Informed Consent for Endoscopic Biliary Drainage: Time for a New Paradigm

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is considered as the first option in the management of malignant biliary obstruction. In case of ERCP failure, percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD) has been conventionally considered as the preferred rescue strategy. However, the use of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) for biliary drainage (EUS-BD) has proved similarly high rates of technical success, when compared to PTBD. As a matter of fact, biliary drainage is maybe the most evident paradigm of the increasing interconnection between ERCP and EUS, and obtaining an adequate informed consent (IC) is an emerging issue. The aim of this commentary is to discuss the reciprocal roles of ERCP and EUS for malignant biliary obstruction, in order to provide a guide to help in developing an appropriate informed consent reflecting the new biliopancreatic paradigm

Informed Consent for Endoscopic Biliary Drainage: Time for a New Paradigm

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is considered as the first option in the management of malignant biliary obstruction. In case of ERCP failure, percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD) has been conventionally considered as the preferred rescue strategy. However, the use of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) for biliary drainage (EUS-BD) has proved similarly high rates of technical success, when compared to PTBD. As a matter of fact, biliary drainage is maybe the most evident paradigm of the increasing interconnection between ERCP and EUS, and obtaining an adequate informed consent (IC) is an emerging issue. The aim of this commentary is to discuss the reciprocal roles of ERCP and EUS for malignant biliary obstruction, in order to provide a guide to help in developing an appropriate informed consent reflecting the new biliopancreatic paradigm

Italian Survey on Endoscopic Biliary Drainage Approach in Patients with Surgically Altered Anatomy

Background and Objectives: Biliary drainage (BD) in patients with surgically altered anatomy (SAA) could be obtained endoscopically with different techniques or with a percutaneous approach. Every endoscopic technique could be challenging and not clearly superior over another. The aim of this survey is to explore which is the standard BD approach in patients with SAA. Materials and Methods: A 34-question online survey was sent to different Italian tertiary and non-tertiary endoscopic centers performing interventional biliopancreatic endoscopy. The core of the survey was focused on the first-line and alternative BD approaches to SAA patients with benign or malignant obstruction. Results: Out of 70 centers, 39 answered the survey (response rate: 56%). Only 48.7% of them declared themselves to be reference centers for endoscopic BD in SAA. The total number of procedures performed per year is usually low, especially in non-tertiary centers; however, they have a low tendency to refer to more experienced centers. In the case of Billroth-II reconstruction, the majority of centers declared that they use a duodenoscope or forward-viewing scope in both benign and malignant diseases as a first approach. However, in the case of failure, the BD approach becomes extremely heterogeneous among centers without any technique prevailing over the others. Interestingly, in the case of Roux-en-Y, a significant proportion of centers declared that they choose the percutaneous approach in both benign (35.1%) and malignant obstruction (32.4%) as a first option. In the case of a previous failed attempt at BD in Roux-en-Y, the subsequent most used approach is the EUS-guided intervention in both benign and malignant indications. Conclusions: This survey shows that the endoscopic BD approach is extremely heterogeneous, especially in patients with Roux-en-Y reconstruction or after ERCP failure in Billroth-II reconstruction. Percutaneous BD is still taken into account by a significant proportion of centers in the case of Roux-en-Y anatomy. The total number of endoscopic BD procedures performed in non-tertiary centers is usually low, but this result does not correspond to an adequate rate of referral to more experienced centers

Perceived Feasibility of Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Gastroenteric Anastomosis: An Italian Survey

Background and Objectives: Endoscopic ultrasound-guided gastroenteric anastomosis (EUS-GEA) using lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMS) is emerging as a minimally invasive alternative to surgery across several indications. The aim of this survey is to investigate the perceived feasibility of this technique nationwide, within a working group skilled in interventional endosonography. Materials and Methods: Endoscopists were asked to answer to 49 items on a web-based questionnaire about expertise, peri- and intra-procedural aspects in the three main settings of EUS-GEA performance, budget/refund, and future perspectives. Statistical analysis was performed through SPSS® (IBM Corp. Released 2017. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 25.0. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp.). Results: Sixty endosonographers belonging to forty Italian centers were I-EUS app users and were all invited to participate. In total, 29 participants from 24 Italian centers completed the survey. All the participants were endosonographers with a broad range of experience both in the field of EUS (only 10.3% with more than 20 years of experience) and duodenal stenting (only 6.9% placed more than 10 stents in 2020), whereas 86.2% also performed ERCP. A total of 27.6% of participants performed EUS-GEA (3.4% more than 20 during their career); on the other hand, 79.3% of participants routinely performed drainage of peri-pancreatic fluid collections, 62.1% performed biliary drainage, and 62.1% performed gallbladder drainage with LAMS. A total of 89.7% of participants thought that EUS-GEA could be useful in their daily clinical practice, with 100% concluding that this procedure will need to be performed in referral centers in the near future; however, in 55.2% of cases, organizational obstacles may occur and affect the diffusion of the procedure. With regard to indications: 44.8% of participants performed the procedure with palliative intent for malignant indication (96.6% pancreatic adenocarcinoma), and 13.6% also for benign indication. A total of 20.7% of participants experienced adverse events (none severe or fatal, 66.6% moderate). A total of 62.1% of participants considered the procedure technically challenging, although 82.8% considered the risk of adverse events acceptable when considering the benefit. Conclusions: To our knowledge, this is the first survey assessing the perceived feasibility of EUS-guided anastomoses after its advent. There are currently wide variations in practice nationwide, which demonstrate a need to define technical, qualitative, and peri-procedural requirements to carry out this procedure. Therefore, a standardization of these requirements is needed in order to overcome the technical, economical, and organizational obstacles relative to its diffusion