Back to Authors

Buttar, Navtej

Mayo Clinic

WinnMed

Citations 1

Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Gastroenterostomy for Gastric Outlet Obstruction: A Comparison of Duodenal Versus Jejunal Placement on Patient Outcomes
Khan, Rishad , Law, Ryan , Guralwar, Chinmay , Bauss, Jacob, Suman, Garima , Han, S, Buttar, Navtej, Song, Louis–Michel Wong Kee, Law, Ryan J, AbiMansour, Jad P. , Vargas, Eric J , Wong Kee Song, Louis-Michel, Storm, Andrew C , Chandrasekhara, Vinay , Bauss, Jacob M. , Han, Samuel, Vargas, Eric J. , Dayyeh, Barham K. Abu , Buttar, Navtej , Storm, Andrew C. , Chandrasekhara, Vinay

Endoscopy International Open | July 11, 2026 | Volume: 14 | Issue: CP | Pages: No page available

10.1055/a-2913-6628 Get It

Abstract Background and Aims EUS-guided gastroenterostomy (EUS-GE) is an effective option to palliate symptoms of gastric outlet obstruction (GOO). While the jejunum is conventionally targeted (EUS-GJ), targeting the duodenum (EUS-GD) may offer clinical advantages. Outcomes were compared for EUS-GJ and EUS-GD. Methods Adult patients who underwent EUS-GE for GOO between 2020 and 2024 were included and categorized as an EUS-GD if the stent entered the transverse or ascending duodenum or an EUS-GJ if the stent entered more distally. The primary outcome was clinical success (soft diet tolerance at 7 days). Secondary outcomes included adverse events (AEs), stent misdeployment, and unplanned endoscopic reintervention. Baseline demographic variables and outcomes were compared with statistical significance at p < 0.05. Results Of the 139 included patients (median age 67 years (IQR 61–74); 41% female), 105 underwent EUS-GJ and 34 underwent EUS-GD. Clinical success was 98% for EUS-GJ and 94% for EUS-GD (p = 0.25). The misdeployment rate was 7% for EUS-GJ and 0% for EUS-GD (p = 0.19). The AE rate was 22% for EUS-GJ and 12% for EUS-GD (p = 0.23). There were no significant differences for stent obstruction (EUS-GJ 12% vs. EUS-GD 6%), bleeding (2% vs. 6%), perforation (4% vs. 0%), stent migration (1% vs. 0%), infection (3% vs. 0%), and unplanned reintervention (14% vs. 9%). Conclusion Both EUS-GJ and EUS-GD demonstrate high clinical success with no significant differences in adverse event rates. These data can support intraprocedural decision-making for endoscopists performing EUS-GE.