Law, Joanna K.

INTRODUCTION: Prophylactic pancreatic stent placement (PSP) is effective for preventing pancreatitis after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in high-risk cases, but the optimal technical approach to this intervention remains uncertain. METHODS: In this secondary analysis of 787 clinical trial patients who underwent successful stent placement, we studied the impact of (i) whether pancreatic wire access was achieved for the sole purpose of PSP or naturally during the conduct of the case, (ii) the amount of effort expended on PSP, (iii) stent length, (iv) stent diameter, and (v) guidewire caliber. We used logistic regression models to examine the adjusted association between each technical factor and post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP). RESULTS: Ninety-one of the 787 patients experienced PEP. There was no clear association between PEP and whether pancreatic wire access was achieved for the sole purpose of PSP (vs occurring naturally; odds ratio [OR] 0.82, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.37–1.84), whether substantial effort expended on stent placement (vs nonsubstantial effort; OR 1.58, 95% CI 0.73–3.45), stent length (>5 vs ≤5 cm; OR 1.01, 95% CI 0.63–1.61), stent diameter (≥5 vs <5 Fr; OR 1.13, 95% CI 0.65–1.96), or guidewire caliber (0.035 vs 0.025 in; 0.83, 95% CI 0.49–1.41). DISCUSSION: The 5 modifiable technical factors studied in this secondary analysis of large-scale randomized trial data did not appear to have a strong impact on the benefit of prophylactic PSP in preventing PEP after high-risk ERCP. Within the limitations of post hoc subgroup analysis, these findings may have important implications in procedural decision making and suggest that the benefit of PSP is robust to variations in technical approach.

Background: Endoscopic ultrasound–guided rendezvous (EUS-RV) endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is an alternative to interventional radiology–guided rendezvous ERCP in patients who failed biliary cannulation with conventional ERCP. However, there is significant variation in reported rates of success and adverse events associated with EUS-RV-assisted ERCP. We performed a systematic review and a proportion meta-analysis to reliably assess the effectiveness and safety of the EUS-RV-assisted ERCP. Materials and Methods: We conducted a comprehensive search of multiple electronic databases and conference proceedings (from inception through August 2020) to identify studies reporting EUS-RV-assisted ERCP in patients who failed biliary cannulation with conventional ERCP techniques. Using the random-effects model described by DerSimonian and Laird, we calculated the pooled rates of technical success, clinical success, and adverse events of EUS-RV-assisted ERCP. Results: Twelve studies reporting a total of 342 patients were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled rate of technical success (12 studies reporting a total of 342 patients) was 86.1% [95% confidence interval (CI): 78.4-91.3]. The pooled rate of clinical success (4 studies reporting a total of 94 patients) was 80.8% (95% CI: 64.1-90.8). The pooled rate of overall adverse events (12 studies; 42 events in 342 patients) was 14% (95% CI: 10.5-18.4). Low to moderate heterogeneity was noted in the analyses. Conclusions: EUS-RV-assisted ERCP appears to be effective and safe in patients who failed biliary cannulation with conventional ERCP. Given the risk of adverse events, it should be performed in centers with expertise in therapeutic endoscopic ultrasound.

AbstractBackground Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in patients with Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) anatomy is challenging. Overtube-assisted enteroscopy (OAE) is usually needed to perform ERCP in these patients. There is significant variation in the reported rates of success and adverse events across published studies. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to reliably estimate the pooled rates of success and adverse events.Methods We performed a systematic search of multiple electronic databases through February 2020 to identify studies reporting outcomes of OAE-ERCP in post-RYGB patients. The pooled rates of enteroscopy success, technical success, and adverse events were estimated for OAE-ERCP. The pooled rates of success and adverse events were also estimated for ERCP using double-balloon enteroscopes (DBE) alone.Results 10 studies reporting a total of 398 procedures were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled rates of enteroscopy and technical success of OAE-ERCP were 75.3 % (95 % confidence interval [CI] 64.5 – 83.6) and 64.8 % (95 %CI 53.1 – 74.9) respectively. The pooled rate of adverse events was 8.0 % (95 %CI 5.2 – 12.2). The pooled rates of enteroscopy and technical success of DBE-ERCP (four studies) were 83.5 % (95 %CI 68.3 – 92.2) and 72.5 % (95 %CI 52.3 – 86.4), respectively. The pooled rate of adverse events with DBE-ERCP was 9.0 % (95 %CI 5.4 – 14.5). Substantial heterogeneity was noted.Conclusions OAE-ERCP appears to be effective and safe in post-RYGB patients. Among the currently available techniques, OAE-ERCP is the least invasive approach in this challenging group of patients. Future studies comparing the effectiveness and safety of alternative novel techniques, such as endosonography-directed transgastric ERCP, with OAE-ERCP are needed.

