Vanella Giuseppe, Bronswijk Michiel, Maleux Geert, van Malenstein Hannah, Laleman Wim, Van der Merwe Schalk
Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University Hospital Gasthuisberg, University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Pancreatobiliary Endoscopy and Endosonography Division, IRCSS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy.
Endosc Int Open. 2020 Dec;8(12):E1782-E1794. doi: 10.1055/a-1264-7511. Epub 2020 Nov 17.
Endoscopic ultrasound-guided intrahepatic biliary drainage (EUS-IBD) struggles to find a place in management algorithms, especially compared to percutaneous drainage (PTBD). In the setting of hilar stenoses or postsurgical anatomy data are even more limited. All consecutive EUS-IBDs performed in our tertiary referral center between 2012 - 2019 were retrospectively evaluated. Rendez-vous (RVs), antegrade stenting (AS) and hepatico-gastrostomies (HGs) were compared. The predefined subgroup of EUS-IBD patients with proximal stenosis/surgically-altered anatomy was matched 1:1 with PTBD performed for the same indications. Efficacy, safety and events during follow-up were compared. One hundred four EUS-IBDs were included (malignancies = 87.7 %). These consisted of 16 RVs, 43 ASs and 45 HGs. Technical and clinical success rates were 89.4 % and 96.2 %, respectively. Any-degree, severe and fatal adverse events (AEs) occurred in 23.3 %, 2.9 %, and 0.9 % respectively. Benign indications were more common among RVs while proximal stenoses, surgically-altered anatomy, and disconnected left ductal system among HGs. Procedures were shorter with HGs performed with specifically designed stents (25 vs 48 minutes, = 0.004) and there was also a trend toward less dysfunction with those stents (6.7 % vs 30 %, = 0.09) compared with previous approaches. Among patients with proximal stenosis/surgically-altered anatomy, EUS-IBD vs. PTBD showed higher rates of clinical success (97.4 % vs. 79.5 %, = 0.01), reduced post-procedural pain (17.8 % vs. 44.4 %, p = 0.004), shorter median hospital stay (7.5 vs 11.5 days, = 0.01), lower rates of stent dysfunction (15.8 % vs. 42.9 %, = 0.01), and the mean number of reinterventions was lower (0.4 vs. 2.8, < 0.0001). EUS-IBD has high technical and clinical success with an acceptable safety profile. HGs show comparable outcomes, which are likely to further improve with dedicated tools. For proximal strictures and surgically-altered anatomy, EUS-IBD seems superior to PTBD.
内镜超声引导下肝内胆管引流术(EUS - IBD)在治疗方案中难以占据一席之地,尤其是与经皮引流术(PTBD)相比。在肝门狭窄或术后解剖结构的情况下,数据更为有限。对2012年至2019年在我们三级转诊中心进行的所有连续性EUS - IBD进行回顾性评估。比较了会师术(RVs)、顺行支架置入术(AS)和肝胃吻合术(HGs)。将EUS - IBD近端狭窄/手术改变解剖结构的预定义亚组患者与因相同适应症进行的PTBD患者按1:1匹配。比较随访期间的疗效、安全性和事件。纳入了104例EUS - IBD(恶性肿瘤占87.7%)。其中包括16例会师术、43例顺行支架置入术和45例肝胃吻合术。技术成功率和临床成功率分别为89.4%和96.2%。任何程度、严重和致命不良事件(AEs)的发生率分别为23.3%、2.9%和0.9%。良性适应症在会师术中更为常见,而近端狭窄、手术改变的解剖结构以及肝胃吻合术中左导管系统中断更为常见。使用专门设计的支架进行肝胃吻合术的操作时间更短(25分钟对48分钟,P = 0.004),与以前的方法相比,这些支架功能障碍的趋势也较小(6.7%对30%,P = 0.09)。在近端狭窄/手术改变解剖结构的患者中,EUS - IBD与PTBD相比,临床成功率更高(97.4%对79.5%,P = 0.01),术后疼痛减轻(17.8%对44.4%,P = 0.004),中位住院时间更短(7.5天对11.5天,P = 0.01),支架功能障碍发生率更低(15.8%对42.9%,P = 0.01),再次干预的平均次数更低(0.4对2.8,P < 0.0001)。EUS - IBD具有较高的技术和临床成功率,安全性可接受。肝胃吻合术显示出可比的结果,使用专用工具可能会进一步改善。对于近端狭窄和手术改变的解剖结构,EUS - IBD似乎优于PTBD。