Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) includes EUS-guided hepaticogastrostomy (EUS-HGS), EUS-guided choledochoduodenostomy (EUS-CDS), EUS-guided gallbladder drainage (EUS-GBD), EUS-guided antegrade stenting (EUS-AG) and EUS-guided rendezvous (EUS-RV). While EUS-HGS, EUS-CDS and EUS-GBD are transluminal drainage procedures, EUS-AG is a traspapillary drainage procedure and EUS-RV is a procedure intended to facilitate endoscopic retrograde cholangio pancreatography (ERCP) in instances of failed cannulation. These procedures were initially developed as options for endoscopic salvage of failed ERCP, but have evolved to become first-line interventions also for select indications over time as the technique and expertise improved. Several randomised controlled trials have demonstrated EUS-BD, especially EUS-CDS has similar or even better outcomes as compared to ERCP in malignant biliary obstruction. However, widespread adoption of these modalities is limited by the availability of expertise, steep learning curve, lack of standardization of techniques and cost. In this review, we aim to provide an overview of various EUS-BD procedures including the indications, accessories, technique, outcomes and follow-up of each of these procedures.

Background/Objectives: Endoscopic ultrasound-guided hepaticogastrostomy (EUS-HGS) has emerged as an alternative option for biliary drainage in cases of failed endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). Limited data exist on the safety and efficacy of EUS-HGS. In this comprehensive meta-analysis, we aim to study the safety and efficacy of EUS-HGS in cases of failed conventional ERCP. Methods: Embase, PubMed, and Web of Science databases were searched to include all studies that evaluated the efficacy and safety of EUS-HGS. Using the random effect model, the pooled weight-adjusted event rate estimate for clinical outcomes in each group were calculated with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The primary outcomes were technical and clinical success rates. Secondary outcomes included overall adverse events (AEs), rates of recurrent biliary obstruction (RBO), and rates or re-intervention. Results: Our analysis included 70 studies, with a total of 3527 patients. The pooled technical and clinical success rates for EUS-HGS were 98.1% ([95% CI, 97.5-98.7]; I2 = 40%) and 98.1% ([95% CI, 97.5-98.7]; I2 = 40%), respectively. The pooled incidence rate of AEs with EUS-HGS was 14.9% (95% CI, 12.7-17.1), with bile leakage being the most common (2.4% [95% CI, 1.7-3.2]). The pooled incidence of RBO was 15.8% [95% CI, 12.2-19.4], with a high success rate for re-intervention (97.5% [95% CI, 94.7-100]). Conclusions: Our analysis showed high technical and clinical success rates of EUS-HGS, making it a feasible and effective alternative to ERCP. The ongoing development of dedicated devices and techniques is expected to make EUS-HGS more accessible and safer for patients in need of biliary drainage.

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided biliary drainage (BD) is a minimally invasive procedure that allows for biliary access when conventional endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is unsuccessful. The technique can be divided based on biliary access route: intrahepatic or extrahepatic, as well as on stenting approach: rendezvous approach (EUS-RV), antegrade placement, or transluminal (intra or extra hepatic) placement. There is no clear consensus on which approach is superior. Compared to percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage, EUS-BD offers lower rates of adverse events without the need for an external drain. Compared to conventional ERCP, EUS-BD shows comparable, and in some cases superior, outcomes related to technical success, clinical success, and adverse events.

EUS-guided hepaticogastrostomy (EUS-HGS) is one of the preferred methods in biliary drainage where ERCP fails or is contraindicated. The clinical outcomes of EUS-HGS are not well studied because of variability in procedure technique. We conducted a search of multiple electronic databases and conference proceedings from inception through January 2023. The clinical outcomes studied were pooled technical success, clinical success, and adverse events. Standard meta-analysis methods were used using the random-effects model, and heterogeneity was studied by I 2 statistics. We analyzed 44 studies, which included 19 prospective and 25 retrospective studies. The pooled technical success rate of EUS-HGS was 94.4% (confidence interval [CI], 92.4%-95.9%; I 2 = 0%), and the pooled clinical success rate was 88.6% (CI, 83.7%-92.2%; I 2 = 0%). The pooled adverse outcomes with EUS-HGS were 23.8% (CI, 19.6%-28.5%; I 2 = 0%). The mild adverse event rate associated with HGS was 5.8% (4.2%-8.1%; I 2 = 0%), moderate adverse event rate was 12.1% (9.1%-15.8%; I 2 = 16%), and severe adverse event rate was 4.2% (3.0%-5.7%; I 2 = 61%), whereas fatal adverse event rate was 3.2% (1.9%-5.4%; I 2 = 62%). On subgroup analysis, the pooled rate of adverse events of EUS-guided hepaticogastrostomy with antegrade stenting was 13.3% (95% CI, 8.2%-21.0%). The pooled technical success with EUS-guided hepaticogastrostomy with antegrade stenting was 89.7% (95% CI, 82.6%-94.2%), and clinical success was 92.5% (95% CI, 77.9%-97.7%). On the basis of our analysis of EUS-HGS, the overall technical success was 94.4%, and the clinical success rate was 88.6%, and the overall adverse events were reported to be 23.8%. These data can also help improve the clinical benefits of EUS-HGS in the selected patients in whom it is performed.

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided biliary drainage encompasses techniques such as EUS-guided hepaticogastrostomy (EUS-HGS) and EUS-guided choledochoduodenostomy (EUS-CDS). This meta-analysis compared the efficacy of EUS-CDS with that of EUS-HGS for the treatment of biliary obstruction.

A systematic meta-analysis of all relevant articles listed was performed by searching the Cochrane Library, PubMed, and Google Scholar databases. We used random effects or fixed effects models to compare success rates, adverse events, procedure times, and time to recurrent biliary obstruction after EUS-CDS and EUS-HGS.

This meta-analysis included 18 eligible studies. There was no significant difference between EUS-CDS and EUS-HGS with respect to technical success rate (odds ratio [OR] 1.04; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.62-1.73) and clinical success rate (OR 0.66; 95% CI 0.43-1.04), or with respect to total procedure-related adverse events (OR 1.39; 95% CI 1.00-1.93). Subgroup analysis of adverse events revealed that the rate of recurrent biliary obstruction (RBO) was significantly higher for EUS-HGS (OR 2.95; 95% CI 1.54-5.64). There was no significant difference between the two methods with respect to time to recurrent biliary obstruction (mean difference -11.93 days; 95% CI -47.77-23.91). However, the procedure time was longer for EUS-HGS (mean difference, 3.21 min; 95% CI 1.24-5.19).

EUS-CDS and EUS-HGS are comparable in terms of technical success, clinical success, and rate of adverse events; however, EUS-CDS is superior with respect to procedure time and preventing RBO.

Background and study aims This retrospective study aimed to investigate risk factors for early adverse events (AEs) associated with endoscopic ultrasonography-guided hepaticogastrostomy (EUS-HGS) using self-expandable metal stents (SEMS). Patients and methods The clinical success rate, technical success rate, and early AEs were assessed at two hospitals from 2010 to 2022. The analysis focused on risk factors associated with cholangitis, peritonitis, and SEMS migration. Results Technical success was achieved in all cases (94/94), and clinical success was 96.8% (91/94). Post-procedural acute cholangitis occurred in 12.8%of cases (12/94). However, no statistically significant risk factors were identified for cholangitis or biliary tract infection. Peritonitis occurred in only 2.1% of cases (2/94). Univariate analysis, using a 1.5 cm cut-off for the distance between the liver and gastrointestinal tract, revealed significant risk factors: braided-type SEMS, bile duct diameter (especially >4 mm), 6 mm diameter SEMS, and tract dilation ( P= 0.001, P= 0.020, P =0.023, and P =0.046, respectively). Adjusting the cut-offs to 2 cm underscored braided-type SEMS and tract dilation as risk factors ( P =0.002 and P =0.046, respectively). With 2.5-cm cut-offs, only braided-type SEMS remained significant ( P =0.018). Mortality within 14 and 30 days following EUS-HGS was 5.3% (5/94) and 16.0% (15/94), respectively. Conclusions EUS-HGS using SEMS demonstrated high technical and clinical success rates. Laser-cut SEMS may be superior in preventing early AEs.

