Do-Hyun Park

Outcomes of endoscopic transpapillary gallbladder stenting for symptomatic gallbladder diseases: a multicenter prospective follow-up study*

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS Endoscopic transpapillary gallbladder drainage for symptomatic gallbladder disease is a safe and effective bridge therapy in patients at high risk for surgery or who have terminal liver disease and are awaiting transplantation. However, there are few reports on long-term results in terms of stent patency and clinical course. Our study was designed to investigate the long-term patency and clinical course after endoscopic transpapillary gallbladder stenting (ETGS) in patients with symptomatic gallbladder disease. PATIENTS AND METHODS A total of 29 patients who were unsuitable for cholecystectomy underwent ETGS from June 2006 to March 2010 using a 7-Fr double-pigtail stent between the gallbladder and the duodenum. Their clinical progress, adverse events, and stent patency after ETGS were recorded prospectively in two tertiary referral centers. RESULTS Technically, ETGS was successful in 23 (79.3%) of the 29 patients. The mean procedure time was 22.4 ± 11.5 min. Postprocedure adverse events were mild pancreatitis (8.7%) and cholestasis (8.7%), all of which resolved with conservative management. During the follow-up period (median 586 days, range 11-1403 days), 20 patients were analyzed as per protocol, and scheduled follow-up was performed. Late adverse events developed in four patients (20%), including distal migration (n = 2), cholangitis (n = 1), and recurrent biliary pain (n = 1). The remaining 16 patients were followed for more than 12 months (nine patients were followed for more than 24 months). Median stent patency was 760 days, as determined by the Kaplan-Meier method. CONCLUSIONS As a primary therapy, ETGS is technically feasible and effective in patients who are unsuitable for cholecystectomy. ETGS may also provide long-term stent patency without the need for scheduled stent exchanges.

Primary and revision efficacy of cross-wired metallic stents for endoscopic bilateral stent-in-stent placement in malignant hilar biliary strictures

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS Endoscopic bilateral drainage for inoperable malignant hilar biliary strictures (HBS) using metal stents is considered to be technically difficult. Furthermore, endoscopic revision of bilateral stenting after occlusion can be challenging. This study was performed to evaluate the long-term efficacy of endoscopic bilateral stent-in-stent placement of cross-wired metallic stents in high-grade malignant HBS and planned endoscopic bilateral revision. PATIENTS AND METHODS A total of 84 patients with inoperable high-grade malignant HBS were enrolled from three academic tertiary referral centers. Two cross-wired metal stents were inserted using a bilateral stent-in-stent placement method. Bilateral endoscopic revision was also performed during follow-up using either identical metal stents or plastic stents. The main outcome measurements were technical and functional success, complications, stent patency, and endoscopic revision efficacy. RESULTS The technical and clinical success rates of endoscopic bilateral stent-in-stent placement of cross-wired metallic stents were 95.2% (80/84) and 92.9% (78/84), respectively. Median patency (range) and survival were 238 days (10-429) and 256 days (10-1130), respectively. Obstruction of primary bilateral stents occurred in 30.8% (24/78) of patients with functionally successful stent placement. The technical and clinical success rates of planned bilateral endoscopic revision for occluded stents were 83.3% (20/24) and 79.2% (19/24), respectively. For revision, bilateral metallic stents were placed in 11 patients (55.0%); the remaining patients received plastic stents. CONCLUSIONS Palliative endoscopic bilateral stent-in-stent placement of cross-wired metallic stents was effective in patients with inoperable HBS. Revision endoscopic bilateral stenting may be feasible and successful in cases where the primary deployed metal stents are occluded.

Is the rate of post-ERCP pancreatitis not reduced by guide-wire cannulation?

