Abstract
Background
Endoscopic ultrasound-guided rendezvous (EUS-RV) is a recently added alternative salvage technique to percutaneous transhepatic cholangiography rendezvous (PTC-RV) for achieving biliary cannulation in failed ERCP. Comparative data on these two techniques are lacking. The aim of this study is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of EUS-RV versus PTC-RV in a tertiary referral center.
Methods
A case–control study was conducted in the tertiary referral center, Ghent University Hospital. All consecutive patients that underwent a rendezvous procedure between February 2014 and March 2022 for failed biliary cannulation were included. Patients that underwent PTC-RV (between February 2014 and February 2018) were compared to those who underwent EUS-RV (between March 2018 and March 2022). A sub-analysis was performed for malignant biliary strictures (MBO), benign biliary strictures (BBO) and common bile duct stones (CBDS). The primary endpoints of interest were technical success rate and complication rate. These outcome variables were compared among techniques using Fisher’s exact test. Statistical analyses were performed using STATA version 15.
Results
A total of 59 consecutive procedures in 57 patients were included for analysis; 20/59 (33.9%) were PTC-RV; the remaining 39/59 (66.1%) procedures were EUS-RV. Two patients in the PTC-RV group underwent two procedures. Of the PTC-RV procedures, 18/20 (90.0%) were technically successful, as compared to 28/39 EUS-RV procedures (71.8%) (P = 0.184; Fig. 1). Adverse events were reported in 7/20 PTC-RV procedures (35.0%) and in 13/39 EUS-RV procedures (33.3%) (P = 1.000). In 5/20 PTC-RV procedures (25.0%) and 4/39 EUS-RV procedures (10.3%), the adverse event was considered major (defined as AGREE classification of 3 or more; P = 0.249).
Conclusions
EUS-RV has an acceptable success rate and is not associated with an increased risk of adverse events as compared to PTC-RV.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Stanciu C, Sfarti C, Chiriac S et al (2018) A half century of endoscopic retrograde colangiopancreatography: reflections of the past, present and future. J Gastrointestin Liver Dis 27:357–360
Iwashita T, Uemura S, Yoshida K et al (2018) EUS-guided hybrid rendezvous technique as salvage for standard rendezvous with intra-hepatic bile duct approach. PLoS ONE 13(8):e0202445
Tian C, Gamboa A, Chaudhury B et al (2013) Cannulation time is a more accurate measure of cannulation difficulty in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography than the number of attempts. Gastroenterol Rep (Oxf) 1(3):193–197
Kahaleh M (2007) EUS-Guided Cholangio drainage and Rendezvous techniques. Techniques Gastrointest Endosc 9:39–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tgie.2006.11.014
Giovannini M, Moutardier V, Pesenti C et al (2001) Endoscopic ultrasound-guided bilioduodenal anastomosis: a new technique for biliary drainage. Endoscopy 33(10):898–900
Okuno N, Hara K, Mizuno N et al (2017) Endoscopic ultrasound-guided rendezvous technique after failed endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: which approach route is the best? Intern Med 56(23):3135–3143
Nass K, Zwager L, van der Vlugt M et al (2021) Novel classification for adverse events in GI endoscopy: the AGREE classification. Gastrointest Endosc 95:1078–1085
WHO Performance status – advised on 01/11/2022 via https://www.nbt.nhs.uk/filedepot/incoming. Accessed 15 Sep 2022
Tsuchiya T, Itoi T, Sofuni A et al (2016) Endoscopic ultrasonography-guided rendezvous technique. Dig Endosc 28(Suppl 1):96–101
Iwashita T, Doi S, Yasuda I (2014) Endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage: a review. Clin J Gastroenterol 7(2):94–102
Hayat U, Bakker C, Dirweesh A et al (2022) EUS-guided versus percutaneous transhepatic cholangiography biliary drainage for obstructed distal malignant biliary strictures in patients who have failed endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Endosc Ultrasound 11:4–16
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Disclosures
Helena Degroote and Pieter Hindryckx received speaker fees from Boston Scientific. Pieter Hindryckx also received consultancy fees from Boston Scientific and Prion Medical, all outside the submitted work. Michiel Hanssens has no conflicts of interest or financial ties to disclose.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Hanssens, M., DHondt, E., Degroote, H. et al. EUS-guided versus PTC-guided rendezvous in case of failed ERCP: a case–control study. Surg Endosc 37, 3492–3497 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-022-09827-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-022-09827-1