Objectives: Malignant double obstruction, defined as the simultaneous presence of biliary and gastric outlet obstruction, represents a challenging clinical scenario. Previous retrospective experiences have demonstrated shorter dysfunction-free survival (DyFS) of endoscopic ultrasound-guided choledochoduodenostomy (EUS-CDS) versus EUS-hepaticogastrostomy (EUS-HGS) in this setting, but no prospective evidence is available. Methods: Twenty consecutive patients with malignant double obstruction, treated with EUS-gastroenterostomy (and EUS-guided biliary drainage, following a previously failed ERCP, were enrolled in a prospective observational study (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04813055) comparing EUS-CDS versus EUS-HGS. Efficacy and safety were evaluated, with Biliary Dysfunctions as the primary outcome and DyFS using Kaplan-Meier estimates as a primary measure. Results: Twenty patients (75% with pancreatic cancer, 50% with metastatic disease) with EUS-gastroenterostomy were included (seven EUS-CDS and 13 EUS-HGS). No significant difference was detected at baseline. Technical success was 100% in both groups. EUS-CDS compared to EUS-HGS showed similar clinical success (100% vs. 92.3%, p = 0.5), a higher rate of post-procedural adverse events (42.9% vs. 7.7%, p = 0.067, mostly related to severe/fatal cholangitis in the EUS-CDS group) and a higher rate of biliary dysfunctions during follow-up (71.4% vs. 16.7%, p = 0.002). DyFS was significantly shorter in the EUS-CDS group (39 [15–62] vs. 268 [192–344] days, p = 0.0023), with a 30-days DyFS probability of 57.1% vs. 100% (hazard ratio = 7.8 [1.4–44.2]). Conclusions: In this prospective comparison of patients with malignant double obstruction undergoing EUS-gastroenterostomy, treating jaundice with EUS-CDS versus EUS-HGS resulted in a reduced probability of survival without biliary events and an increased risk of biliary dysfunctions (number needed to harm = 1.8), with detection of severe/fatal cholangitis.
Endoscopic ultrasound-guided choledochoduodenostomy versus hepaticogastrostomy combined with gastroenterostomy in malignant double obstruction (CABRIOLET_Pro): A prospective comparative study / Vanella, G.; Leone, R.; Frigo, F.; Bronswijk, M.; van Wanrooij, R. L. J.; Tamburrino, D.; Orsi, G.; Belfiori, G.; Macchini, M.; Reni, M.; Aldrighetti, L.; Falconi, M.; Capurso, G.; van der Merwe, S.; Arcidiacono, P. G.. - In: DEN OPEN. - ISSN 2692-4609. - 5:1(2025). [Epub ahead of print] [10.1002/deo2.70024]
Endoscopic ultrasound-guided choledochoduodenostomy versus hepaticogastrostomy combined with gastroenterostomy in malignant double obstruction (CABRIOLET_Pro): A prospective comparative study
Vanella G.;Leone R.;Orsi G.;Belfiori G.;Reni M.;Aldrighetti L.;Falconi M.;Capurso G.;Arcidiacono P. G.
2025-01-01
Abstract
Objectives: Malignant double obstruction, defined as the simultaneous presence of biliary and gastric outlet obstruction, represents a challenging clinical scenario. Previous retrospective experiences have demonstrated shorter dysfunction-free survival (DyFS) of endoscopic ultrasound-guided choledochoduodenostomy (EUS-CDS) versus EUS-hepaticogastrostomy (EUS-HGS) in this setting, but no prospective evidence is available. Methods: Twenty consecutive patients with malignant double obstruction, treated with EUS-gastroenterostomy (and EUS-guided biliary drainage, following a previously failed ERCP, were enrolled in a prospective observational study (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04813055) comparing EUS-CDS versus EUS-HGS. Efficacy and safety were evaluated, with Biliary Dysfunctions as the primary outcome and DyFS using Kaplan-Meier estimates as a primary measure. Results: Twenty patients (75% with pancreatic cancer, 50% with metastatic disease) with EUS-gastroenterostomy were included (seven EUS-CDS and 13 EUS-HGS). No significant difference was detected at baseline. Technical success was 100% in both groups. EUS-CDS compared to EUS-HGS showed similar clinical success (100% vs. 92.3%, p = 0.5), a higher rate of post-procedural adverse events (42.9% vs. 7.7%, p = 0.067, mostly related to severe/fatal cholangitis in the EUS-CDS group) and a higher rate of biliary dysfunctions during follow-up (71.4% vs. 16.7%, p = 0.002). DyFS was significantly shorter in the EUS-CDS group (39 [15–62] vs. 268 [192–344] days, p = 0.0023), with a 30-days DyFS probability of 57.1% vs. 100% (hazard ratio = 7.8 [1.4–44.2]). Conclusions: In this prospective comparison of patients with malignant double obstruction undergoing EUS-gastroenterostomy, treating jaundice with EUS-CDS versus EUS-HGS resulted in a reduced probability of survival without biliary events and an increased risk of biliary dysfunctions (number needed to harm = 1.8), with detection of severe/fatal cholangitis.I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
