4.6 Article

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided gallbladder drainage as a rescue therapy for unresectable malignant biliary obstruction: a multicenter experience

Journal

ENDOSCOPY
Volume 53, Issue 8, Pages 827-831

Publisher

GEORG THIEME VERLAG KG
DOI: 10.1055/a-1259-0349

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study demonstrates the feasibility of gallbladder drainage as a rescue therapy for malignant distal bile duct obstruction in patients with failed ERCP and EUS-BD. The technical success rate was high and the clinical success rate was also relatively high, although there were a few delayed adverse events.
Background Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is often unsuccessful in patients with duodenal stenosis or malignant ampullary infiltration. While endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) has been proposed as an alternative, EUS-guided gallbladder drainage (EUS-GBD) is an attractive option when both approaches fail. We aimed to assess the effectiveness and safety of EUS-GBD as rescue therapy for malignant distal bile duct obstruction. Methods A multicenter retrospective study was performed on patients with unresectable malignant distal bile duct obstruction who underwent EUS-GBD between 2014 and 2019 after unsuccessful ERCP and EUS-BD. Clinical success was defined as a decrease in serum bilirubin of >50% within 2 weeks. Results 28 patients were included, with a lumen-apposing metal stent used in 26 (93%) and a self-expandable metal stent in two (7%). The technical success rate was 100%. The clinical success rate was 93%, with an improvement in bilirubin (7.3 [SD 5.4] pre-procedure vs. 2.8 [SD 1.1] post-procedure; P =0.001). Delayed adverse events included food impaction of the stent (n=3), with a further two patients developing cholecystitis and bleeding. Conclusion This study demonstrates the feasibility of gallbladder drainage to relieve malignant distal bile duct obstruction in patients with failed ERCP and EUS-BD.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available