INTRODUCTION: In patients with acute cholecystitis who were deemed high risk for cholecystectomy, percutaneous cholecystostomy (PC) was historically performed for decompression of the gallbladder. There are several limitations associated with PC. Endoscopic gallbladder drainage [Endoscopic trans-papillary gallbladder drainage (ET-GBD) via ERCP and EUS-guided gallbladder drainage (EUS-GBD)] is an alternative to PC. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the outcomes between the two endoscopic techniques (EUS-GBD vs ET-GBD). METHODS: We performed a systematic search of multiple databases through May 2019 to identify studies that compared outcomes of EUS-GBD versus ET-GBD in management of acute cholecystitis in high risk surgical patients. Pooled odds ratios (OR) of technical success, clinical success and adverse events between EUS-GBD and ET-GBD groups were calculated. RESULTS: Five comparative studies with a total of 861 patients; were included in the analysis. The pooled OR for technical success of EUS-GBD in comparison to ET-GBD was 5.22 (95% CI: 2.03-13.44; P = 0.01; I 2 = 20%). The pooled OR for clinical success (EUS-GBD vs ET-GBD) in intention-to-treat analysis was 4.16 (95% CI: 2.00-8.66; P = 0.001; I 2 = 19%) and per-protocol analysis was 1.81 (95% CI: 0.80-4.09; P = 0.15; I 2 =0%). The pooled OR for overall acute adverse events (EUS-GBD vs ET-GBD) was 1.32 (95% CI: 0.78 -2.25; P = 0.31, I 2 = 0%). The pooled OR for perforation and pancreatitis (EUS-GBD vs ETGBD) were 1.98 (95% CI: 0.32-12.29) and 0.19 (95% CI: 0.03-0.99) respectively. The pooled OR for recurrent cholecystitis (EUS-GBD vs ETGBD) was 0.33 (95% CI: 0.13-0.82). There was minimal heterogeneity in the analysis. CONCLUSION: EUS-GBD is associated with higher rate of technical and clinical success compared to ET-GBD. While the rate of overall acute adverse events are statistically similar between the two techniques, EUS-GBD is associated with lower rate of recurrent cholecystitis. In centers with expertise in EUS, EUS-GBD could be considered as first-line treatment in carefully selected patients.

INTRODUCTION: Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) guided gastroenterostomy (GE) is emerging as an alternative to enteral stenting and surgical GE for management of malignant gastric outlet obstruction (GOO). With advances in EUS technology and availability of dedicated devices/stents for EUS scopes, the use of EUS-GE is expected to increase in the future. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to estimate the success rate and adverse events associated with EUS-GE. METHODS: We conducted a comprehensive search of multiple electronic databases and conference proceedings including PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science databases (from inception through May 2019) to identify studies that reported success rate and adverse events of EUS-GE. The primary outcome was to estimate the pooled rates of technical and clinical success of EUS-GE. The secondary outcome was to estimate the rate of adverse events. RESULTS: 9 studies with a total of 268 patients were included. The pooled rate of technical success of EUS-GE was 91.7 % (95% CI 87.5 – 94.5; I2 = 0). The pooled rate of clinical success of EUS-GJ was 87.8% (95% CI 83.1 – 91.3; I 2 = 0). The pooled rate of overall adverse events was 12.6% (95% CI 9.0- 17.6; I 2 = 0). The pooled rate of individual adverse events – perforation, bleeding, peritonitis and stent migration / misdeployment were 2% (95% CI 0.7 – 5.1), 3.2% (95% CI 1.5 – 6.5), 2.6% (95% CI 1.1-6.1) and 8.9 % (95% CI 4.3-17.5) respectively.The rate of surgical intervention for adverse events was 2%. CONCLUSION: While the rates of technical success (92%) and clinical success (88%) of EUS-GJ is promising, the risk of adverse events is considerable at 12.6%, with stent misdeployment (9%) being the most common adverse event. Hence, EUS-GJ should be performed at tertiary referral centers in a multidisciplinary (surgery, oncology, gastroenterology) team-based approach.