TY - JOUR
T1 - Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) approach for patients with Roux-en-Y gastric bypass
T2 - a comparative study between four ERCP techniques with proposed management algorithm
AU - Ghazi, Rabih
AU - Razzak, Farah Abdul
AU - Kerbage, Anthony
AU - Brunaldi, Vitor
AU - Storm, Andrew C.
AU - Vargas, Eric J.
AU - Bofill-Garcia, Aliana
AU - Chandrasekhara, Vinay
AU - Law, Ryan J.
AU - Martin, John A.
AU - Ghanem, Omar M.
AU - Petersen, Bret T.
AU - Abu Dayyeh, Barham K.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2024 American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery
PY - 2024/1
Y1 - 2024/1
N2 - Background: Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is technically challenging in patients with Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) due to altered anatomy. Objective: To compare the procedural and clinical outcomes of 4 different ERCP techniques in RYGB patients. Setting: Academic tertiary referral center in the United States. Methods: A retrospective cohort study including patients with RYGB anatomy who underwent an ERCP between January 2015 and September 2020. We compared procedural success and adverse events (AEs) rates of balloon-assisted enteroscopy (BAE), gastrostomy-assisted ERCP (GAE), endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-directed transgastric ERCP (EDGE), and rendezvous guidewire-assisted ERCP (RGA). Results: Seventy-eight RYGB patients underwent a total of 132 ERCPs. The mean age was 60 ± 11.8 years, with female predominance (85.7%). The ERCP procedures performed were BAE (n = 64; 48.5%), GAE (n = 18; 13.7%), EDGE (n = 25; 18.9%), and RGA (n = 25; 18.9%), with overall procedure success rates of 64.1%, 100%, 89.5%, and 91.7%, respectively. All approaches were superior to BAE (GAE versus BAE, P = .003; EDGE versus BAE, P = .034; RGA versus BAE, P = .011). The overall AE rates were 10.9%, 11.1%, 15.8 %, and 25.0%, respectively. There was no statistical difference in AEs. There were also no differences in bleeding, post-ERCP pancreatitis, and perforation rates between the 4 approaches. Conclusion: Procedure success was similar between GAE, RGA, and EDGE, but superior to BAE. AE rates were similar between approaches.
AB - Background: Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is technically challenging in patients with Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) due to altered anatomy. Objective: To compare the procedural and clinical outcomes of 4 different ERCP techniques in RYGB patients. Setting: Academic tertiary referral center in the United States. Methods: A retrospective cohort study including patients with RYGB anatomy who underwent an ERCP between January 2015 and September 2020. We compared procedural success and adverse events (AEs) rates of balloon-assisted enteroscopy (BAE), gastrostomy-assisted ERCP (GAE), endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-directed transgastric ERCP (EDGE), and rendezvous guidewire-assisted ERCP (RGA). Results: Seventy-eight RYGB patients underwent a total of 132 ERCPs. The mean age was 60 ± 11.8 years, with female predominance (85.7%). The ERCP procedures performed were BAE (n = 64; 48.5%), GAE (n = 18; 13.7%), EDGE (n = 25; 18.9%), and RGA (n = 25; 18.9%), with overall procedure success rates of 64.1%, 100%, 89.5%, and 91.7%, respectively. All approaches were superior to BAE (GAE versus BAE, P = .003; EDGE versus BAE, P = .034; RGA versus BAE, P = .011). The overall AE rates were 10.9%, 11.1%, 15.8 %, and 25.0%, respectively. There was no statistical difference in AEs. There were also no differences in bleeding, post-ERCP pancreatitis, and perforation rates between the 4 approaches. Conclusion: Procedure success was similar between GAE, RGA, and EDGE, but superior to BAE. AE rates were similar between approaches.
KW - Bariatric surgery
KW - Choledocholithiasis
KW - ERCP
KW - Endoscopic ultrasound
KW - Roux-en-Y gastric bypass
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85171200085&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85171200085&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.soard.2023.08.005
DO - 10.1016/j.soard.2023.08.005
M3 - Article
C2 - 37690929
AN - SCOPUS:85171200085
SN - 1550-7289
VL - 20
SP - 53
EP - 61
JO - Surgery for Obesity and Related Diseases
JF - Surgery for Obesity and Related Diseases
IS - 1
ER -