3, Mark A Gromski3, Mohammad Al-Haddad3, John DeWitt3, James L Watkins3, Jeffrey J Easler4. 1. Division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition, McGovern Medical School, 6431 Fannin, MSB1.150, Houston, TX, 77030, USA. 2. Division of Gastroenterology, Saint George Hospital University Medical Center, University of Balamand, Beirut, Lebanon. 3. Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Indiana University School of Medicine, 550 N. University Blvd., Ste 1634, Indianapolis, IN, 46202, USA. 4. Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Indiana University School of Medicine, 550 N. University Blvd., Ste 1634, Indianapolis, IN, 46202, USA. jjeasler@iu.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A single-procedure session combining EUS and ERCP (EUS/ERCP) for tissue diagnosis and biliary decompression for pancreatic duct adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is technically feasible. While EUS/ERCP may offer expedience and convenience over an approach of separate procedures sessions, the technical success and risk for complications of a combined approach is unclear. AIMS: Compare the effectiveness and safety of EUS/ERCP versus separate session approaches for PDAC. METHODS: Study patients (2010-2015) were identified within our ERCP database. Patients were analyzed in three groups based on approach: Group A: Single-session EUS-FNA and ERCP (EUS/ERCP), Group B: EUS-FNA followed by separate, subsequent ERCP (EUS then ERCP), and Group C: ERCP with/without separate EUS (ERCP ± EUS). Rates of technical success, number of procedures, complications, and time to initiation of PDAC therapies were compared between groups. RESULTS: Two hundred patients met study criteria. EUS/ERCP approach (Group A) had a longer index procedure duration (median 66 min, p = 0.023). No differences were observed between Group A versus sequential procedure approaches (Groups B and C) for complications (p = 0.109) and success of EUS-FNA (p = 0.711) and ERCP (p = 0.109). Subgroup analysis (> 2 months of follow-up, not referred to hospice, n = 126) was performed. No differences were observed for stent failure (p = 0.307) or need for subsequent procedures (p = 0.220). EUS/ERCP (Group A) was associated with a shorter time to initiation of PDAC therapies (mean, 25.2 vs 42.7 days, p = 0.046). CONCLUSIONS: EUS/ERCP approach has comparable rates of success and complications compared to separate, sequential approaches. An EUS/ERCP approach equates to shorter time interval to initiation of PDAC therapies.
BACKGROUND: A single-procedure session combining EUS and ERCP (EUS/ERCP) for tissue diagnosis and biliary decompression for pancreatic duct adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is technically feasible. While EUS/ERCP may offer expedience and convenience over an approach of separate procedures sessions, the technical success and risk for complications of a combined approach is unclear. AIMS: Compare the effectiveness and safety of EUS/ERCP versus separate session approaches for PDAC. METHODS: Study patients (2010-2015) were identified within our ERCP database. Patients were analyzed in three groups based on approach: Group A: Single-session EUS-FNA and ERCP (EUS/ERCP), Group B: EUS-FNA followed by separate, subsequent ERCP (EUS then ERCP), and Group C: ERCP with/without separate EUS (ERCP ± EUS). Rates of technical success, number of procedures, complications, and time to initiation of PDAC therapies were compared between groups. RESULTS: Two hundred patients met study criteria. EUS/ERCP approach (Group A) had a longer index procedure duration (median 66 min, p = 0.023). No differences were observed between Group A versus sequential procedure approaches (Groups B and C) for complications (p = 0.109) and success of EUS-FNA (p = 0.711) and ERCP (p = 0.109). Subgroup analysis (> 2 months of follow-up, not referred to hospice, n = 126) was performed. No differences were observed for stent failure (p = 0.307) or need for subsequent procedures (p = 0.220). EUS/ERCP (Group A) was associated with a shorter time to initiation of PDAC therapies (mean, 25.2 vs 42.7 days, p = 0.046). CONCLUSIONS: EUS/ERCP approach has comparable rates of success and complications compared to separate, sequential approaches. An EUS/ERCP approach equates to shorter time interval to initiation of PDAC therapies.
Authors: M Ducreux; A Sa Cuhna; C Caramella; A Hollebecque; P Burtin; D Goéré; T Seufferlein; K Haustermans; J L Van Laethem; T Conroy; D Arnold Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2015-09 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Michael Jonathan Hewitt; Mark J W McPhail; Lucia Possamai; Ameet Dhar; Panagiotis Vlavianos; Kevin J Monahan Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2012-02 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: B Joseph Elmunzer; Peter D R Higgins; Sameer D Saini; James M Scheiman; Robert A Parker; Amitabh Chak; Joseph Romagnuolo; Patrick Mosler; Rodney A Hayward; Grace H Elta; Sheryl J Korsnes; Suzette E Schmidt; Stuart Sherman; Glen A Lehman; Evan L Fogel Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2013-01-08 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: Niels A van der Gaag; Erik A J Rauws; Casper H J van Eijck; Marco J Bruno; Erwin van der Harst; Frank J G M Kubben; Josephus J G M Gerritsen; Jan Willem Greve; Michael F Gerhards; Ignace H J T de Hingh; Jean H Klinkenbijl; Chung Y Nio; Steve M M de Castro; Olivier R C Busch; Thomas M van Gulik; Patrick M M Bossuyt; Dirk J Gouma Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2010-01-14 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Christoph F Dietrich; Noor L Bekkali; Sean Burmeister; Yi Dong; Simon M Everett; Michael Hocke; Andre Ignee; Wei On; Srisha Hebbar; Kofi Oppong; Siyu Sun; Christian Jenssen; Barbara Braden Journal: Endosc Ultrasound Date: 2022 May-Jun Impact factor: 5.275