Therapeutic endoscopy permits many and various treatments for cancer palliation in patients with bilio-pancreatic cancers, enabling different options, supporting patients during their route to oncologic treatments, and trying to improve their quality of life. Therefore, both endoscopic and endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided techniques are performed in this scenario. We performed a literature review focusing on the role of endoscopy in the palliation of those advanced pancreatic and biliary cancers developing malignant biliary obstruction (MBO), gastric outlet obstruction (GOO), and pain unresponsive to medical therapies. Therefore, we explored and focused on the clinical outcomes of endoscopic procedures in this scenario. In fact, the endoscopic treatment is based on achieving biliary drainage in the case of MBO through endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) or EUS-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD), while GOO is endoscopically treated through the deployment of an enteral stent or the creation of EUS-guided gastro-entero-anastomosis (EUS-GEA). Furthermore, untreatable chronic abdominal pain is a major issue in patients unresponsive to high doses of painkillers, so EUS-guided celiac plexus neurolysis (CPN) or celiac ganglia neurolysis (CGN) helps to reduce dosage and have better pain control. Therefore, therapeutic endoscopy in the palliative setting is an effective and safe approach for managing most of the clinical manifestations of advanced biliopancreatic tumors.

The novel COVID-19 pneumonia caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus poses a significant threat to human health. Scientists have made significant efforts to control this virus, consequently leading to the development of novel research methods. Traditional animal and 2D cell line models might not be suitable for large-scale applications in SARS-CoV-2 research owing to their limitations. As an emerging modelling method, organoids have been applied in the study of various diseases. Their advantages include their ability to closely mirror human physiology, ease of cultivation, low cost, and high reliability; thus, they are considered to be a suitable choice to further the research on SARS-CoV-2. During the course of various studies, SARS-CoV-2 was shown to infect a variety of organoid models, exhibiting changes similar to those observed in humans. This review summarises the various organoid models used in SARS-CoV-2 research, revealing the molecular mechanisms of viral infection and exploring the drug screening tests and vaccine research that have relied on organoid models, hence illustrating the role of organoids in remodelling SARS-CoV-2 research.

Multiple meta-analyses have evaluated the technical and clinical success of EUS-guided biliary drainage (BD), but meta-analyses concerning adverse events (AEs) are limited. The present meta-analysis analyzed AEs associated with various types of EUS-BD.

A literature search of MEDLINE, Embase, and Scopus was conducted from 2005 to September 2022 for studies analyzing the outcome of EUS-BD. The primary outcomes were incidence of overall AEs, major AEs, procedure-related mortality, and reintervention. The event rates were pooled using a random-effects model.

One hundred fifty-five studies (7887 patients) were included in the final analysis. The pooled clinical success rates and incidence of AEs with EUS-BD were 95% (95% confidence interval [CI], 94.1-95.9) and 13.7% (95% CI, 12.3-15.0), respectively. Among early AEs, bile leak was the most common followed by cholangitis with pooled incidences of 2.2% (95% CI, 1.8-2.7) and 1.0% (95% CI, .8-1.3), respectively. The pooled incidences of major AEs and procedure-related mortality with EUS-BD were .6% (95% CI, .3-.9) and .1% (95% CI, .0-.4), respectively. The pooled incidences of delayed migration and stent occlusion were 1.7% (95% CI, 1.1-2.3) and 11.0% (95% CI, 9.3-12.8), respectively. The pooled event rate for reintervention (for stent migration or occlusion) after EUS-BD was 16.2% (95% CI, 14.0-18.3; I2 = 77.5%).

Despite a high clinical success rate, EUS-BD may be associated with AEs in one-seventh of the cases. However, major AEs and mortality incidence remain less than 1%, which is reassuring.

