AIMTo evaluate the efficacy of a newly developed dilator for endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided drainage (ES Dilator).METHODSFourteen consecutive patients who had undergone EUS-guided choledochoduodenostomy (EUS-CDS) with the ES Dilator were identified from a prospectively maintained database and enrolled in the study group. Fourteen other patients who had undergone EUS-CDS without the dilator just prior to its introduction were analyzed as the control group. A historical cohort study was carried out comparing the two groups. The main outcome measurement was the procedure time. The technical success rate and early AE rate were also compared between the two groups.RESULTSThere were no significant differences in age, sex and etiology of biliary obstruction. The utilization rate of a plastic stent was higher in the control group (36% vs 0%). The technical success rate was 100% in both groups. The mean procedure time was significantly shorter in the study group than in the control group (27 ± 7 min vs 44 ± 26 min, P = 0.026). Additionally, there were no patients who required more than 40 min for the procedure in the study group. Early adverse events occurred in 29% (4/14) of the control group whereas none in the study group. The adverse events in all 4 patients was bile peritonitis, including pan-peritonitis in one patient. All patients recovered with conservative treatment by medication.CONCLUSIONThe newly developed dilator was found to be useful for shortening procedure time and would prevent adverse events related to bile leakage in EUS-CDS.

No abstract

Objective Patients with perihilar malignancy often develop recurrence of infectious cholangitis, which makes further transpapillary intervention extremely difficult. As endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) of an intrahepatic bile duct is a possible option for additional intervention, the aim of this study was to estimate the feasibility of such intervention. Methods and Patients Patients who had undergone EUS-BD after further transpapillary intervention was deemed impossible or ineffective were investigated in this study. Those who had not received previous interventions via the papilla were excluded. Procedure-related adverse events, clinical efficacy, and time to recurrence of jaundice or infectious cholangitis transthyretin (TTR) were evaluated. Results Seven patients were eligible for the study between 2007 and 2016 (7 men; mean age, 77 years; 4 with perihilar cholangiocarcinoma and 3 with intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma). No procedure-related adverse events were observed. EUS-BD was clinically effective and enabled hospital discharge in 4 patients (57%). The TTR in these 4 clinically effective patients was 43, 105, 118, and 147 days after the procedure (median, 112 days). Conclusion EUS-BD was found to be safe and often effective in patients in whom additional transpapillary intervention had become difficult, although its efficacy was limited to a short period.

The effectiveness of azathioprine (AZA) in preventing relapse and maintaining autoimmune pancreatitis (AIP) remission has been reported; however, most of these studies are case series with no randomized control trials available in the literature. Therefore, this study performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of the existing literature on this subject to determine the clinical efficacy of AZA as maintenance therapy for AIP patients. A systematic search was performed to identify studies on the clinical efficacy of AZA as maintenance therapy in AIP patients. The crude multiple relapse rate was estimated to assess the ability of AZA to control relapses in AIP. Pooled estimates were obtained using a random-effects model with the DerSimonian-Laird method. We identified AIP patients who did not respond to initial steroid treatment, experienced steroid weaning failure, or those who relapsed during remission as refractory cases. After reviewing the studies, ten articles fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were selected for meta-analysis. Of all 4504 patients, 3534 patients were treated with steroids, and 346 patients were treated with AZA for relapsed AIP. In this meta-analysis, 14/73 (19.2%) patients receiving AZA for refractory AIP relapsed. Meanwhile, 14/47 (29.8%) patients without AZA experienced relapse. The integrated odds ratio for relapse risk in patients receiving AZA was estimated to be 0.52 (p = 0.15). This systematic review and meta-analysis demonstrated the efficacy of AZA in preventing relapse of AIP, which supports the use of AZA as a maintenance treatment in patients with AIP who relapse upon withdrawal of steroid therapy.

No abstract