Hepaticogsatrostomy or Choledochoduodenostomy to distal malignant biliary obstruction

BACKGROUND: EUS-guided biliary access is an alternative for percutaneous access or surgery in patients with malignant unresectable distal biliary obstruction and failed ERCP. When rendezvous or anterograde transpapillary/transanastomotic intervention fails as primary drainage options, a Choledochoduodenostomy (CDT) or a Hepaticogastrostomy (HGT) can still be performed in selected patients. This procedure creates a new “transenteric” route for biliary drainage. It is not clear in the literature when one route or the other should be recommended. AIM: To compare technical and clinical success and possible associated factors between the two different drainage routes CDT and HGT in patients with distal unresectable malignant biliary obstruction that failed standard ERCP and EUS-guided rendez vouz (RV) maneuver. METHODS: Between April/2010 and December/2013 49 consecutive jaundiced patients with distal unresectable malignant biliary obstruction that failed previous ERCP and EUS-guided RV maneuver were elected randomly to undergo either EUS-guided CDT or HGT. Data including indications, clinical and technical success, procedural times and complications with a three-month follow-up were prospectively collected in a database. All procedures were performed in a tertiary center by the same endoscopist. A partially covered SEMS (Boston Scientific, Wallflex, 10 mm, 8 cm or 6 cm) was used in all technically successful procedures. After puncture of left hepatic duct in case of HGT or the distal unobstructed segment of common bile duct in case of CDT a cholangiogram was obtained followed by advancement of a 0,035-inch guide wire into the biliary system. Bougies and wire-guided needle-knife were used to perform track dilation to allow passage of an 8.5 Fr stent delivery system. RESULTS: Forty-nine cases (25 HGT and 24 CDT) were performed. All patients had intra and extra hepatic biliary dilation. Technical success rate was 96 % for HGT and 91% for CDT (p = 0.609). Clinical success rate was 91% for HPG and 77% for CDT (p = 0.234). In the HGT group five patients (20%) had complications (3 bleeding, 2 bilomas and 1 bacteremia). In the CDT group 3 patients (12.5%) had complications (1 biloma, 1 bleeding and 1 perforation). Only the perforation patient required surgery. All other complications were managed clinically. The median procedural time was 47.83 min for HGT and 48.88 min for CDT (p = 0.843). CONCLUSION: No significant difference was found in regards to technical or clinical success, complications and procedure time between the two drainage routes. More studies are needed to clarify situations in which the CDT or the HGT should be advocated.