Endoscopy 2024; 56(S 02): S107-S108
DOI: 10.1055/s-0044-1782924
Abstracts | ESGE Days 2024
Oral presentation
EUS guided biliary drainage: More than a new kid on the block 26/04/2024, 16:45 – 17:45 Room 11

Impact of EUS-guided choledochoduodenostomy versus transpapillary endoscopic biliary drainage on the intra- and post-operative outcome of pancreatoduodenectomy: a multicenter propensity score matched study

Authors

  • J. A. Fritzsche

    1   Amsterdam UMC, location University of Amsterdam, Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Amsterdam, Netherlands
    2   Amsterdam Gastroenterology Endocrinology Metabolism, Amsterdam, Netherlands
    3   Cancer Center Amsterdam, Cancer Treatment and Quality of Life, Amsterdam, Netherlands
  • M. J. De Jong

    4   Radboud University Medical Center, Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Nijmegen, Netherlands
  • B. A. Bonsing

    5   Leiden University Medical Center, Department of Surgery, Leiden, Netherlands
  • O. Busch

    6   Amsterdam UMC, location University of Amsterdam, Department of Surgery, Amsterdam, Netherlands
    3   Cancer Center Amsterdam, Cancer Treatment and Quality of Life, Amsterdam, Netherlands
  • F. Daams

    3   Cancer Center Amsterdam, Cancer Treatment and Quality of Life, Amsterdam, Netherlands
    7   Amsterdam UMC, location Vrije Universiteit, Department of Surgery, Amsterdam, Netherlands
  • F. Van Delft

    4   Radboud University Medical Center, Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Nijmegen, Netherlands
  • W. J. Derksen

    8   St Antonius Hospital, Department of Surgery, Nieuwegein, Netherlands
    9   University Medical Center Utrecht, Department of Surgery, Utrecht, Netherlands
  • J. I. Erdmann

    6   Amsterdam UMC, location University of Amsterdam, Department of Surgery, Amsterdam, Netherlands
    3   Cancer Center Amsterdam, Cancer Treatment and Quality of Life, Amsterdam, Netherlands
  • S. Festen

    10   Onze Lieve Vrouwe Gasthuis, Department of Surgery, Amsterdam, Netherlands
  • P. Fockens

    1   Amsterdam UMC, location University of Amsterdam, Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Amsterdam, Netherlands
    11   Amsterdam UMC, location Vrije Universiteit, Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Amsterdam, Netherlands
    2   Amsterdam Gastroenterology Endocrinology Metabolism, Amsterdam, Netherlands
    3   Cancer Center Amsterdam, Cancer Treatment and Quality of Life, Amsterdam, Netherlands
  • E. M. Van Geenen

    4   Radboud University Medical Center, Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Nijmegen, Netherlands
  • A. Inderson

    12   Leiden University Medical Center, Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Leiden, Netherlands
  • G. Kazemier

    3   Cancer Center Amsterdam, Cancer Treatment and Quality of Life, Amsterdam, Netherlands
    7   Amsterdam UMC, location Vrije Universiteit, Department of Surgery, Amsterdam, Netherlands
  • S. D. Kuiken

    13   Onze Lieve Vrouwe Gasthuis, Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Amsterdam, Netherlands
  • M. S. Liem

    14   Medisch Spectrum Twente, Department of Surgery, Enschede, Netherlands
  • D. J. Lips

    14   Medisch Spectrum Twente, Department of Surgery, Enschede, Netherlands
  • W. Te Riele

    8   St Antonius Hospital, Department of Surgery, Nieuwegein, Netherlands
    9   University Medical Center Utrecht, Department of Surgery, Utrecht, Netherlands
  • H. Van Santvoort

    8   St Antonius Hospital, Department of Surgery, Nieuwegein, Netherlands
    9   University Medical Center Utrecht, Department of Surgery, Utrecht, Netherlands
  • P. D. Siersema

    4   Radboud University Medical Center, Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Nijmegen, Netherlands
    15   Erasmus University Medical Center, Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Rotterdam, Netherlands
  • N. G. Venneman

    16   Medisch Spectrum Twente, Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Enschede, Netherlands
  • R. Verdonk

    17   St. Antonius Hospital, Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Nieuwegein, Netherlands
  • F. Vleggaar

    18   University Medical Center Utrecht, Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Utrecht, Netherlands
  • M. Besselink

    6   Amsterdam UMC, location University of Amsterdam, Department of Surgery, Amsterdam, Netherlands
  • R.L J van Wanrooij

    11   Amsterdam UMC, location Vrije Universiteit, Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Amsterdam, Netherlands
    3   Cancer Center Amsterdam, Cancer Treatment and Quality of Life, Amsterdam, Netherlands
    2   Amsterdam Gastroenterology Endocrinology Metabolism, Amsterdam, Netherlands
  • R. P. Voermans

