Endoscopy 2025; 57(09): 990-1000
DOI: 10.1055/a-2541-2973
Original article

Technical failure of endoscopic ultrasound-guided choledochoduodenostomy: multicenter study on rescue techniques, consequences, and risk factors

Authors

  • Clara Beunon

    1   Department of Digestive Endoscopy, Université Paris Cité, Beaujon University Hospital (APHP), Clichy, France
    2   Department of Pancreatology and Digestive Oncology, Université Paris Cité, Beaujon University Hospital (APHP), CRMR PaRaDis Pancreatic Rare Diseases, Clichy, France
  • Antoine Debourdeau

    3   Gastroenterology Unit, CHU de Nîmes, CHU de Montpellier, Montpellier University MUSE, Montpellier, France
  • Marion Schaefer

    4   Hepato-Gastroenterology Department, Nancy Regional University Hospital Center, Nancy, France
  • Timothée Wallenhorst

    5   Gastroenterology Unit, CHU Rennes, Rennes, France
  • Enrique Perez-Cuadrado-Robles

    6   Department of Gastroenterology, Université Paris Cité, Hopital Européen Georges Pompidou (APHP), Paris, France
  • Arthur Belle

    7   Department of Gastroenterology, Université Paris Cité, Cochin University Hospital (APHP), Paris, France
  • Jean-Michel Gonzalez

     8   Department of Gastroenterology, Université Aix Marseille, Hôpital Nord (APHM), Marseille, France
  • Marine Camus Duboc

     9   Department of Endoscopy, Université Sorbonne, Saint Antoine University Hospital (APHP), Paris, France
  • Fabrice Caillol

    10   Department of Gastroenterology, Institut Paoli Calmettes, Marseille, France
  • Hervé-Pierre Toudic

    11   Gastroenterology Department, Brest University Hospital, Brest, France
  • Mathieu Pioche

    12   Gastroenterology Unit, Hôpital Edouard Herriot, Lyon, France
  • Jean Baptiste Danset

    13   Gastroenterology Unit, Hôpital Saint-Joseph, Paris, France
  • Adrien Sportes

    14   Gastroenterology Unit, Institut Arnault Tzanck, Saint Laurent du Var, France
  • Bertrand Brieau

    15   Gastroenterology Unit, Clinique Jules Vernes, Nantes, France
  • Emmanuel Ben Soussan

    16   Gastroenterology Unit, Clinique de l’Alma, Paris, France
  • Mathilde Petiet

    17   Gastroenterology Unit, Grand Hôpital de l’Est Francilien, Meaux, France
  • Antoine Martin

    18   Gastroenterology Unit, CHU Hôpital Bicêtre (APHP), Kremlin-Bicêtre, France
  • Sarra Oumrani

    19   Gastroenterology Unit, CHUV, Lausanne, Switzerland
  • Frédérique Maire

    2   Department of Pancreatology and Digestive Oncology, Université Paris Cité, Beaujon University Hospital (APHP), CRMR PaRaDis Pancreatic Rare Diseases, Clichy, France
  • Arnaud Lemmers

    20   Department of Gastroenterology, Hepatopancreatology and Digestive Oncology, Erasme Hospital, HUB (Hôpital Universitaire de Bruxelles), ULB (Université Libre de Bruxelles), Brussels, Belgium
  • Frédéric Prat

    1   Department of Digestive Endoscopy, Université Paris Cité, Beaujon University Hospital (APHP), Clichy, France
  • Ludovic Caillo

    21   Gastroenterology Unit, CHU de Nîmes, Montpellier Univ, MUSE, France
  • Romain Gérard

    22   Gastroenterology and Endoscopy Unit, CHU Lille, Lille, France
  • Jérémie Albouys

    23   Gastroenterology and Endoscopy Unit, CHU Limoges, Limoges, France
  • Diane Lorenzo

    1   Department of Digestive Endoscopy, Université Paris Cité, Beaujon University Hospital (APHP), Clichy, France
  • and the ETC Working Group


Graphical Abstract

Abstract

Background We aimed to determine risk factors for technical failure of endoscopic ultrasound-guided choledochoduodenostomy (EUS-CDS), evaluate short- and long-term consequences, and identify salvage techniques in patients with biliary obstruction.

Methods This retrospective multicenter study of EUS-CDS (2018–2024) included technical failure, classified as type 1 (digestive flange mispositioned), type 2 (biliary flange mispositioned), type 3 (stent deployment failure), type 4 (catheter/lumen-apposing metal stent [LAMS] through the bile duct), and type 5 (others). Controls were successful EUS-CDS in the same center and period. The primary end point was risk factors for failure. Secondary end points were endoscopic rescue techniques and immediate- and long-term consequences.

Results Technical failure occurred in 7 % (95 %CI 5–9). Across 23 centers, 296 patients were analyzed (mean age 71 [SD 16] years, 53 % male), including 100 technical failures: type 1 (26 %), type 2 (41 %), type 3 (11 %), type 4 (6 %), type 5 (16 %). Risk factors for technical failure in multivariate analysis included CBD diameter ≤ 15 mm, duodenal stenosis, wired technique, and low operator experience (≤ 10 LAMS). Endoscopic salvage was successful in 77 %, with 53 % using a covered metal stent and 22 % using a new LAMS. Early failures were mild in 56 % of cases, but 12 % resulted in death within 30 days. Immediate endoscopic salvage reduced severe clinical adverse events (P < 0.001) and increased success rates (P < 0.001).

Conclusions EUS-CDS failures were not rare and were severe in half of cases. Recognizing risk factors, identifying failures during the procedure, and knowing endoscopic salvage methods are crucial.



Publication History

Received: 11 June 2024

Accepted after revision: 17 February 2025

Accepted Manuscript online:
17 February 2025

Article published online:
14 May 2025

© 2025. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Oswald-Hesse-Straße 50, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany