Copyright
©The Author(s) 2015.
World J Gastrointest Endosc. Jun 10, 2015; 7(6): 628-642
Published online Jun 10, 2015. doi: 10.4253/wjge.v7.i6.628
Published online Jun 10, 2015. doi: 10.4253/wjge.v7.i6.628
Table 1 Comparison between endoscopic vs endoscopic ultrasound-guided drainage of pancreatic pseudocysts
| Ref. | Patients and methods | Results |
| Park et al[10] | Randomised trial of conventional vs EUS guided drainage of pancreatic pseudocysts (n = 60) | EUS guided drainage has higher technical success (94% vs 72%). EUS preferable in non-bulging collections. Complications and pseudocyst resolution similar |
| Varadarajulu et al[11] | RCT of conventional vs EUS guided drainage (n = 15 each) | Higher technical success in EUS guided procedure (100% vs 33%) with lesser complications |
| Kahaleh et al[12] | Conventional drainage in bulging pseudocysts and absence of portal hypertension vs EUS guided in rest (n = 99) | No differences in short term or long term success and similar complications |
| Barthet et al[13] | Algorithm based approach of transpapillary (for small), EUS guided (nonbulging) or Conventional drainage of pseudocysts | EUS guided approach needed for atleast half of the patients |
Table 2 Endoscopic ultrasound guided drainage of pancreatic fluid collections (excluding self expanding metallic stents)
| Ref. | Number | Outcome |
| Giovannini et al[20] | 35 patients: 15 pseudocyst and 20 WON | Technical success: 94.3% |
| Clinical success: 88.5% | ||
| Hookey et al21] | 116 patients (51 EUS guided transmural drainage) | Technical success: 93.8% |
| Clinical success: 90.6% | ||
| Krüger et al[22] | 35 patients (both pseudocysts and abscess) | Technical success: 94% |
| Clinical success: 88% | ||
| Antillon et al[23] | 33 patients: all pseudocysts | Technical success: 94% |
| Clinical success: 90% | ||
| Lopes et al[24] | 62 procedures: 36 pseudocysts and 26 abscesses | Technical success: 94% |
| Clinical success: 84.3% | ||
| Ardengh et al[25] | 77 patients with sterile PFCs | Technical success: 94% |
| Clinical success: 91% | ||
| Varadarajulu et al[26] | 60 patients: 36 pseudocyst and 24 with abscess/WON | Technical success: 95% |
| Clinical success: 93% | ||
| Ahn et al[27] | 47 patients with pseudocyst | Technical success: 89% |
| Clinical success: 100% | ||
| Will et al[28] | 132 patients: 31 pseudocysts (n = 32), 115 abscesses/WON | Technical success: 97% |
| Clinical success: 96% | ||
| Seewald et al[29] | 70 patients: including pseudocyst, WON, abscess | Technical success: 97.5% |
| Clinical success: 83% | ||
| Puri et al[30] | 40 patients with pseudocyst | Technical success: 100% |
| Clinical success: 97% | ||
| Kato et al[31] | 67 patients with pseudocyst | Technical success: 88% |
| Clinical success: 83% | ||
| Künzli et al[32] | 108 patients | Technical success: 97% |
| Clinical success: 84% | ||
| Siddique et al[33] | 87 patients with WON | Technical success: 99% |
| Clinical success: 73.5% | ||
| Hocke et al[34] | 30 patients with WON | Technical success: 96.7% |
| Clinical success: 83.4% | ||
| Jürgensen et al[35] | 35 patients with WON | Technical success: 100% |
| Clinical success: 97% | ||
| Yasuda et al[36] | 57 patients with WON | Technical success: 100% |
| Clinical success: 75% |
Table 3 Use of metallic stents for endoscopic ultrasound guided drainage of pancreatic fluid collections
| Ref. | Population | Stent | Design | Outcome |
| SEMS | ||||
| Talreja et al[17] | 18 patients with PFCs | FCSEMS (biliary stent) | Prospective cohort | 95% success |
| Belle et al[40] | 4 patients with WON | PCSEMS | Case series | 100% clinical success |
| Fabbri et al[41] | 22 patients with infected PFCs | FCSEMS (biliary) | Case series | 77% clinical success |
| Penn et al[39] | 20 with PFCs | FCSEMS (biliary) with plastic pigtail | Case series | Technical success 100%, clinical success 85% |
| Weilert et al[42] | 18 patients with PFCs | FCSEMS | Case series | Clinical success in 78% |
| LACSEMS | ||||
| Shah et al[43] | Pseudocyst and WON (n = 33) | AXIOS (EUS guided in 30/33) | Prospective cohort | 91% technical success, 93% resolution of PFC |
