4
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Endoscopic ultrasound-guided gastroenterostomy for the management of gastric outlet obstruction: A large comparative study with long-term follow-up

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background and study aims  Gastric outlet obstruction (GOO) is traditionally managed with surgical gastroenterostomy (surgical-GE) and enteral stenting (ES). Endoscopic ultrasound-guided gastroenterostomy (EUS-GE) is now a third option. Large studies assessing their relative risks and benefits with adequate follow-up are lacking. We conducted a comparative analysis of patients who underwent EUS-GE, ES, or surgical-GE for GOO.

          Patients and methods  In this retrospective comparative cohort study, consecutive patients presenting with GOO who underwent EUS-GE, ES, or surgical-GE at two academic institutions were reviewed and independently cross-edited to ensure accurate reporting. The primary outcome was need for reintervention. Secondary outcomes were technical and clinical success, length of hospital stay (LOS), and adverse events (AEs).

          Results  A total of 436 patients (232 EUS-GE, 131 ES, 73 surgical-GE) were included. The median duration of follow-up of the entire cohort was 185.5 days (interquartile range 55.25–454.25 days). The rate of reintervention in the EUS-GE group was lower than in the ES and surgical-GE groups (0.9 %, 12.2 %, and 13.7 %, P  < 0.0001). Technical success was achieved in 98.3 %, 99.2 %, and 100 % ( P  = 0.58), and clinical success was achieved in 98.3 %, 91.6 %, and 90.4 % ( P  < 0.0001) in the EUS-GE, ES, and surgical-GE groups, respectively. The EUS-GE group had a shorter LOS (2 days vs. 3 days vs. 5 days, P  < 0.0001) and a lower AE rate than the ES and surgical-GE groups (8.6 % vs. 38.9 % vs. 27.4 %, P  < 0.0001).

          Conclusion  This large cohort study demonstrates the safety and palliation durability of EUS-GE as an alternative strategy for GOO palliation in select patients.

          Related collections

          Most cited references27

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Endoscopic palliation of malignant gastric outlet obstruction using self-expanding metal stents: experience in 36 patients.

          Malignant gastric outlet obstruction is seen in the setting of a variety of cancers, most commonly pancreatic. Self-expanding metal stents can be used to palliate these patients and restore the ability to eat. We reviewed the Mayo Clinic experience in the endoscopic treatment of malignant gastric outlet obstruction. Thirty-six patients (26 male, 10 female) were treated between October, 1998 and January, 2001. Data were collected from charts, endoscopy reports, x-rays, and telephone calls. A scoring system was created to grade the ability to eat. All procedures were successful. Thirty-one of 36 patients (86%) required one stent at initial endoscopy, and 5/36 patients (14%) required two or more stents. Pretreatment, 19/36 patients (53%) were nil per os, 15/36 (42%) drank liquids, and 2/36 were able to eat soft solids. After stent placement, only 1/36 (3%) was still nil per os, 13/36 (36%) drank liquids, 13/36 (36%) ate soft solids, and 9/36 (25%) ate a full diet. The improvement in ability to eat using the scoring system was statistically significant (p < 0.0001). Nine of 36 patients (25%) required reintervention for recurrent symptoms. Sixteen of 36 patients (44%) had concomitant or subsequent development of biliary obstruction, of which 15 were successfully decompressed. Self-expanding metal stents are a safe and efficacious method for palliating malignant gastric outlet obstruction. The majority of patients do not require reintervention, and those that do can usually be managed nonoperatively.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            EUS-Guided Gastroenterostomy versus Enteral Stent Placement for Palliation of Malignant Gastric Outlet Obstruction

            EUS-guided gastroenterostomy (EUS-GE) is a novel procedure for palliation of malignant gastric outlet obstruction (GOO), however data comparing EUS-GE to enteral stent placement is limited. We aimed to compare clinical outcomes between EUS-GE and enteral stent placement in the palliation of malignant GOO. Retrospective analysis of a prospectively collected database on patients who underwent EUS-GE or enteral stent placement for palliation of malignant GOO from 2014–2017. Primary outcome was the rate of stent failure requiring repeat intervention. Secondary outcomes included technical and clinical success, time to repeat intervention, length of hospital stay, and adverse events. A total of 100 consecutive patients (mean age 65.9±11.9 years, 44.0% female) were identified, of which 78 underwent enteral stent placement, and 22 underwent EUS-GE. Rate of stent failure requiring repeat intervention was higher in the enteral stent group than the EUS-GE group (32.0% vs 8.3%, p =0.021). Technical success was achieved in 100% in both groups. Higher initial clinical success was attained in the EUS-GE group than the enteral stent group (95.8% vs 76.3%, p =0.042). Mean length of hospital stay following stent placement was similar between groups ( p =0.821). The enteral stent group trended towards increased adverse events (40.2% vs 20.8%, p =0.098). Kaplan-Meier analysis showed decreased stent function in the enteral stent group ( p =0.013). Compared to enteral stent placement, EUS-GE has a higher rate of initial clinical success and lower rate of stent failure requiring repeat intervention. EUS-GE may be offered for selected patients with malignant GOO in centers with extensive experience.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              EUS-guided Gastrojejunostomy Versus Laparoscopic Gastrojejunostomy: An International Collaborative Study.

              Endoscopic ultrasound-guided gastrojejunostomy (EUS-GJ) with placement of a lumen-apposing metal stent is a minimally invasive and efficacious procedure for gastric outlet obstruction (GOO) patients not amenable to surgery. Laparoscopic gastrojejunostomy (Lap-GJ) has traditionally been the standard of care. No direct comparison between EUS-GJ and Lap-GJ has been described. Our aim was to compare the clinical outcomes, success rate, and adverse events (AE) of EUS-GJ with Lap-GJ.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Endosc Int Open
                Endosc Int Open
                10.1055/s-00025476
                Endoscopy International Open
                Georg Thieme Verlag KG (Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany )
                2364-3722
                2196-9736
                13 January 2023
                January 2023
                1 January 2023
                : 11
                : 1
                : E60-E66
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, United States
                [2 ]Division of Gastroenterology, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, Massachusetts, United States
                [3 ]Division of Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, United States
                [4 ]Department of Gastroenterology-Hepatology, Universitair Ziekenhuis Brussel, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, Belgium
                [5 ]Department of Surgery, Universitair Ziekenhuis Brussel, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, Belgium
                [6 ]Department of Surgery, Department of Gastroenterology-Hepatology, Department of Advanced Interventional Endoscopy, Universitair Ziekenhuis Brussel, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, Belgium
                Author notes
                Corresponding author Barham K. Abu Dayyeh MD Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology Mayo Clinic 200 First Street SWRochester, MN 55905+1-507-284-0538 AbuDayyeh.Barham@ 123456mayo.edu
                Article
                10.1055/a-1976-2279
                9839427
                36644538
                a1092e48-0fee-400b-8cff-371929859710
                The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License, which permits unrestricted reproduction and distribution, for non-commercial purposes only; and use and reproduction, but not distribution, of adapted material for non-commercial purposes only, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 16 May 2022
                : 03 November 2022
                Categories
                Original article

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Smart Citations
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Citing PublicationsSupportingMentioningContrasting
                View Citations

                See how this article has been cited at scite.ai

                scite shows how a scientific paper has been cited by providing the context of the citation, a classification describing whether it supports, mentions, or contrasts the cited claim, and a label indicating in which section the citation was made.

                Similar content365

                Cited by12

                Most referenced authors237