-
Comparative Study Observational Study
Endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary rendezvous after failed cannulation, and comparison between benign vs malignant biliopancreatic disorders: outcomes at a single tertiary-care centre.
- Joan B Gornals, Albert Sumalla-Garcia, Sergi Quintana, Daniel Luna-Rodriguez, Julio G Velasquez-Rodriguez, Maria Puigcerver-Mas, Julia Escuer-Turu, Sandra Maisterra, Mar Marin, Virginia Munoa, Berta Laquente, and Juli Busquets.
- Endoscopy Unit, Department of Digestive Diseases, Hospital Universitari de Bellvitge, Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain.
- Ann. Med. 2024 Dec 1; 56 (1): 24166072416607.
BackgroundEndoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided biliary rendezvous (RV) is an EUS-assisted technique described as a rescue method in cases of failed biliary cannulation via endoscopic retrograde cholangiography (ERC). Current literature remains unclear regarding its current role. The study aim was to evaluate the effectiveness for biliary EUS-RV, and comparison between benign vs malignant biliopancreatic disorders.MethodsRetrospective observational study with prospective consecutive inclusion in a specific database from a tertiary-center. All patients with biliopancreatic diseases that underwent a EUS-assisted ERC between October-2010 and November-2022 for failed ERC were included. Main outcomes were technical/overall success. Secondary outcomes were safety, potential factors related to failure/success or safety; and a comparative analysis between EUS-RV and EUS-guided transmural drainage (TMD) in malignant cases.ResultsA total of 69 patients who underwent EUS-RV procedures, with benign and malignant pathologies (n = 40 vs n = 29), were included. Technical / overall success and related-adverse events (AEs) were 79.7% (95%CI, 68.3-88.4) / 74% (95%CI, 61-83.7) and 24% (95%CI, 15.1-36.5), respectively. Failed cases were mainly related with guidewire manipulation. Seven failed RV were successfully rescued by EUS-TMD. On multivariable analysis, EUS-RV and malignant pathology was associated with a greater failure rate (technical success: OR,0.21; 95%CI,0.05-0.72; p = 0.017), and higher AEs rate (OR,3.46; 95%CI,1.13-11.5; p = 0.034). Also, the EUS-TMD group had greater technical success (OR,16.96; 95%CI,4.69-81.62; p < 0.001) and overall success (OR, 3.09; 95%CI,1.18-8-16; p < 0.026) with a lower AEs rate (OR,0.30; 95%CI,0.11-0.78; p = 0.014) than EUS-RV in malignant disorders.ConclusionsEUS-RV is a demanding technique with better outcomes in benign than in malignant biliopancreatic diseases. Comparison of the EUS-TMD group on malignant disorders showed worse outcomes with EUS-RV. Given these findings, maybe EUS-RV is not the best option for malignant biliopancreatic disorders.
Notes
Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
- Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as
*italics*
,_underline_
or**bold**
. - Superscript can be denoted by
<sup>text</sup>
and subscript<sub>text</sub>
. - Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines
1. 2. 3.
, hyphens-
or asterisks*
. - Links can be included with:
[my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
- Images can be included with:
![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
- For footnotes use
[^1](This is a footnote.)
inline. - Or use an inline reference
[^1]
to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document[^1]: This is a long footnote.
.