User login
according to a recent clinical practice update by the American Gastroenterological Association.
The update, written by Shayan S. Irani, MD, of Virginia Mason Medical Center, Seattle, and colleagues, also covers techniques and outcomes of EUS-GBD and provides suggestions for training and patient selection.
“In this clinical practice update, we comment on the role of EUS-GBD (compared with ET-GBD [endoscopic treatment via transpapillary gallbladder drainage] and PT [percutaneous transhepatic]-GBD) in the management of acute cholecystitis, and describe its indications, contraindications, procedural considerations, and associated adverse events,” the authors wrote in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.
Dr. Irani and colleagues noted that EUS-GBD is a valuable alternative to PT-GBD, which can have a significant morbidity, and ET-GBD has been associated with relatively lower technical and clinical success rates in the presence of obstructing pathology of the cystic duct. Advances in lumen-apposing metal stents have further improved outcomes in EUS-GBD, as demonstrated by multiple case series and comparative trials.
According to the update, EUS-GBD is suggested in three scenarios: for draining the gallbladder in patients with acute cholecystitis who are at high risk for surgery, for removing percutaneous cholecystostomy drains in patients who cannot undergo cholecystectomy, and for draining malignant biliary obstruction in patients who have not responded to other treatments. EUS-GBD is contraindicated in patients with significant coagulopathy, large-volume uncontrolled ascites, or gallbladder perforation.
Dr. Irani and colleagues also noted that, between the three main techniques mentioned above, EUS-GBD has the lowest risk of recurrent cholecystitis, whereas ET-GBD and PT-GBD present slightly lower mortality rates.
While the update provides technical guidance on performing EUS-GBD, Dr. Irani and colleagues make clear that EUS-GBD is a highly specialized procedure that requires sufficient training to optimal results.
“Performing the procedure has an associated learning curve and requires advanced EUS training,” they wrote. “Two recent publications have suggested that the minimum number of procedures to gain competency should be approximately 19-25 procedures.”
Addressing unmet needs, Dr. Irani and colleagues suggested that more research is needed to standardize patient selection, procedure technique, and stent follow-up evaluation.
Ongoing studies aim to address whether endoscopic management of cholecystitis and symptomatic gallstones could become a mainstream treatment in the future, they wrote, but “we are still a long way from abandoning standard of care with cholecystectomy.”
This clinical practice update was commissioned by the AGA. Dr. Irani is a consultant for Boston Scientific, ConMed, and GORE; one coauthor received research support from Boston Scientific and Olympus and is a consultant and speaker for Boston Scientific, Cook, Medtronic, Olympus and ConMed. The remaining coauthor disclosed no conflicts.
according to a recent clinical practice update by the American Gastroenterological Association.
The update, written by Shayan S. Irani, MD, of Virginia Mason Medical Center, Seattle, and colleagues, also covers techniques and outcomes of EUS-GBD and provides suggestions for training and patient selection.
“In this clinical practice update, we comment on the role of EUS-GBD (compared with ET-GBD [endoscopic treatment via transpapillary gallbladder drainage] and PT [percutaneous transhepatic]-GBD) in the management of acute cholecystitis, and describe its indications, contraindications, procedural considerations, and associated adverse events,” the authors wrote in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.
Dr. Irani and colleagues noted that EUS-GBD is a valuable alternative to PT-GBD, which can have a significant morbidity, and ET-GBD has been associated with relatively lower technical and clinical success rates in the presence of obstructing pathology of the cystic duct. Advances in lumen-apposing metal stents have further improved outcomes in EUS-GBD, as demonstrated by multiple case series and comparative trials.
According to the update, EUS-GBD is suggested in three scenarios: for draining the gallbladder in patients with acute cholecystitis who are at high risk for surgery, for removing percutaneous cholecystostomy drains in patients who cannot undergo cholecystectomy, and for draining malignant biliary obstruction in patients who have not responded to other treatments. EUS-GBD is contraindicated in patients with significant coagulopathy, large-volume uncontrolled ascites, or gallbladder perforation.