| Walter et al[44] | 46 patients WON and 15 pseudocyst | AXIOS stent | Prospective cohort | Technical success: 98%, clinical success: 93% in pseudocyst and 81% in WON |
| Gornals et al[45] | 9 patients with PFCs | AXIOS | Case series | Technical success in 88% and 100% clinical success |
| Itoi et al[46] | 15 patients with pseudocysts | AXIOS | Retrospective case series | 100% clinical success |
| Yamamoto et al[37] | 9 PFCs, 5 pseudocyst and 4 WON | FCSEMS (Nagi stent) | Retrospective case series | 77.8% clinical success |
| ESOPHAGEAL SEMS | ||||
| Sarkaria et al[47] | 17 patients with WON | Esophageal FCSEMS | Retrospective case series | 88% clinical success |
Table 4 Endoscopic ultrasound guided transluminal biliary drainage
| Ref. | Number | Etiology | Technical success | Clinical success | Complication rates |
| Takada et al[66] | 26 17 CCD, 6 HG, 2 CCA, 1 HJ | Malignant | 90.6% | 100% | 20.7% |
| Kawakubo et al[67] | 64 CCD: 44 HG: 20 | Malignant | 95% | 100% | 19% |
| Prachayakul et al[68] | 21 CCD: 6 HG: 15 | Malignant | 95.2% | 90.2% | 9.5% |
| Hara et al[69] | 18 CCD | Malignant | 94% | 94% | 11% |
| Song et al[70] | 15 CCD | Malignant | 86.7% | 100% | 23.1% |
| Kim et al[71] | 13 CCD: 9 HG: 4 | Malignant | 92.3% | 91.7% | 30.7% |
| Park do et al[72] | 57 CCD: 26 HG: 31 | Both benign and malignant | 96.5% | 89% | 20% |
| Komaki et al[73] | 15 CCD | Malignant | 93% | 100% | 26.7% |
| Hara et al[74] | 18 CCD | Malignant | 94% | 100% | 17% |
| Khashab et al[64] | 20 HG: 3 CCD: 15 HE: 2 | Malignant | 95% | 86.3% | 10% |
| Vila et al[75] | 60 HG: 34 CCD: 26 | Both benign and malignant | 64.7% and 86.3% | 63.2% | 15.1% |
| Attasaranya et al[76] | 25 HG: 16 CCD: 9 | Both benign and malignant | 77% | 96% | 35% |
Table 5 Endoscopic ultrasound rendezvous procedures for biliary drainage
| Ref. | Number | Technical success | Clinical success | Complications |
| Khashab et al[64] | 13 (EH: 11, IH: 2) | 100% | 100% | 15% |
| Tarantino et al[77] | 4 (EH: 4) | 50% | 100% | 13% |
| Dhir et al[78] | 20 | 100% | 100% | 15% |
| Dhir et al[79] | 17 TH, 18 EH | 100% for EH and 94.1% for TH | 100% | Higher for TH vs EH |
| Park do et al[80] | 20 (14 IH and 6 EH) | 80% | 10% | |
| Kawakubo et al[81] | 14 (9 EH and 5 IH) | 100% | 100% | 14% |
| Dhir et al[82] | 58 (all EH) | - | 98% | 3.4% |
| Iwashita et al[83] | 40 (31 EH and 9 IH) | 73% | 13% |
Table 6 Endoscopic ultrasound guided gall bladder drainage for acute cholecystitis
Table 7 Antitumour agents, their composition and area of use
| Name of the agent | Drug | Ref. | Reported use |
| CYTOIMPLANT | Allogenic mixed lymphocyte culture | Chang et al[130] | Advanced pancreatic cancer |
| TNFerade | cDNA expressing TNF-α (adenovector) | Hecht et al[131], Chang et al[132] and Citrin et al[133] | Pancreatic, esophageal and rectal cancer |
| ONY X-015 | Adenovirus | Mulvihill et al[134] | Advanced pancreatic cancer |
| Oncogel | Paclitaxel and ReGel | Linghu et al[135], Matthes et al[136] and Vukelja et al[137] | Pancreatic, esophageal cancer |
| Gemcitabine | Gemcitabine | Levy et al[138] | Advanced pancreatic cancer |
| DC’s | Dendritic cells | Irisawa[139], Hirooka et al[140] | Advanced pancreatic cancer |
Table 8 Endoscopic ultrasound guided drainage of pelvic abscesses
| Ref. | Number | Site | Technical success | Clinical success | Complications |
| Hadithi et al[148] | 8 | Abdominal (pelvic) | 100% | 100% | 0 |
| Puri et al[149] | 30 | Pelvic (4 prostatic) | 93.3% | 83.5% | 0 |
| Ramesh et al[150] | 38 | 11 transcolonic, 27 transrectal | 100% | 87% | 10.5% |
| Puri et al[151] | 14 | Pelvic | 100% | 93% | 0 |
| Varadarajulu et al[152] | 25 | Pelvic | 100% | 96% | 0 |
| Giovannini et al[153] | 12 | Pelvic | 100% | 75% | 25% |
- Citation: Sharma V, Rana SS, Bhasin DK. Endoscopic ultrasound guided interventional procedures. World J Gastrointest Endosc 2015; 7(6): 628-642
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/1948-5190/full/v7/i6/628.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4253/wjge.v7.i6.628