Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided hepaticogastrostomy (HGS) is widely performed not only as an alternative to transpapillary biliary drainage, but also as primary drainage for malignant biliary obstruction. For anatomical reasons, this technique carries an unavoidable risk of mispuncturing intrahepatic vessels. We report a technique for troubleshooting EUS-guided portal vein coiling to prevent bleeding from the intrahepatic portal vein after mispuncture during interventional EUS. EUS-HGS was planned for a 59-year-old male patient with unresectable pancreatic cancer. The dilated bile duct (lumen diameter, 2.8 mm) was punctured with a 19-gauge needle, and a guidewire was inserted. After bougie dilation, the guidewire was found to be inside the intrahepatic portal vein. Embolizing coils were placed to prevent bleeding. Embolization coils were successfully inserted under stabilization of the catheter using a double-lumen cannula with a guidewire. Following these procedures, the patient was asymptomatic. Computed tomography performed the next day revealed no complications.

Background/Aims: Endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition (EUS-TA) is essential for the diagnosis of pancreatic cancer. The feasibility of comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) using samples obtained by EUS-TA has been under recent discussion. This study aimed to evaluate the utility of EUS-TA for CGP in a clinical setting. Methods: CGP was attempted in 178 samples obtained from 151 consecutive patients with pancreatic cancer at the Aichi Cancer Center between October 2019 and September 2021. We evaluated the adequacy of the samples for CGP and determined the factors associated with the adequacy of the samples obtained by EUS-TA retrospectively. Results: The overall adequacy for CGP was 65.2% (116/178), which was significantly different among the four sampling methods (EUS-TA vs. surgical specimen vs. percutaneous biopsy vs. duodenal biopsy, 56.0% [61/109] vs. 80.4% [41/51] vs. 76.5% [13/17] vs. 100.0% [1/1], respectively; p=0.022). In a univariate analysis, needle gauge/type was associated with adequacy (22 G fine-needle aspiration vs. 22 G fine-needle biopsy [FNB] vs. 19 G-FNB, 33.3% (5/15) vs. 53.5% (23/43) vs. 72.5% (29/40); p=0.022). The sample adequacy of 19 G-FNB for CGP was 72.5% (29/40), and there was no significant difference between 19 G-FNB and surgical specimens (p=0.375). Conclusions To obtain adequate samples for CGP with EUS-TA, 19 G-FNB was shown to be the best in clinical practice. However, 19 G-FNB was not still sufficient, so further efforts are required to improve adequacy for CGP.

Background/Aims: Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine-needle aspiration (FNA) using oblique-view EUS in patients with a surgically altered anatomy (SAA) of the upper gastrointestinal tract is limited because of difficult scope insertion due to the disturbed anatomy. This study aimed to investigate the efficiency of forward-view (FV)-EUS in performing FNA in patients with a SAA. Methods: We retrospectively investigated 32 patients with a SAA of the upper gastrointestinal tract who visited Aichi Cancer Center Hospital in Nagoya, Japan, between January 2014 and December 2020. We performed-upper gastrointestinal EUS-FNA using FV-EUS combined with fluoroscopic imaging to confirm tumor recurrence or to make a decision before chemotherapy or after a failure of diagnosis by radiology. Results: We successfully performed EUS-FNA in all studied patients (100% technical success), with the specificity, sensitivity, and accuracy of 100%, 87.5%, and 87.8%, respectively, with no complications. Conclusions EUS-FNA using FV-EUS combined with fluoroscopic imaging is an effective and safe technique for tissue acquisition in patients with a SAA.

Background/Aims: The Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society (JGES) has published guidelines for gastroenterological endoscopy in patients undergoing antithrombotic treatment. These guidelines classify endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) as a high-risk procedure. Nevertheless, the bleeding risk of EUS-BD in patients undergoing antithrombotic therapy is uncertain. Therefore, this study aimed to assess the bleeding risk in patients undergoing antithrombotic therapy. Methods: This single-center retrospective study included 220 consecutive patients who underwent EUS-BD between January 2013 and December 2018. We managed the withdrawal and continuation of antithrombotic agents according to the JGES guidelines. We compared the bleeding event rates among patients who received and those who did not receive antithrombotic agents. Results: A total of 18 patients (8.1%) received antithrombotic agents and 202 patients (91.8%) did not. Three patients experienced bleeding events, with an overall bleeding event rate of 1.3% (3/220): one patient was in the antithrombotic group (5.5%) and two patients were in the non-antithrombotic group (0.9%) (p=0.10). All cases were moderate. The sole thromboembolic event (0.4%) was a cerebral infarction in a patient in the non-antithrombotic group. Conclusions The rate of EUS-BD-related bleeding events was low. Even in patients receiving antithrombotic therapy, the bleeding event rates were not significantly different from those in patients not receiving antithrombotic therapy.

Background/Aims: The Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society (JGES) has published guidelines for gastroenterological endoscopy in patients undergoing antithrombotic treatment. These guidelines classify endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) as a high-risk procedure. Nevertheless, the bleeding risk of EUS-BD in patients undergoing antithrombotic therapy is uncertain. Therefore, this study aimed to assess the bleeding risk in patients undergoing antithrombotic therapy. Methods: This single-center retrospective study included 220 consecutive patients who underwent EUS-BD between January 2013 and December 2018. We managed the withdrawal and continuation of antithrombotic agents according to the JGES guidelines. We compared the bleeding event rates among patients who received and those who did not receive antithrombotic agents. Results: A total of 18 patients (8.1%) received antithrombotic agents and 202 patients (91.8%) did not. Three patients experienced bleeding events, with an overall bleeding event rate of 1.3% (3/220): one patient was in the antithrombotic group (5.5%) and two patients were in the non-antithrombotic group (0.9%) (p=0.10). All cases were moderate. The sole thromboembolic event (0.4%) was a cerebral infarction in a patient in the non-antithrombotic group. Conclusions The rate of EUS-BD-related bleeding events was low. Even in patients receiving antithrombotic therapy, the bleeding event rates were not significantly different from those in patients not receiving antithrombotic therapy.