| Literature DB >> 36078916 |
Ikuhiro Kobori1, Yusuke Hashimoto2, Taro Shibuki2, Kei Okumura2, Masanari Sekine3, Aki Miyagaki4, Yoshihiro Sasaki5, Yuichi Takano6, Yasumi Katayama7, Masaru Kuwada1, Yoshinori Gyotoku1, Yumi Kusano1, Masaya Tamano1.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Endoscopic-ultrasound-guided hepaticogastrostomy (EUS-HGS) with plastic stent placement is associated with a high incidence of adverse events that may be reduced using an endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) contrast catheter in the track dilation step. In this study, we evaluated the usefulness of track dilation and bile aspiration performed with an ERCP contrast catheter in EUS-HGS with plastic stent placement.Entities:
Keywords: bile aspiration; endoscopic ultrasonography; endoscopic-ultrasound-guided biliary drainage; endoscopic-ultrasound-guided hepaticogastrostomy
Year: 2022 PMID: 36078916 PMCID: PMC9456467 DOI: 10.3390/jcm11174986
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Clin Med ISSN: 2077-0383 Impact factor: 4.964
Figure 1Flowchart of the study design. Abbreviations: ERCP, endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography; HGS, hepaticogastrostomy.
Figure 2CT scan image showing bile leak. Contrast medium is filling the stomach. Leakage of contrast medium can be seen near the stenting site.
Figure 3Tapered-tip single-lumen ERCP contrast catheter.
Figure 4Fluoroscopic images showing hepaticogastrostomy. (a) Bile duct puncture and guidewire passage, (b) track dilation and cholangiography with an ERCP contrast catheter, (c) bile aspiration with an ERCP contrast catheter, (d) stent placement.
Figure 5Plastic stent. (a) Through & Pass Type-IT (7-Fr, 14 cm, Gadelius Medical, Tokyo, Japan). (b) Quick Place V (7-Fr, Olympus Medical Systems, Tokyo, Japan).
Patient characteristics.
| Characteristic | Value |
|---|---|
| Age, y | 72 (47–90) |
| Sex, male/female | 12/10 |
| Cause of biliary obstruction | 9 (40.9) |
| Gastric cancer | |
| Pancreatic cancer | 6 (27.3) |
| Bile duct cancer | 3 (13.6) |
| Duodenal cancer | 2 (9.1) |
| Intrahepatic gallstone | 1 (4.5) |
| Stenosis of choledochojejunostomy | 1 (4.5) |
| Performance Status | |
| 0 | 6 (27.3) |
| 1 | 9 (40.9) |
| 2 | 2 (9.1) |
| 3 | 5 (22.7) |
| Site of biliary obstruction | |
| Distal | 14 (63.6) |
| Hilar | 5 (22.7) |
| Anastomotic | 3 (13.6) |
| Indication of EUS-HGS | |
| Difficulty reaching the papilla | 12 (54.5) |
| Surgically altered anatomy | 7 (31.8) |
| Difficulty cannulating the bile duct | 3 (13.6) |
| Presence of cholangitis before EUS-HGS | 4 (18.2) |
n = 22. Data are expressed as the median (range) or number (%). Continuous variables are presented as the median (range), categorical variables as the absolute number (percentage). Abbreviation: EUS-HGS, endoscopic-ultrasound-guided hepaticogastrostomy.
Procedure outcomes.
| Value | |
|---|---|
| Procedure time (min) | 45.5 (15–90) |
| Puncture needle used | |
| 19-gauge | 21 (95.5) |
| 22-gauge | 1 (4.5) |
| Puncture site | |
| B2 | 15 (68.2) |
| B3 | 7 (31.8) |
| Types of plastic stents | |
| Through & Pass Type-IT | 19 (86.4) |
| Quick Place V | 3 (13.6) |
| Antegrade stent placement | 4 (18.2) |
| Bile aspiration whenever possible | |
| No | 11 (50) |
| Yes | 11 (50) |
n = 22. Data are expressed as the median (range) or number (%). Continuous variables are presented as the median (range), categorical variables as the absolute number (percentage).
Clinical outcomes.
| Functional success | 20 (90.9) |
| Recurrent biliary obstruction | 7 (31.8) |
| Occlusion | 6 (27.3) |
| Sludge formation | 4 (18.2) |
| Other | 2 (9.1) |
| Migration (toward the gastric side) | 1 (4.5) |
| Adverse events other than recurrent biliary obstruction | |
| Early adverse events | 7 (31.8) |
| Bile leakage | 3 (13.6) |
| Peritonitis | 3 (13.6) |
| Bleeding | 1 (4.5) |
| Late adverse events | 0 (0) |
n = 22.
Figure 6Kaplan–Meier curve of time to recurrent biliary obstruction. The small vertical bars indicate censored patients.
Patient characteristics and outcomes with and without bile aspiration whenever possible.
| Bile Aspiration Whenever Possible | Yes ( | No ( |
|---|---|---|
| Preprocedural cholangitis ( | 3 | 1 |
| Procedure time (min) | 47 (27–89) | 42 (15–90) |
| Time that the bile aspiration takes (min) | 13 (5–20) | |
| Antegrade stent placement ( | 2 | 2 |
| Adverse events other than recurrent biliary obstruction ( | 1 | 6 |
| Bile leakage ( | 0 | 3 |
| Peritonitis ( | 0 | 3 |
| Bleeding ( | 1 | 0 |
Continuous variables are presented as the median (range), categorical variables as the absolute number.
Factors affecting adverse events.
| Univariate Analysis OR (95%CI) | ||
|---|---|---|
| Age (years) | 0.29 | |
| <75 | 1 | |
| ≥75 | 2.86 (0.42–19.65) | |
| Performance status | 0.25 | |
| 0–1 | 1 | |
| 2–4 | 0.46 (0.02–2.67) | |
| Puncture site | 0.45 | |
| B2 | 1 | |
| B3 | 0.48(0.07–3.19) | |
| Preprocedural cholangitis | 0.75 | |
| Yes | 1.50 (0.13–17.67) | |
| No | 1 | |
| Bile aspiration whenever possible | 0.04 | |
| No | 12.0 (1.12–128.84) | |
| Yes | 1 | |
| Antegrade stent placement | 0.40 | |
| Yes | 2.60 (0.28–23.81) | |
| No | 1 | |
| Procedure time (min) | 0.65 | |
| <44.5 | 1 | |
| ≥44.5 | 1.52 (0.25–9.29) | |
Abbreviations: OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval.