Utility of Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Hepaticogastrostomy with Antegrade Stenting for Malignant Biliary Obstruction after Failed Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography.

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided biliary drainage (BD) is a well-recognized alternative BD method after unsuccessful endoscopic transpapillary drainage. EUS-guided hepaticogastrostomy (HGS) with antegrade stenting (AGS) was recently applied to the treatment of malignant obstructive jaundice.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy and safety of HGS combined with AGS for treatment of malignant biliary stricture-induced obstructive jaundice.

DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study.

SETTING: Single academic tertiary care center.

PATIENTS: From January 2006 to December 2014, endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography was attempted in patients with obstructive jaundice; it was successful in 641 patients and impossible in 154 patients (postsurgically altered anatomy or duodenal stenosis, n = 101; difficult cannulation, n = 53). In total, 145 patients underwent EUS-guided BD; HGS and HGS with AGS were attempted in 42 patients (Group A, January 2006-August 2011) and 37 patients (Group B, September 2011-December 2014), respectively.

INTERVENTIONS: Under EUS and fluoroscopy guidance, HGS and HGS with AGS were performed via needle puncture, guidewire insertion, puncture-hole dilation, and stent placement.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Groups A and B were compared in terms of technical success, functional success, adverse event rates, re-intervention rates, patient survival time, and time to stent dysfunction or patient death. The two groups were also compared in a subgroup analysis of only 28 patients who underwent chemotherapy.

RESULTS: The technical success rate was significantly higher in Group A than B (97.6 vs. 83.8%, p = 0.03). The functional success rate was comparable between the two groups (90.2 vs. 90.3%), although the rate of adverse events was significantly higher in Group A than B (26.1 vs. 10.8%, p = 0.03). The re-intervention rate tended to be higher in Group A than B (16.7 vs. 8.1%, p = 0.25). Groups A and B did not differ significantly in terms of median overall patient survival (75 vs. 61 days, p = 0.70) or median time to stent dysfunction or patient death (68 vs. 63 days, p = 0.08). Among patients who underwent chemotherapy, there was no difference in overall patient survival time between the two groups (121 vs. 157 days, p = 0.08), although time to stent dysfunction or patient death was significantly shorter in Group A than B (71 vs. 95 days, p = 0.02).

CONCLUSION: Although the technical success rate of HGS with AGS was lower than that of HGS, HGS with AGS was superior to HGS in terms of adverse event rate and stent patency in patients receiving chemotherapy.