Skip to main navigation Skip to search Skip to main content

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided choledochoduodenostomy versus hepaticogastrostomy combined with gastroenterostomy in malignant double obstruction (CABRIOLET_Pro): A prospective comparative study

  • Giuseppe Vanella*
  • , Roberto Leone
  • , Francesco Frigo
  • , Michiel Bronswijk
  • , Roy L. J. van Wanrooij
  • , Domenico Tamburrino
  • , Giulia Orsi
  • , Giulio Belfiori
  • , Marina Macchini
  • , Michele Reni
  • , Luca Aldrighetti
  • , Massimo Falconi
  • , Gabriele Capurso
  • , Schalk van der Merwe
  • , Paolo Giorgio Arcidiacono
  • *Corresponding author for this work
  • IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele
  • Vita-Salute San Raffaele University
  • University of Turin
  • KU Leuven
  • Imelda Hospital
  • University of Amsterdam

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

39 Downloads (Pure)

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.
Original languageEnglish
Article numbere70024
JournalDEN Open
Volume5
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Apr 2025

UN SDGs

This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

  1. SDG 3 - Good Health and Well-being
    SDG 3 Good Health and Well-being

Keywords

  • cholangiopancreatography
  • cholangitis
  • endoscopic retrograde
  • gastric outlet obstruction
  • jaundice
  • stent

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Endoscopic ultrasound-guided choledochoduodenostomy versus hepaticogastrostomy combined with gastroenterostomy in malignant double obstruction (CABRIOLET_Pro): A prospective comparative study'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this