We read with great interest the paper on the role of guide−wire cannulation with regard to post−ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) by Bailey et al. [1]. To date, the results for guide−wire cannulation in the prevention of PEP are conflicting [2 ± 4]; Bailey et al. carried out a neat prospective random− ized trial on this issue. In their study [1], interestingly, guide−wire cannulation im− proved the primary success rate for bili− ary cannulation during ERCP but did not reduce the incidence of PEP, compared with conventional contrast cannulation. However, regarding the results for guide− wire cannulation and PEP, we are con− cerned about a methodological issue. This study was a crossover trial: if the en− doscopist failed to cannulate with the randomized technique, then crossover to the other arm (guide−wire or contrast) oc− curred. Ultimately a substantial propor− tion of the enrolled patients (17.4%, 72 of 413) were crossed over. The crossover de− sign may be useful for the evaluation of successful cannulation rates using guide wire or contrast, as in the study of Katsi− nelos et al. [5] in the same issue of Endos− copy, but with regard to post−ERCP pan− creatitis, however, the crossover could mix the results for the two arms with re− gard to PEP. Theoretically, where the pa− tient has been crossed over, guide−wire cannulation following contrast injection could show a higher PEP rate because of the contrast injection part of the proce− dure, while contrast injection following guide−wire cannulation could show a lower PEP rate because of the guide wire cannulation. In addition, pancreatic stents were placed twice as frequently in the contrast arm compared with the guide−wire arm. Given these issues, therefore, it may be a premature conclu− sion that guide−wire cannulation can not reduce the rate of PEP. According to our own and other prospective randomized trials [2, 3, 6], a guide−wire cannulation performed by a single operator is asso− ciated with a low PEP rate. More refined methodology may be needed to clarify the role of guide−wire cannulation in the prevention of PEP.

Patient perception and preference of EUS-guided drainage over percutaneous drainage when endoscopic transpapillary biliary drainage fails: An international multicenter survey

Background and Objectives: EUS-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) is a feasible procedure when ERCP fails, as is percutaneous transhepatic BD (PTBD). However, little is known about patient perception and preference of EUS-BD and PTBD. Patients and Methods: An international multicenter survey was conducted in seven tertiary referral centers. In total, 327 patients, scheduled to undergo ERCP for suspected malignant biliary obstruction, were enrolled in the study. Patients received decision aids with visual representation regarding the techniques, benefits, and adverse events (AEs) of EUS-BD and PTBD. Patients were then asked the choice between the two simulated scenarios (EUS-BD or PTBD) after failed ERCP, the reasons for their preference, and whether altering AE rates would influence their prior choice. Results: In total, 313 patients (95.7%) responded to the questionnaire and 251 patients (80.2%) preferred EUS-BD. The preference of EUS-BD was 85.7% (186/217) with EUS-BD expertise, compared to 67.7% (65/96) without EUS-BD expertise (P < 0.001). The main reason for choosing EUS-BD was the possibility of internal drainage (78.1%). In multivariate analysis, the availability of EUS-BD expertise was the single independent factor that influenced patient preference (odds ratio: 3.168; 95% of confidence interval, 1.714–5.856; P < 0.001). The preference of EUS-BD increased as AE rates decreased (P < 0.001). Conclusions: In this simulated scenario, approximately 80% of patients preferred EUS-BD over PTBD after failed ERCP. However, preference of EUS-BD declined as its AE rates increased. Further technical innovations and improved proficiency in EUS-BD for reducing AEs may encourage the use of this procedure as a routine clinical practice when ERCP fails.

Feasibility and safety of EUS-guided selective portal vein embolization with a coil and cyanoacrylate in a live porcine model

Background and Objectives: Preoperative portal vein (PV) embolization using the percutaneous transhepatic approach has been performed in patients with hepatobiliary malignancy before extensive liver resection. The aim of this study is to evaluate the technical feasibility and initial safety of EUS-guided selective PV embolization using a coil and cyanoacrylate in a live porcine model. Methods: EUS-guided selective intrahepatic PV embolization with a coil and cyanoacrylate was performed in 9 pigs. The selected PV was punctured with 19G fine-needle aspiration (FNA) needle, and the coil was inserted under EUS-guidance. The cyanoacrylate was then immediately injected through the same FNA needle. The blood flow change in the embolized PV was evaluated using color Doppler EUS. A necropsy was performed following the 1-week observation period. Results: The success rates for the coil and cyanoacrylate delivery were 88.9% (8/9) and 87.5% (7/8), respectively. In 1 case, the coil migrated into the hepatic parenchyma. In another case, the cyanoacrylate injection failed due to early clogging in the FNA needle. There was a complete blockage of blood flow confirmed by color Doppler EUS in the embolized PV after coil and cyanoacrylate treatment. There was coil migration into the hepatic parenchyma in 1 case. There was no animal distress observed during the 1-week observation period before necropsy. The necropsy showed no evidence of damage to the intra-abdominal organs, and the selected PV was totally occluded with embolus. Conclusion: The study findings indicate EUS-guided selective PV embolization is both technically feasible and initially safe in an animal model.