Preferred techniques for endoscopic ultrasound-guided gastroenterostomy: a survey of expert endosonographers

• Published in: Endoscopy International Open Vol. 11; no. 11; pp. E1035 - E1045
• Main Authors: Magahis, Patrick T., Salgado, Sanjay, Westerveld, Donevan, Dawod, Enad, Carr-Locke, David L., Sampath, Kartik, Sharaiha, Reem Z., Mahadev, Srihari
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany Georg Thieme Verlag KG 01-11-2023
• Subjects: Dilation, injection, stenting; Endoscopic ultrasonography; Gastric cancer; Intervention EUS; Original article
• DOI: 10.1055/a-2185-6426
• EISSN: 2196-9736
• ISSN: 2364-3722

Background and study aims Endoscopic ultrasound-guided gastroenterostomy (EUS-GE) is an emerging procedure that lacks technical standardization with limited adoption beyond expert centers. We surveyed high-volume endosonographers about the technical aspects of EUS-GE to describe how the procedure is currently performed at expert centers and identify targets for standardization.
Methods Invitations to complete an electronic survey were distributed to 21 expert EUS practitioners at 19 U.S. centers. Respondents were surveyed about technical aspects of EUS-GE, indications, efficacy, safety, and attitudes toward the procedure.
Results All 21 (100%) invited expert endoscopists completed the survey. Nine (42.9%) reported performing >10 EUS-GEs in the last 12 months. About half (47.6%, 10/21) puncture the target loop prior to lumen-apposing metal stent (LAMS) introduction, most often to confirm the loop is jejunum. No respondents reported guidewire placement prior to LAMS introduction. Most (71.4%, 15/21) do not use a guidewire at any time, while 28.6% (6/21) reported wire placement after distal flange deployment to secure the tract during apposition. Eight (38.1%, 8/21) reported at least one major adverse event, most commonly intraperitoneal LAMS deployment (87.5%, 7/8). Factors most often reported as advantageous for EUS-GE over enteral stenting included lack of papilla interference (33.3%, 7/21) and decreased occlusion risk (23.8%, 5/21).
Conclusions Significant variation in performance technique for EUS-GE exists among expert US endoscopists, which may hinder widespread adoption and contribute to inconsistencies in reported patient outcomes. The granularity provided by these survey results may identify areas to focus standardization efforts and guide future studies on developing an ideal EUS-GE protocol.