Search Results (3)

Background: EUS-guided gastroenterostomy (EUS-GE) is a novel and effective procedure for the management of malignant gastric outlet obstruction (GOO) with more durable results when compared to enteral stenting (ES). However, data comparing EUS-GE to ES in patients already treated with EUS-guided choledocoduodenostomy (EUS-CDS) for distal malignant biliary obstruction (DMBO) are lacking. We aimed to compare outcomes of EUS-GE and ES for the palliation of GOO in this specific population of patients. Methods: A multicenter, retrospective analysis of patients with DMBO treated by EUS-CDS and subsequent GOO treated by EUS-GE or ES from 2016 to 2021 was conducted. Primary outcomes were overall AEs rate and dysfunction of the EUS-CDS after GOO treatment. Secondary outcomes included clinical success, technical success, procedure duration, length of hospital stay and relapse of GOO symptoms. Results: A total of 77 consecutive patients were included in the study: 25 patients underwent EUS-GE and 52 underwent ES. AEs rate and patency outcomes of the EUS-CDS after GOO treatment were comparable between the two groups (12.5% vs. 17.3%; p = 0.74). No recurrence of GOO symptoms was registered in the EUS-GE group while 11.5% of ES patients had symptoms recurrence, even if not statistically significant (p = 0.16), after a mean follow-up period of 63.5 days. Conclusion: EUS-GE and ES are both effective and safe for the palliation of GOO in patients already treated by EUS-CDS for DMBO with no difference in the biliary stent dysfunction rate and overall AEs. EUS-GE is associated with less recurrence of GOO symptoms. Full article

Background: Endoscopic ultrasound-guided gastroenterostomy (EUS-GE) using lumen apposing metal stent has emerged as a minimally invasive treatment for the management of malignant gastric outlet obstruction (mGOO). We aimed to compare EUS-GE with enteral stenting (ES) for the treatment of mGOO. Methods: Patients who underwent EUS-GE or ES for mGOO between June 2017 and June 2023 at two Italian centers were retrospectively identified. The primary outcome was stent dysfunction. Secondary outcomes included technical success, clinical failure, safety, and hospital length of stay. A propensity score-matching analysis was performed using multiple covariates. Results: Overall, 198 patients were included (66 EUS-GE and 132 ES). The stent dysfunction rate was 3.1% and 16.9% following EUS-GE and ES, respectively (p = 0.004). Using propensity score-matching, 45 patients were allocated to each group. The technical success rate was 100% for both groups. Stent dysfunction was higher in the ES group compared with the EUS-GE group (20% versus 4.4%, respectively; p = 0.022) without differences in clinical efficacy (p = 0.266) and safety (p = 0.085). A significantly shorter hospital stay was associated with EUS-GE compared with ES (7.5 ± 4.9 days vs. 12.5 ± 13.0 days, respectively; p = 0.018). Kaplan–Meier analyses confirmed a higher stent dysfunction-free survival rate after EUS-GE compared with ES (log-rank test; p = 0.05). Conclusion: EUS-GE offers lower rates of stent dysfunction, longer stent patency, and shorter hospital stay compared with ES. Full article

Introduction: Endoscopic ultrasound-guided gastroenterostomy (EUS-GE) is increasingly used in the setting of malignant gastric outlet obstruction (GOO). However, little is known about the role of primary EUS-GE. The aim of the present study is to compare the outcomes of EUS-GE by using the freehand technique as a first- and second-line approach after enteral stenting (ES). Methods: This is an observational single-center study using a prospectively collected database. All consecutive patients who underwent an EUS-GE using the freehand technique due to malignant GOO were included. Patients with previous gastric surgery, a wire-guided EUS-GE technique, or those presenting without GOO were excluded. The primary outcome was the clinical success, defined as a solid oral intake at 1 week after the procedure (GOO Score, GOOSS ≥ 2). The secondary outcomes were technical success and adverse event (AE) rates. The impact on nutritional parameters was also assessed. Results: Forty-five patients underwent an EUS-GE for all indications. Finally, 28 patients (mean age: 63 ± 17.2 years, 57.1% male) with (n = 13, 46.4%) and without (n = 15, 53.6%) a previous ES were included. The technical success was achieved in 25 cases (89.3%), with no differences between the two groups (92.3% vs. 86.7%, p = 1). The median limb diameter and procedure time were 27 mm (range:15–48) and 37 min. Overall, clinical success was achieved in 22 cases (88%), with three failures due to AEs (n = 2) or peritoneal carcinomatosis (n = 1). The diet progression was quicker in patients with a previous ES (GOOSS at 48 h, 2 vs. 1, p = 0.023), but the GOOSS at 1 week (p = 0.299), albumin gain (p = 0.366), and BMI gain (0.257) were comparable in the two groups. The AE rate was 7.1%. Conclusions: EUS-GE achieves a high technical and clinical success in patients with GOO regardless of the presence of a previous ES. Patients with previous ES may have a quicker progression of their diet, but the GOOSS and nutritional status in the long term at 1 week or 1 month are comparable. Primary EUS-GE might require fewer procedures and less discontinuation of chemotherapy to achieve a comparable result. Full article