Article Text

other Versions

PDF
EUS-guided gall bladder drainage with a lumen-apposing metal stent: a prospective long-term evaluation
  1. Daisy Walter1,
  2. Anthony Y Teoh2,
  3. Takao Itoi3,
  4. Manuel Pérez-Miranda4,
  5. Alberto Larghi5,
  6. Andres Sanchez-Yague6,
  7. Peter D Siersema1,
  8. Frank P Vleggaar1
  1. 1Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
  2. 2Department of Surgery, Chinese University of Hong Kong, Prince of Wales Hospital, Hong Kong, Hong Kong
  3. 3Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Tokyo Medical University, Tokyo, Japan
  4. 4Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University Hospital Rio Hortega, Valladolid, Spain
  5. 5Digestive Endoscopy Unit, Catholic University, Rome, Italy
  6. 6Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Hospital Costa del Sol, Marbella, Spain
  1. Correspondence to Daisy Walter, Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University Medical Center Utrecht, P.O. Box 85500, Utrecht 3508 GA, The Netherlands; d.walter{at}umcutrecht.nl

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided gall bladder drainage (EUS-GBD) has been shown to be comparable with percutaneous gall bladder drainage (PTGBD) in terms of technical feasibility and clinical efficacy for the treatment of acute cholecystitis in high-risk surgical patients.1 However, a potential serious complication of this technique is air or bile leakage into the peritoneal cavity, since insertion of a drain or plastic stent requires a fistula tract with a diameter larger than the diameter of the inserted drain or stent. Therefore, a specifically designed lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMSs) has been developed for transenteric drainage and successfully tested in animal models.2 ,3 Preliminary clinical experience with LAMSs for drainage of peri-pancreatic fluid collections (PFCs) appears to be consistent with anchoring features tested in animal models.4–6 However, reports on the use of LAMSs for gall bladder drainage are limited to case reports and small case series without long-term follow-up.3 ,5 ,7–12

We performed a multicentre, prospective study to determine the feasibility and safety of the use of LAMS for EUS-GBD in high-risk surgical patients with acute cholecystitis. A total of 30 patients were included. Technical success was achieved in 27 of 30 patients (90%) (figure 1) and clinical success in 26 of 27 patients (96%). Two of 27 patients (7%) developed recurrent cholecystitis due to LAMS obstruction. Successful LAMS removal was performed in 15 of 30 patients (50%) after a mean of 91 days (SD±24 days). In 15 patients (50%), no LAMS removal was performed because of death (n=5), significant tissue overgrowth (n=2) or other causes (n=8). Mean follow-up was 298 days (SD±82 days) for all patients and 364 days (SD±82 days) for the patients alive at the end of the study. A total of 15 serious adverse events (SAEs) (50%) were …

View Full Text

Request permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.