Application of endoscopic ultrasound-guided hepaticogastrostomy combined with antegrade stenting in patients with malignant biliary obstruction after failed ERCP

Abstract

Background: This study was aimed at comparing the safety and effectiveness of endoscopic ultrasound-guided hepaticogastrostomy (EUS-HGS) and EUS-HGS combined with antegrade stenting (EUS-HGAS) in patients with malignant biliary obstruction (MBO) after failed endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP).

Methods: Patients diagnosed with MBO and receiving EUS-HGS or EUS-HGAS from September 2015 to October 2020 were enrolled in this study. Clinical success, complications, reintervention rate, post-operative hospital stay, time to stent dysfunction, and patient death were compared.

Results: A total of 45 patients (21 in the EUS-HGAS group and 24 in the EUS-HGS group) were enrolled in this study. In the EUS-HGAS group, 21 patients all achieved clinical success (100%); in the EUS-HGS group, 24 patients also achieved technical success (100%) (P > 0.05). The differences between pre- and post-operative TB and ALT and AST levels were greater in the single-step EUS-HGAS group (P < 0.05). The incidence of complications was 2 of 21 (9.5%) in the EUS-HGAS group and 5 of 24 (20.8%) in the EUS-HGS group (P > 0.05). The reintervention rate was 0 in the EUS-HGAS group and 1 (4.2%) in the EUS-HGS group (P > 0.05). Time to stent dysfunction or patient death was longer in the EUS-HGAS group (P < 0.05). The post-operative hospital stay was longer and the total cost was higher in the EUS-HGAS group.

Conclusion: EUS-HGAS was superior to EUS-HGS in terms of biliary drainage effectiveness and time to stent dysfunction or patient death in patients with MBO after failed ERCP. Furthermore, two-step EUS-HGAS may be safer in some patients.

Keywords: EUS-guided antegrade stenting; EUS-guided biliary drainage; EUS-guided hepaticogastrostomy; Endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS); Malignant biliary obstruction.