Endoscopy · 2025
Technical failure of endoscopic ultrasound-guided choledochoduodenostomy: multicenter study on rescue techniques, consequences, and risk factors.
СтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Beunon Clara, Debourdeau Antoine, Schaefer Marion, Wallenhorst Timothée, Perez-Cuadrado-Robles Enrique, Belle Arthur, Gonzalez Jean-Michel, Camus Duboc Marine, Caillol Fabrice, Toudic Hervé-Pierre, Pioche Mathieu, Danset Jean Baptiste, Sportes Adrien, Brieau Bertrand, Ben Soussan Emmanuel, Petiet Mathilde, Martin Antoine, Oumrani Sarra, Maire Frédérique, Lemmers Arnaud, Prat Frédéric, Caillo Ludovic, Gérard Romain, Albouys Jérémie, Lorenzo Diane, and the ETC Working Group
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: We aimed to determine risk factors for technical failure of endoscopic ultrasound-guided choledochoduodenostomy (EUS-CDS), evaluate short- and long-term consequences, and identify salvage techniques in patients with biliary obstruction.
METHODS: This retrospective multicenter study of EUS-CDS (2018-2024) included technical failure, classified as type 1 (digestive flange mispositioned), type 2 (biliary flange mispositioned), type 3 (stent deployment failure), type 4 (catheter/lumen-apposing metal stent [LAMS] through the bile duct), and type 5 (others). Controls were successful EUS-CDS in the same center and period. The primary end point was risk factors for failure. Secondary end points were endoscopic rescue techniques and immediate- and long-term consequences.
RESULTS: Technical failure occurred in 7 % (95 %CI 5-9). Across 23 centers, 296 patients were analyzed (mean age 71 [SD 16] years, 53 % male), including 100 technical failures: type 1 (26 %), type 2 (41 %), type 3 (11 %), type 4 (6 %), type 5 (16 %). Risk factors for technical failure in multivariate analysis included CBD diameter ≤ 15 mm, duodenal stenosis, wired technique, and low operator experience (≤ 10 LAMS). Endoscopic salvage was successful in 77 %, with 53 % using a covered metal stent and 22 % using a new LAMS. Early failures were mild in 56 % of cases, but 12 % resulted in death within 30 days. Immediate endoscopic salvage reduced severe clinical adverse events (P < 0.001) and increased success rates (P < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: EUS-CDS failures were not rare and were severe in half of cases. Recognizing risk factors, identifying failures during the procedure, and knowing endoscopic salvage methods are crucial.
METHODS: This retrospective multicenter study of EUS-CDS (2018-2024) included technical failure, classified as type 1 (digestive flange mispositioned), type 2 (biliary flange mispositioned), type 3 (stent deployment failure), type 4 (catheter/lumen-apposing metal stent [LAMS] through the bile duct), and type 5 (others). Controls were successful EUS-CDS in the same center and period. The primary end point was risk factors for failure. Secondary end points were endoscopic rescue techniques and immediate- and long-term consequences.
RESULTS: Technical failure occurred in 7 % (95 %CI 5-9). Across 23 centers, 296 patients were analyzed (mean age 71 [SD 16] years, 53 % male), including 100 technical failures: type 1 (26 %), type 2 (41 %), type 3 (11 %), type 4 (6 %), type 5 (16 %). Risk factors for technical failure in multivariate analysis included CBD diameter ≤ 15 mm, duodenal stenosis, wired technique, and low operator experience (≤ 10 LAMS). Endoscopic salvage was successful in 77 %, with 53 % using a covered metal stent and 22 % using a new LAMS. Early failures were mild in 56 % of cases, but 12 % resulted in death within 30 days. Immediate endoscopic salvage reduced severe clinical adverse events (P < 0.001) and increased success rates (P < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: EUS-CDS failures were not rare and were severe in half of cases. Recognizing risk factors, identifying failures during the procedure, and knowing endoscopic salvage methods are crucial.