This is the authors' abstract. We don't add key points for this paper.
Background: Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) may not provide adequate drainage for patients with malignant hilar biliary obstruction (MHBO). Endoscopic ultrasound-guided hepaticogastrostomy (EUS-HGS) is a salvage method for malignant distal biliary obstruction (MDBO); however, its effectiveness for MHBO remains unclear. Objectives: We aimed to evaluate the short- and long-term outcomes of EUS-HGS for MHBO. Design: This was a single-center retrospective cohort study. Methods: Unresectable patients who underwent initial EUS-HGS because of ERCP failure were recruited. Distal biliary stenosis or Bismuth types I and II–IV were defined as MDBO and MHBO, respectively. We defined EUS-HGS for MDBO as the control and analyzed the outcomes for MHBO. Results: The MDBO group ( n = 208) was treated using EUS-HGS alone. In the MHBO group ( n = 63), EUS-HGS alone (unilateral drainage, n = 26), EUS-HGS with bridging (EUS-HGSB, bilateral drainage, n = 21), and ERCP + EUS-HGS (bilateral drainage, n = 16) were performed. In EUS-HGS (MDBO), EUS-HGS (MHBO), EUS-HGSB, and ERCP + EUS-HGS, the technical success rates were 98.6%, 96.3%, 95.5%, and 94.1%; clinical success rates were 88.5%, 76.9%, 85.7%, and 75.0%; adverse event rates were 19.7%, 15.4%, 9.5%, and 25.0%; and non-recurrent biliary obstruction (RBO) rates at 180 days were 45.5%, 19.8%, 61.9%, and 68.4%, respectively. In multivariate analysis of the MHBO group, EUS-HGSB tended to have a lower risk of RBO (adjusted hazard ratio (aHR), 0.39; p = 0.09), and ERCP + EUS-HGS showed a significantly lower risk (aHR, 0.25; p = 0.03) compared to EUS-HGS alone (unilateral drainage). Conclusion: ERCP + EUS-HGS followed by EUS-HGSB, providing bilateral drainage, can offer preferred palliation for MHBO. These drainages may serve as potential salvage options in the management of MHBO.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Yamashige et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: