Comparison of long-term outcomes of endoscopic ultrasound-guided hepaticogastrostomy and choledochoduodenostomy for distal malignant biliary obstruction: a multicenter retrospective study

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD), classified as choledochoduodenostomy (CDS) and hepaticogastrostomy (HGS), is a feasible and effective alternative for distal malignant biliary obstruction (MBO) in failed endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. However, the preferred te...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Therapeutic advances in gastroenterology 2024-01, Vol.17, p.17562848241239551-17562848241239551
Hauptverfasser: Oh, Dongwook, Han, Sung Yong, Lee, Sang Hyub, Kim, Seong-Hun, Paik, Woo Hyun, Chon, Hyung-Ku, Song, Tae Jun, Park, Se Woo, Cho, Jae Hee
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD), classified as choledochoduodenostomy (CDS) and hepaticogastrostomy (HGS), is a feasible and effective alternative for distal malignant biliary obstruction (MBO) in failed endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. However, the preferred technique for better outcomes has not yet been evaluated. We compared the long-term outcomes between the techniques. Retrospective comparative study. We reviewed consecutive patients who underwent EUS-CDS or EUS-HGS with transmural stent placement for distal MBO between 2009 and 2022. The primary outcome was the stent patency. The secondary outcomes were technical and clinical success, adverse events (AEs) of each technique, and independent risk factors for stent dysfunction. In all, 115 patients were divided into EUS-CDS ( = 56) and EUS-HGS ( = 59) groups. Among them, technical success was achieved in 98.2% of EUS-CDS and 96.6% of EUS-HGS groups. Furthermore, clinical success was 96.4% in EUS-CDS and 88.1% in EUS-HGS groups, without significant difference ( = 0.200). The mean duration of stent patency for EUS-CDS was 770.3 days while that for EUS-HGS was 164.9 days ( = 0.010). In addition, the only independent risk factor for stent dysfunction was systematic treatment after EUS-BD [hazard ratio and 95% confidence interval 0.238 (0.066-0.863), = 0.029]. The incidence of stent dysfunction of EUS-HGS was higher than EUS-CDS (35.1% 18.2%, 0.071), despite no significant differences even in late AEs. In distal MBO, EUS-CDS may be better than EUS-HGS with longer stent patency and fewer AEs. Furthermore, systematic treatment after EUS-BD is recommended for the improvement of stent patency.
ISSN:1756-283X
1756-2848
1756-2848
DOI:10.1177/17562848241239551