Project description:Endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS)-guided transmural drainage has been accepted as a modality of choice in peripancreatic fluid collection and acute cholecystitis. Each type of stent, including double-pigtail plastic stents, tubular self-expandable metal stents (SEMS), and lumen-apposing metal stents, for these procedure has its own advantages and disadvantages. To overcome their disadvantages, this animal study evaluated the feasibility of a newly designed twisted fully covered SEMS with spiral coiled ends. We performed the EUS-guided cholecystogastrostomy with a newly developed metal stent in eight mini pigs with surgically induced gallbladder distension. This novel stent is a twisted fully covered SEMS with spiral coiled ends, a diameter of 8 mm, and a length of 6 cm. The stent has been maintained for four to seven weeks after EUS-guided cholecystogastrostomy. The primary outcome was the technical success rate, and the secondary outcomes were adverse events, stent dysfunction, stent removability, and fistula formation. The stent was placed successfully between the gallbladder and the stomach in all cases without any adverse event. We observed neither stent migration nor dysfunction during the study period, and all the stents were removed easily as scheduled. We confirmed successful cholecysto-gastric fistula formation at endoscopic and histologic level in all cases. EUS-guided transmural drainage and fistula formation using a new twisted fully covered metal stent with spiral coiled ends was technically feasible without any adverse event in this animal study. Further clinical studies are needed to evaluate its efficacy and safety in real practice.

| S-EPMC7341883 | biostudies-literature

EUS-guided transmural gallbladder drainage: a new era has begun.

Project description: Not available

| S-EPMC4749856 | biostudies-literature

EUS-guided biliary drainage: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Project description:ERCP is the current procedure of choice for patients with jaundice caused by biliary obstruction. EUS-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) has emerged as an alternative to ERCP in patients requiring biliary drainage. The aim of the study was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to report the overall efficacy and safety of EUS-BD. We conducted a comprehensive search of several databases including PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and LILACS databases (earliest inception to June 2018) to identify studies that reported EUS-BD in patients. The primary outcome was to look at the technical and clinical success of the procedure. The secondary analysis focused on calculating the pooled rate of re-interventions and all adverse-events, along with the commonly reported adverse-event subtypes. Twenty-three studies reporting on 1437 patients were identified undergoing 1444 procedures. Majority of the patient population were male (53.86%), with an average age of 67.22 years. The pooled technical success rates and clinical success rates were 91.5% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 87.7-94.2, I[2] = 76.5) and 87% (95% CI: 82.3-90.6, I[2] = 72.4), respectively. The total adverse event rates were 17.9% (95% CI: 14.3-22.2, I[2] = 69.1). Subgroup analysis of three major individual adverse events was bile leak: 4.1% (2.7-6.2, I[2] = 46.7), stent migration: 3.9% (2.5-6.2, I[2] = 43.5), and infection: 3.8% (2.8-5.1, I[2] = 0) Substantial heterogeneity was noted in the analysis. EUS-BD has high technical and clinical success rate and hence a very effective procedure. Concerns about publication bias exist. Careful consideration should be given to the adverse events and weighing the risks and benefits of the alternative nonsurgical/surgical approaches.

| S-EPMC7279084 | biostudies-literature

EUS-guided pelvic drainage: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Project description:Background and objectivesEUS-guided pelvic abscess drainage (EUS-PAD) is a procedure that utilizes an echoendoscope to visualize an area of interest for needle insertion and placement of a stent, catheter, or both for drainage of the target abscess. The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis for the safety and efficacy of EUS-PAD.Materials and methodsWe conducted a comprehensive search of several databases and conference proceedings including PubMed, EMBASE, Google Scholar, MEDLINE, SCOPUS, and Web of Science databases (earliest inception to February 2020). The primary outcomes for this study were the technical and clinical success of EUS-PAD. The secondary outcomes assessed for this study were adverse events of the procedure and subgroup analysis of individual adverse events.ResultsEight studies with a total of 135 patients combined were included in our analysis. The rate of technical success was 100% and the calculated pooled rate of clinical success was 92% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 87%, 98%; P = 0.31; I2 = 15%). The calculated pooled rate of adverse events was 9.4% (±17.9%), with stent migration (5.5 ± 18.06%) being the most common adverse event.ConclusionEUS-PAD offers a viable alternative that can minimize the need for surgical intervention in the drainage of pelvic abscesses. EUS-PAD has also demonstrated long-term clinical success with an acceptable rate of complications.

| S-EPMC8248303 | biostudies-literature

EUS-guided drainage of a segment VI liver abscess using a lumen-apposing metal stent.

Project description:Video 1EUS-guided FNA and lumen-apposing metallic stent deployment.

| S-EPMC10422084 | biostudies-literature

EUS-guided gallbladder drainage vs dual stent transpapillary gallbladder drainage for management of acute cholecystitis.

Project description:Background and study aimsCholecystectomy (CCY) is the standard treatment for acute cholecystitis. For non-surgical patients, percutaneous cholecystostomy tube (PT-GBD) is recommended but is associated with high readmission rates and poor quality of life. Endoscopic gallbladder decompression techniques, including endoscopic transpapillary gallbladder drainage (ET-GBD) and endoscopic ultrasound-guided gallbladder drainage (EUS-GBD), are alternatives. Studies comparing ET-GBD and EUS-GBD have shown EUS-GBD to have superior outcomes. However, these studies assessed ET-GBD mostly via single transcystic stent placement (SSET-GBD). This study aimed to compare outcomes of dual transcystic stents (DSET-GBD) and EUS-GBD in non-surgical candidates with acute cholecystitis.Patients and methodsA multicenter analysis was conducted on patients who underwent ET-GBD or EUS-GBD between January 2019 and January 2023. Data were extracted from electronic medical records and outcomes including technical success, success, adverse events (AEs), and recurrence rates of cholecystitis were measured.ResultsOf 129 procedures (56 EUS-GBD; 73 ET-GBD), technical success was achieved in 87.5% of EUS-GBD and 86.3% of ET-GBD attempts. Immediate clinical success was achieved in 98.1% for EUS-GBD and 100% for DSET-GBD. AE rates were similar between the groups. Recurrent cholecystitis rates were 5.3% for EUS-GBD and 8.2% for DSET-GBD ( P = 0.692).ConclusionsThis study demonstrates that DSET-GBD has similarly low rates of recurrent acute cholecystitis compared with EUS-GBD. DSET-GBD should be considered as an alternative management strategy for management of acute cholecystitis in patients who are unable to undergo CCY.

| S-EPMC11855224 | biostudies-literature

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

OmicsDI is an Elixir interoperability service. Learn more ›

Tweets

OmicsDI Databases

PRIDE
PeptideAtlas
MassIVE
JPOST Repository
Physiome Model Repository

EGA
EVA
ENA
LINCS
PAXDB
Cell Collective

MetaboLights
Metabolomics Workbench
MetabolomeExpress
GNPS
BioModels
FAIRDOMHub

ArrayExpress
dbGaP
ExpressionAtlas
GEO
NODE

Information

Databases
Help
API
Contact us
Code on GitHub
Terms of use
Submit Data