The transcendence of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) from diagnostic to therapeutic tool has revolutionized management options in the field of gastroenterology. Through EUS-guided methods, pancreaticobiliary obstruction can now be utilized as an alternative to surgical and percutaneous approaches. This modality also allows for gallbladder drainage in patients who are not ideal operative candidates. By utilizing its unique imaging capabilities, EUS also allows for drainage access points in cases of gastric outlet obstruction as well as windows to ablate pancreatic cystic lesions. As technical progress continues to evolve, interventional gastroenterology continues to push the envelope of minimally invasive therapeutic procedures in a multidisciplinary setting. In this comprehensive review, we set out to describe current indications and innovations through EUS.

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is the standard of care in the management of unresectable malignant biliary obstruction. However, endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided biliary drainage has become widely accepted over the past several years for complicated biliary drainage in cases when ERCP is unsuccessful or not feasible. Recent emerging evidence suggests EUS-guided hepaticogastrostomy and EUS-guided choledochoduodenostomy are noninferior, and possibly even superior to conventional ERCP for primary palliation of malignant biliary obstruction. This article reviews the procedural techniques and considerations of the different techniques as well as comparative literature on safety and efficacy between techniques.

Malignant biliary obstruction (DMBO) has been traditionally managed by endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). In the case of ERC failure, percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PT-BD) has been widely utilized as a salvage procedure. However, over the last decade, endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) has gained increasing popularity, especially after the advent of electrocautery-enhanced lumen apposing metal stent devices (EC-LAMSs) which enable a one-step procedure, granting prevention of biliary leakage and minimizing occurrence of adverse events (AEs). In parallel, increasing evidence suggests a possible role of EUS-BD in the management of DMBO as a primary palliative drainage modality. In the current paper, we aim to review all the available evidence on the role of EUS-BD performed with EC-LAMSs and discuss salient technical aspects of this type of procedure.

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD) are currently first- and second-line therapeutic options, respectively, for the relief of biliary obstruction. In recent years, however, endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) has become an established alternative therapy for biliary obstruction. There are multiple different techniques for EUS-BD, which can be distinguished based on the access point within the biliary tree (intrahepatic versus extrahepatic) and the location of stent placement (transenteric versus transpapillary). The clinical and technical success rates of biliary drainage for EUS-BD are similar to both ERCP and PTBD, and complication rates are favorable for EUS-BD relative to PTBD. As EUS-BD becomes more widely practiced and endoscopic tools continue to advance, the outcomes will likely improve, and the breadth of indications for EUS-BD will continue to expand.

Biliary obstruction (BO) and gastric outlet obstruction (GOO) are frequent complications of pancreatobiliary and gastroduodenal neoplasia, which can severely impact oncological outcomes, patient survival and quality of life. Although endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) remains the gold standard for biliary drainage, this may fail or be unfeasible because of duodenal/papillary infiltration or surgically-altered anatomy. Percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD) has been the standard rescue therapy in this setting, but is burdened by high morbidity and reduced quality of life. As for GOO, surgical gastroenterostomy and enteral stenting are limited by invasiveness and suboptimal long-term outcomes, respectively. Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) has evolved from a diagnostic to a therapeutic modality, providing a safe and effective alternative for draining the pancreatobiliary tract into the stomach or duodenum. EUS-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) has already demonstrated similar efficacy, greater safety and fewer reinterventions compared to PTBD, and can be performed in the same session after ERCP failure. Further development of lumen apposing metal stents has paved the way towards the creation of EUS-guided anastomoses. EUS-guided gastroenterostomy (EUS-GE) is nowadays increasingly used to treat GOO, combining the minimal invasiveness of endoscopy with surgical-range efficacy. This review summarizes the technical details, current evidence and society recommendations contributing to EUS-BD and EUS-GE gaining ground in everyday practice or tertiary referral centers and becoming crucial in improving the multidisciplinary management of cancer-related symptoms.