EUS-guided drainages has been largely widespread during the last 10 years, even thanks to the advent of dedicated devices, such as lumen apposing metal stents (LAMSs). Above all, EUS-guided choledochoduodenostomy (EUS-CD) is to date considered a valuable option of treatment in case of distal malignant biliary obstruction in case of failure of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) due to the presence of a gastric or duodenal obstruction, unreachable papilla in case of altered anatomy, infiltrated papilla or failure of deep cannulation of the common bile duct. This modality of drainage demonstrated satisfying results, with high rate both of technical and clinical success with acceptable rate of adverse events. When the distal malignant biliary obstruction is associated to signs and symptoms of gastric outflow obstruction (GOO) due to the presence of a gastric or duodenal stenosis, a concomitant or subsequent palliation of the stenosis may be required. Recently, EUS-guided gastroenterostomy (EUS-GEA) has been introduced for the palliation of GOO, showing good results although technically challenging. To date, endoscopic treatment in case of GOO, enteral stenting and EUS-GEA are possible alternatives. However, available data demonstrated that EUS-GEA seems to be superior to enteral stenting in terms of rate of reinterventions during long-term follow-up, especially when life expectancy is superior to 6 months. However, data are lacking regarding which is the best strategy when GOO is associated to distal malignant biliary obstruction, especially when EUS-CD is performed. This is an hot topic, as it has been supposed that EUS-CD has higher rate of adverse events, especially food impaction, when a duodenal stenosis is present. The aim of our study, therefore, is to perform a retrospective multicenter study collecting all consecutive patients affect by distal malignant biliary obstruction drained using EUS-CD, with associated GOO treated with concomitant or subsequent duodenal stenting or EUS-GEA, in order to evaluate clinical efficacy, long term outcomes and severity of adverse events.
Age range
18 Years
Sex
ALL
See this in plain English?
AI-rewrites the medical criteria so a patient or caregiver can understand them. Always confirm with the trial site.
Bring these to your next appointment. They're a starting point for a shared conversation — not a sign you qualify or a recommendation to enrol.
Generated to help you prepare — always confirm anything about your own eligibility and care with the study team and your doctor.
The trial coordinator is the person who runs the study day to day. These cover the practical side — logistics, costs, and what taking part would actually mean for your life. The study team confirms whether you meet the criteria; these are questions to ask, not a sign you qualify.
A starting point for the conversation — always confirm anything about your own eligibility, costs, and care with the study team and your doctor.
Clinical success for EUS-CD
Timeframe: 6 Months
Clinical success for EUS-GEA and enteral stenting
Timeframe: 6 Months