    1   Amsterdam UMC, location University of Amsterdam, Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Amsterdam, Netherlands
    2   Amsterdam Gastroenterology Endocrinology Metabolism, Amsterdam, Netherlands
    3   Cancer Center Amsterdam, Cancer Treatment and Quality of Life, Amsterdam, Netherlands
 

Aims Endoscopic ultrasound-guided choledochoduodenostomy (EUS-CDS) with lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMS) may be used in patients with a distal malignant biliary obstruction in whom either conventional biliary drainage by endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) failed or as primary drainage approach in research setting. [1] [2] Although EUS-CDS has shown promising results, experience with EUS-CDS prior to pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) is still limited. [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] Therefore, in daily clinical practice multidisciplinary teams are reluctant to opt for EUS-CDS in patients with potentially resectable tumors. Aim of this study was to assess the impact of EUS-CDS on the intra- and post-operative outcome of PD when compared with transpapillary drainage.

Methods Patients who underwent a PD between January 2020 and December 2022 after preoperative biliary drainage by EUS-CDS were included. Prospectively collected data from patients in the Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Audit were retrospectively analyzed. Primary endpoint was major postoperative complications, defined as Clavien-Dindo score≥3. Secondary endpoints included overall complications, pancreatic surgery specific complications (i.e. postoperative pancreatic fistula, delayed gastric emptying, hemorrhage, and chyle leakage), in-hospital mortality and hospital stay. A propensity score matching (1:4) analysis was performed using patient and tumor characteristics, neoadjuvant therapy, type of stent, and hospital volume. Surgeons who performed a PD in a patient who underwent pre-operative EUS-CDS were requested to fill-out a 5-questions survey directly after the surgical procedure.

Results Overall, 641 patients after PD were included of whom 34 (5.3%) underwent EUS-CDS. Major postoperative complications occurred in 174 patients (28.7%) in the ERCP group and 6 patients (17.6%) in the EUS-CDS group (RR 0.55; 95% CI, 0.23-1.30). No significant differences were observed between the groups in the secondary endpoints. Time between biliary drainage and surgery in patients without neoadjuvant therapy differed significantly between the ERCP group (median 39 days; IQR, 28-52) and EUS-CDS group (32 days; IQR, 21.5-39.5; p=0.021). Operative time was shorter in the EUS-CDS group (mean 329 min [SD 88] vs 299 min [SD 68]; p=0.004). Results were similar after propensity-score matching.

The survey was completed in 25 PD’s after EUS-CDS. In the majority (n=19, 76%) there was no direct visualization of the stent during the PD. In most patients, the resection was not (n=13, 52%) or slightly (n=7, 28%) considered complicated by the LAMS according to the surgeon. The stent did not hamper the creation of the hepaticojejunostomy.

Conclusions This nationwide retrospective study found EUS-CDS to be safe without increase in (major) postoperative complications after PD as compared to ERCP. Moreover, surgeons did not encounter evident difficulties during most of the resections. These data will have to be confirmed in a randomized trial.



Publication History

Article published online:
15 April 2024

© 2024. European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. All rights reserved.

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

 
  • References

  • 1 Teoh AYB, Napoleon B, Kunda R. et al. EUS – guided choledocho-duodenostomy using lumen apposing stent versus ERCP with covered metallic stents in patients with unresectable malignant distal biliary obstruction. A multi-center randomized controlled trial. (DRA-MBO trial). Gastroenterology 2023
  • 2 Chen YI, Sahai A, Donatelli G. et al. Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Biliary Drainage of First Intent With a Lumen-Apposing Metal Stent vs Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography in Malignant Distal Biliary Obstruction: A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Study (ELEMENT Trial). Gastroenterology 2023
  • 3 Gaujoux S, Jacques J, Bourdariat R. et al. Pancreaticoduodenectomy following endoscopic ultrasound-guided choledochoduodenostomy with electrocautery-enhanced lumen-apposing stents an ACHBT – SFED study. HPB (Oxford) 2021; 23 (01) 154-60
  • 4 Janet J, Albouys J, Napoleon B. et al. Pancreatoduodenectomy Following Preoperative Biliary Drainage Using Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Choledochoduodenostomy Versus a Transpapillary Stent: A Multicenter Comparative Cohort Study of the ACHBT-FRENCH-SFED Intergroup. Ann Surg Oncol 2023
  • 5 Tyberg A, Sarkar A, Shahid HM. et al. EUS-Guided Biliary Drainage Versus ERCP in Malignant Biliary Obstruction Before Hepatobiliary Surgery: An International Multicenter Comparative Study. Journal of clinical gastroenterology 2022
  • 6 Fabbri C, Fugazza A, Binda C. et al. Beyond palliation: using EUS-guided choledochoduodenostomy with a lumen-apposing metal stent as a bridge to surgery. a case series. J Gastrointestin Liver Dis 2019; 28 (01) 125-8