Dr. Irani and colleagues also noted that, between the three main techniques mentioned above, EUS-GBD has the lowest risk of recurrent cholecystitis, whereas ET-GBD and PT-GBD present slightly lower mortality rates.
While the update provides technical guidance on performing EUS-GBD, Dr. Irani and colleagues make clear that EUS-GBD is a highly specialized procedure that requires sufficient training to optimal results.
“Performing the procedure has an associated learning curve and requires advanced EUS training,” they wrote. “Two recent publications have suggested that the minimum number of procedures to gain competency should be approximately 19-25 procedures.”
Addressing unmet needs, Dr. Irani and colleagues suggested that more research is needed to standardize patient selection, procedure technique, and stent follow-up evaluation.
Ongoing studies aim to address whether endoscopic management of cholecystitis and symptomatic gallstones could become a mainstream treatment in the future, they wrote, but “we are still a long way from abandoning standard of care with cholecystectomy.”
This clinical practice update was commissioned by the AGA. Dr. Irani is a consultant for Boston Scientific, ConMed, and GORE; one coauthor received research support from Boston Scientific and Olympus and is a consultant and speaker for Boston Scientific, Cook, Medtronic, Olympus and ConMed. The remaining coauthor disclosed no conflicts.
according to a recent clinical practice update by the American Gastroenterological Association.
The update, written by Shayan S. Irani, MD, of Virginia Mason Medical Center, Seattle, and colleagues, also covers techniques and outcomes of EUS-GBD and provides suggestions for training and patient selection.
“In this clinical practice update, we comment on the role of EUS-GBD (compared with ET-GBD [endoscopic treatment via transpapillary gallbladder drainage] and PT [percutaneous transhepatic]-GBD) in the management of acute cholecystitis, and describe its indications, contraindications, procedural considerations, and associated adverse events,” the authors wrote in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.
Dr. Irani and colleagues noted that EUS-GBD is a valuable alternative to PT-GBD, which can have a significant morbidity, and ET-GBD has been associated with relatively lower technical and clinical success rates in the presence of obstructing pathology of the cystic duct. Advances in lumen-apposing metal stents have further improved outcomes in EUS-GBD, as demonstrated by multiple case series and comparative trials.
According to the update, EUS-GBD is suggested in three scenarios: for draining the gallbladder in patients with acute cholecystitis who are at high risk for surgery, for removing percutaneous cholecystostomy drains in patients who cannot undergo cholecystectomy, and for draining malignant biliary obstruction in patients who have not responded to other treatments. EUS-GBD is contraindicated in patients with significant coagulopathy, large-volume uncontrolled ascites, or gallbladder perforation.
Dr. Irani and colleagues also noted that, between the three main techniques mentioned above, EUS-GBD has the lowest risk of recurrent cholecystitis, whereas ET-GBD and PT-GBD present slightly lower mortality rates.
While the update provides technical guidance on performing EUS-GBD, Dr. Irani and colleagues make clear that EUS-GBD is a highly specialized procedure that requires sufficient training to optimal results.
“Performing the procedure has an associated learning curve and requires advanced EUS training,” they wrote. “Two recent publications have suggested that the minimum number of procedures to gain competency should be approximately 19-25 procedures.”
Addressing unmet needs, Dr. Irani and colleagues suggested that more research is needed to standardize patient selection, procedure technique, and stent follow-up evaluation.
Ongoing studies aim to address whether endoscopic management of cholecystitis and symptomatic gallstones could become a mainstream treatment in the future, they wrote, but “we are still a long way from abandoning standard of care with cholecystectomy.”
This clinical practice update was commissioned by the AGA. Dr. Irani is a consultant for Boston Scientific, ConMed, and GORE; one coauthor received research support from Boston Scientific and Olympus and is a consultant and speaker for Boston Scientific, Cook, Medtronic, Olympus and ConMed. The remaining coauthor disclosed no conflicts.
FROM CLINICAL GASTROENTEROLOGY AND HEPATOLOGY