Advertisement

Surgical Endoscopy

, Volume 33, Issue 6, pp 2024–2033 | Cite as

Gastric access temporary for endoscopy (GATE): a proposed algorithm for EUS-directed transgastric ERCP in gastric bypass patients

  • Thomas J. Wang
  • Christopher C. Thompson
  • Marvin RyouEmail author
Dynamic Manuscript
  • 405 Downloads

Abstract

Background

Performing endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in patients with Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) anatomy is technically challenging. Device-assisted enteroscopy and laparoscopic-assisted methods suffer from high failure rates and/or post-procedural complications. A novel endoscopic technique termed EUS-Directed Transgastric ERCP (EDGE) or Gastric Access Temporary for Endoscopy (GATE) has recently emerged, demonstrating excellent technical and therapeutic success. The technique involves endoscopic ultrasound-guided deployment of a lumen-apposing metal stent (LAMS) to gain access into the remnant stomach to facilitate standard ERCP. In this case series, we describe our center’s experience and unique approach with the GATE procedure and discuss several key strategies and differences.

Methods

Patients underwent the GATE procedure via a novel algorithmic approach. Key information on procedural details, technical and clinical success, follow-up, and adverse events was prospectively collected and retrospectively reviewed.

Results

10 patients underwent the GATE procedure from May 2017 to March 2018. Technical and clinical success were both 100%. Gastric and jejunal access points for LAMS deployment were 30% and 70%, respectively. Total procedure time per patient, including LAMS deployment, ERCP, and all follow-up procedures, averaged 2.37 ± 0.63 h. 2 out of 10 patients (20%) had adverse events that were resolved either intra-procedurally or after repeat endoscopy with no long-term complications and none requiring surgery. For patients with complete follow-up (n = 7), access tract closure rate was 100% with the aid of a temporary plastic double pigtail stent to facilitate closure.

Conclusions

GATE appears to be a safe and effective procedure and may be considered the preferred approach to ERCP in patients with RYGB anatomy at centers with LAMS experience. The procedure offers more definitive and higher range of ERCP interventions compared to traditional methods and is associated with fewer adverse events. Improvements in strategies and methods with the GATE technique may reduce risks and improve outcomes.

Keywords

Roux-en-Y gastric bypass Lumen-apposing metal stent Endoscopic ultrasound-directed transgastric ERCP Gastric access temporary for endoscopy Plastic double pigtail stent 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Dr. Matthew James Skinner for his time in editing and providing voice narration for the video that accompanied this manuscript.

Compliance with ethical standards

Disclosures

Dr. Christopher C. Thompson is a consultant for Boston Scientific and Olympus America Inc. Dr. Marvin Ryou is a consultant for Medtronic, Inc. Dr. Thomas Wang has no conflict of interest or financial ties to disclose.

Supplementary material

Supplementary material 1 (MP4 67660 KB)

References

  1. 1.
    Hales CM, Carroll MD, Fryar CD, Ogden CL (2017) Prevalence of obesity among adults and youth: United States, 2015–2016. US Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health StatisticsGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    English WJ, DeMaria EJ, Brethauer SA, Mattar SG, Rosenthal RJ, Morton JM (2017) American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery estimation of metabolic and bariatric procedures performed in the United States in 2016. Surg Obes Relat Dis 14.3:259–263Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Shah RJ, Smolkin M, Yen R, Ross A, Kozarek RA, Howell DA, Morgan DR (2013) A multicenter, US experience of single-balloon, double-balloon, and rotational overtube–assisted enteroscopy ERCP in patients with surgically altered pancreaticobiliary anatomy (with video). Gastrointest Endosc 77(4):593–600CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Skinner M, Popa D, Neumann H, Wilcox CM, Mönkemüller K (2014) ERCP with the overtube-assisted enteroscopy technique: a systematic review. Endoscopy 46(07):560–572CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Abbas AM, Strong AT, Diehl DL, Brauer BC, Lee IH, Burbridge R, Tarnasky P (2017) Multicenter evaluation of the clinical utility of laparoscopy-assisted ERCP in patients with Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. Gastrointest Endosc 87:4:1031–1039CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Schreiner MA, Chang L, Gluck M, Irani S, Gan SI, Brandabur JJ, Ross AS (2012) Laparoscopy–assisted versus balloon enteroscopy–assisted ERCP in bariatric post–Roux-en-Y gastric bypass patients. Gastrointest Endosc 75(4):748–756CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kedia P, Sharaiha RZ, Kumta NA, Kahaleh M (2014) Internal EUS-directed transgastric ERCP (EDGE): game over. Gastroenterology 147(3):566–568CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ngamruengphong S, Nieto J, Kunda R, Kumbhari V, Chen YI, Bukhari M, Chavez YH (2017) Endoscopic ultrasound-guided creation of a transgastric fistula for the management of hepatobiliary disease in patients with Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. Endoscopy 49(06):549–552CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bukhari M, Kowalski T, Nieto J, Kunda R, Ahuja NK, Irani S, Fayad L (2018) An international, multicenter, comparative trial of EUS-guided gastrogastrostomy-assisted ERCP versus enteroscopy-assisted ERCP in patients with Roux-en-Y gastric bypass anatomy. Gastrointest Endosc 88:486–494CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kedia P, Tyberg A, Kumta NA, Gaidhane M, Karia K, Sharaiha RZ, Kahaleh M (2015) EUS-directed transgastric ERCP for Roux-en-Y gastric bypass anatomy: a minimally invasive approach. Gastrointest Endosc 82(3):560–565CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kedia P, Tarnasky PR, Nieto J, Steele SL, Siddiqui A, Xu MM, Kahaleh M (2018) EUS-directed Transgastric ERCP (EDGE) Versus Laparoscopy-assisted ERCP (LA-ERCP) for Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass (RYGB) Anatomy: a Multicenter Early Comparative Experience of Clinical Outcomes. J Clin Gastroenterol.  https://doi.org/10.1097/MCG.0000000000001037 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Nylund K, Hausken T, Ødegaard S, Eide GE, Gilja OH (2012) Gastrointestinal wall thickness measured with transabdominal ultrasonography and its relationship to demographic factors in healthy subjects. Ultraschall in der Medizin-European. J Ultrasound 33(07):E225–E232Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Eisendrath P, Cremer M, Himpens J, Cadière GB, Le Moine O, Devière J (2007) Endotherapy including temporary stenting of fistulas of the upper gastrointestinal tract after laparoscopic bariatric surgery. Endoscopy 39(07):625–630CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Saeed ZA, Ramirez FC, Hepps KS (1993) Endoscopic stent placement for internal and external pancreatic fistulas. Gastroenterology 105(4):1213–1217CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gardner TB, Chahal P, Papachristou GI, Vege SS, Petersen BT, Gostout CJ, Baron TH (2009) A comparison of direct endoscopic necrosectomy with transmural endoscopic drainage for the treatment of walled-off pancreatic necrosis. Gastrointest Endosc 69(6):1085–1094CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Thompson CC, Kumar N, Slattery J, Clancy TE, Ryan MB, Ryou M, Conwell DL (2016) A standardized method for endoscopic necrosectomy improves complication and mortality rates. Pancreatology 16(1):66–72CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Thomas J. Wang
    • 1
    • 3
  • Christopher C. Thompson
    • 2
    • 3
  • Marvin Ryou
    • 2
    • 3
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of MedicineMassachusetts General HospitalBostonUSA
  2. 2.Department of GastroenterologyBrigham and Women’s HospitalBostonUSA
  3. 3.Harvard Medical SchoolBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations