BACKGROUND: Recently, endoscopic ultrasound-guided hepaticogastrostomy (EUS-HGS) procedures have been gradually established; nonetheless, some adverse events (AEs) have been reported. Dilation procedures using a non-cautery or cautery device increase the incidence of AEs in EUS-HGS. AIMS: We evaluated EUS-HGS procedures without dilation and the factors associated with dilation. METHODS: We enrolled 79 patients who underwent EUS-HGS between July 2015 and March 2021 at two centers, 72 of whom had technical success (72/79, 91%). During the EUS-HGS procedures, we defined patients without dilation procedures as the dilation (-) group. We divided the patients into two groups: the dilation (+) (35 patients) and dilation (-) (37 patients) groups. We performed a propensity score matching analysis to adjust for confounding bias between the two groups. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was conducted to identify factors associated with dilation. RESULTS: There was no difference in clinical success rate between the dilation (+) and dilation (-) groups (91% vs. 95%, P = 0.545). The AE rate (P = 0.013) and long procedure time (P = 0.017) were significantly higher in the dilation (+) group than in the dilation (-) group before and after propensity score matching. Factors associated with dilation were plastic stent placement (odds ratio [OR], 6.96; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.68-28.7; P = 0.007) and puncture angle of ≤ 90° (OR, 44.6; 95% CI, 5.1-390; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: A dilation procedure in EUS-HGS may not always be necessary. However, patients with an angle of ≤ 90° between the needle and intrahepatic biliary tract or plastic stent deployment require dilation procedures.
BACKGROUND: Recently, endoscopic ultrasound-guided hepaticogastrostomy (EUS-HGS) procedures have been gradually established; nonetheless, some adverse events (AEs) have been reported. Dilation procedures using a non-cautery or cautery device increase the incidence of AEs in EUS-HGS. AIMS: We evaluated EUS-HGS procedures without dilation and the factors associated with dilation. METHODS: We enrolled 79 patients who underwent EUS-HGS between July 2015 and March 2021 at two centers, 72 of whom had technical success (72/79, 91%). During the EUS-HGS procedures, we defined patients without dilation procedures as the dilation (-) group. We divided the patients into two groups: the dilation (+) (35 patients) and dilation (-) (37 patients) groups. We performed a propensity score matching analysis to adjust for confounding bias between the two groups. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was conducted to identify factors associated with dilation. RESULTS: There was no difference in clinical success rate between the dilation (+) and dilation (-) groups (91% vs. 95%, P = 0.545). The AE rate (P = 0.013) and long procedure time (P = 0.017) were significantly higher in the dilation (+) group than in the dilation (-) group before and after propensity score matching. Factors associated with dilation were plastic stent placement (odds ratio [OR], 6.96; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.68-28.7; P = 0.007) and puncture angle of ≤ 90° (OR, 44.6; 95% CI, 5.1-390; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: A dilation procedure in EUS-HGS may not always be necessary. However, patients with an angle of ≤ 90° between the needle and intrahepatic biliary tract or plastic stent deployment require dilation procedures.
Authors: Muhammad Ali Khan; Ali Akbar; Todd H Baron; Sobia Khan; Mehmat Kocak; Yaseen Alastal; Tariq Hammad; Wade M Lee; Aijaz Sofi; Everson L A Artifon; Ali Nawras; Mohammad Kashif Ismail Journal: Dig Dis Sci Date: 2015-10-30 Impact factor: 3.199