Endoscopy 2021; 53(07): 691-699
DOI: 10.1055/a-1266-7592
Original article

The role of endoscopic ultrasound guidance for biliary and pancreatic duct access and drainage to overcome the limitations of ERCP: a retrospective evaluation

Francisco Javier García-Alonso
1  Hospital Universitario Rio Hortega, Gastroenterology Valladolid, Spain
,
Irene Peñas-Herrero
1  Hospital Universitario Rio Hortega, Gastroenterology Valladolid, Spain
,
Ramon Sanchez-Ocana
1  Hospital Universitario Rio Hortega, Gastroenterology Valladolid, Spain
,
Mariano Villarroel
1  Hospital Universitario Rio Hortega, Gastroenterology Valladolid, Spain
2  Hospital Britanico de Buenos Aires, Gastroenterology Buenos Aires, Argentina
,
Marta Cimavilla
1  Hospital Universitario Rio Hortega, Gastroenterology Valladolid, Spain
,
Sergio Bazaga
1  Hospital Universitario Rio Hortega, Gastroenterology Valladolid, Spain
,
Marina De Benito Sanz
1  Hospital Universitario Rio Hortega, Gastroenterology Valladolid, Spain
,
Paula Gil-Simon
1  Hospital Universitario Rio Hortega, Gastroenterology Valladolid, Spain
,
Carlos de la Serna-Higuera
1  Hospital Universitario Rio Hortega, Gastroenterology Valladolid, Spain
,
1  Hospital Universitario Rio Hortega, Gastroenterology Valladolid, Spain
› Author Affiliations

Abstract

Background Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided ductal access and drainage (EUS-DAD) of biliary/pancreatic ducts after failed endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is less invasive than percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD). The actual need for EUS-DAD remains unknown. We aimed to determine how often EUS-DAD is needed to overcome ERCP failure.

Methods Consecutive duct access procedures (n = 2205; 95 % biliary) performed between June 2013 and November 2015 at a tertiary-care center were reviewed. ERCP was used first line, EUS-DAD as salvage after ERCP, and PTBD when both had failed. Procedures were defined as “index” in patients without prior endoscopic duct access and “combined” when EUS-DAD followed successful ERCP. The main outcomes were the EUS-DAD and PTBD rates.

Results EUS-DAD was performed in 7.7 % (170/2205) of overall procedures: 9.1 % (116/1274) index and 5.8 % (54/931) follow-up. Most index EUS-DADs were performed following (46 %) or anticipating (39 %) ERCP failure, whereas 15 % followed successful ERCP (combined procedures). Among index procedures, the EUS-DAD rate was higher in surgically altered anatomy (58.2 % [39 /67)] vs. 6.4 % [77/1207]); PTBD was required in 0.2 % (3/1274). Among follow-up procedures, ERCP represented 85.7 %, cholangiopancreatography through mature transmural fistulas 8.5 %, and EUS-DAD 5.8 %; no patient required PTBD. The secondary PTBD rate was 0.1 % (3/2205). Six primary PTBDs were performed (overall PTBD rate 0.4 % [9/2205]).

Conclusions EUS-DAD was required in 7.7 % of ERCPs for benign and malignant biliary/pancreatic duct indications. Salvage PTBD was required in 0.1 %. This high EUS-DAD rate reflects disease complexity, a wide definition of ERCP failure, and restrictive PTBD use, not poor ERCP skills. EUS-DAD effectively overcomes the limitations of ERCP eliminating the need for primary and salvage PTBD in most cases.

Table 1s, Figs. 1s, 2s



Publication History

Received: 28 October 2019

Accepted: 21 September 2020

Publication Date:
21 September 2020 (online)

© 2020. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany