Cargando…
A comparison between endoscopic ultrasound-guided rendezvous and percutaneous biliary drainage after failed ERCP for malignant distal biliary obstruction
Background and study Aims: Selective biliary cannulation is unsuccessful in 5 % to 10 % of patients undergoing endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) for malignant distal biliary obstruction (MDBO). Percutaneous biliary drainage (PBD) has been the gold standard, but endoscopic ultraso...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
© Georg Thieme Verlag KG
2016
|
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5025302/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27652305 http://dx.doi.org/10.1055/s-0042-112584 |
_version_ | 1782453934864990208 |
---|---|
author | Bill, Jason G. Darcy, Michael Fujii-Lau, Larissa L. Mullady, Daniel K. Gaddam, Srinivas Murad, Faris M. Early, Dayna S. Edmundowicz, Steven A. Kushnir, Vladimir M. |
author_facet | Bill, Jason G. Darcy, Michael Fujii-Lau, Larissa L. Mullady, Daniel K. Gaddam, Srinivas Murad, Faris M. Early, Dayna S. Edmundowicz, Steven A. Kushnir, Vladimir M. |
author_sort | Bill, Jason G. |
collection | PubMed |
description | Background and study Aims: Selective biliary cannulation is unsuccessful in 5 % to 10 % of patients undergoing endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) for malignant distal biliary obstruction (MDBO). Percutaneous biliary drainage (PBD) has been the gold standard, but endoscopic ultrasound guided rendezvous (EUSr) have been increasingly used for biliary decompression in this patient population. Our aim was to compare the initial success rate, long-term efficacy, and safety of PBD and EUSr in relieving MDBO after failed ERC Patients and methods: A retrospective study involving 50 consecutive patients who had an initial failed ERCP for MDBO. Twenty-five patients undergoing EUSr between 2008 – 2014 were compared to 25 patients who underwent PBD immediately prior to the introduction of EUSr at our center (2002 – 2008). Comparisons were made between the two groups with regard to technical success, duration of hospital stay and adverse event rates after biliary decompression. Results: The mean age at presentation was 66.5 (± 12.6 years), 28 patients (54.9 %) were female. The etiology of MDBO was pancreaticobiliary malignancy in 44 (88 %) and metastatic disease in 6 (12 %) cases. Biliary drainage was technically successful by EUSr in 19 (76 %) cases and by PBD in 25 (100 %) (P = 0.002). Median length of hospital stay after initial drainage was 1 day in the EUSr group vs 5 days in PBD group (P = 0.02). Repeat biliary intervention was required for 4 patients in the EUSr group and 15 in the PBD group (P = 0.001). Conclusions: Initial technical success with EUSr was significantly lower than with PBD, however when EUSr was successful, patients had a significantly shorter post-procedure hospital stay and required fewer follow-up biliary interventions. Meeting presentations: Annual Digestive Diseases Week 2015 |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5025302 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2016 |
publisher | © Georg Thieme Verlag KG |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-50253022016-09-20 A comparison between endoscopic ultrasound-guided rendezvous and percutaneous biliary drainage after failed ERCP for malignant distal biliary obstruction Bill, Jason G. Darcy, Michael Fujii-Lau, Larissa L. Mullady, Daniel K. Gaddam, Srinivas Murad, Faris M. Early, Dayna S. Edmundowicz, Steven A. Kushnir, Vladimir M. Endosc Int Open Background and study Aims: Selective biliary cannulation is unsuccessful in 5 % to 10 % of patients undergoing endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) for malignant distal biliary obstruction (MDBO). Percutaneous biliary drainage (PBD) has been the gold standard, but endoscopic ultrasound guided rendezvous (EUSr) have been increasingly used for biliary decompression in this patient population. Our aim was to compare the initial success rate, long-term efficacy, and safety of PBD and EUSr in relieving MDBO after failed ERC Patients and methods: A retrospective study involving 50 consecutive patients who had an initial failed ERCP for MDBO. Twenty-five patients undergoing EUSr between 2008 – 2014 were compared to 25 patients who underwent PBD immediately prior to the introduction of EUSr at our center (2002 – 2008). Comparisons were made between the two groups with regard to technical success, duration of hospital stay and adverse event rates after biliary decompression. Results: The mean age at presentation was 66.5 (± 12.6 years), 28 patients (54.9 %) were female. The etiology of MDBO was pancreaticobiliary malignancy in 44 (88 %) and metastatic disease in 6 (12 %) cases. Biliary drainage was technically successful by EUSr in 19 (76 %) cases and by PBD in 25 (100 %) (P = 0.002). Median length of hospital stay after initial drainage was 1 day in the EUSr group vs 5 days in PBD group (P = 0.02). Repeat biliary intervention was required for 4 patients in the EUSr group and 15 in the PBD group (P = 0.001). Conclusions: Initial technical success with EUSr was significantly lower than with PBD, however when EUSr was successful, patients had a significantly shorter post-procedure hospital stay and required fewer follow-up biliary interventions. Meeting presentations: Annual Digestive Diseases Week 2015 © Georg Thieme Verlag KG 2016-09 2016-08-31 /pmc/articles/PMC5025302/ /pubmed/27652305 http://dx.doi.org/10.1055/s-0042-112584 Text en © Thieme Medical Publishers |
spellingShingle | Bill, Jason G. Darcy, Michael Fujii-Lau, Larissa L. Mullady, Daniel K. Gaddam, Srinivas Murad, Faris M. Early, Dayna S. Edmundowicz, Steven A. Kushnir, Vladimir M. A comparison between endoscopic ultrasound-guided rendezvous and percutaneous biliary drainage after failed ERCP for malignant distal biliary obstruction |
title | A comparison between endoscopic ultrasound-guided rendezvous and percutaneous biliary drainage after failed ERCP for malignant distal biliary obstruction |
title_full | A comparison between endoscopic ultrasound-guided rendezvous and percutaneous biliary drainage after failed ERCP for malignant distal biliary obstruction |
title_fullStr | A comparison between endoscopic ultrasound-guided rendezvous and percutaneous biliary drainage after failed ERCP for malignant distal biliary obstruction |
title_full_unstemmed | A comparison between endoscopic ultrasound-guided rendezvous and percutaneous biliary drainage after failed ERCP for malignant distal biliary obstruction |
title_short | A comparison between endoscopic ultrasound-guided rendezvous and percutaneous biliary drainage after failed ERCP for malignant distal biliary obstruction |
title_sort | comparison between endoscopic ultrasound-guided rendezvous and percutaneous biliary drainage after failed ercp for malignant distal biliary obstruction |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5025302/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27652305 http://dx.doi.org/10.1055/s-0042-112584 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT billjasong acomparisonbetweenendoscopicultrasoundguidedrendezvousandpercutaneousbiliarydrainageafterfailedercpformalignantdistalbiliaryobstruction AT darcymichael acomparisonbetweenendoscopicultrasoundguidedrendezvousandpercutaneousbiliarydrainageafterfailedercpformalignantdistalbiliaryobstruction AT fujiilaularissal acomparisonbetweenendoscopicultrasoundguidedrendezvousandpercutaneousbiliarydrainageafterfailedercpformalignantdistalbiliaryobstruction AT mulladydanielk acomparisonbetweenendoscopicultrasoundguidedrendezvousandpercutaneousbiliarydrainageafterfailedercpformalignantdistalbiliaryobstruction AT gaddamsrinivas acomparisonbetweenendoscopicultrasoundguidedrendezvousandpercutaneousbiliarydrainageafterfailedercpformalignantdistalbiliaryobstruction AT muradfarism acomparisonbetweenendoscopicultrasoundguidedrendezvousandpercutaneousbiliarydrainageafterfailedercpformalignantdistalbiliaryobstruction AT earlydaynas acomparisonbetweenendoscopicultrasoundguidedrendezvousandpercutaneousbiliarydrainageafterfailedercpformalignantdistalbiliaryobstruction AT edmundowiczstevena acomparisonbetweenendoscopicultrasoundguidedrendezvousandpercutaneousbiliarydrainageafterfailedercpformalignantdistalbiliaryobstruction AT kushnirvladimirm acomparisonbetweenendoscopicultrasoundguidedrendezvousandpercutaneousbiliarydrainageafterfailedercpformalignantdistalbiliaryobstruction AT billjasong comparisonbetweenendoscopicultrasoundguidedrendezvousandpercutaneousbiliarydrainageafterfailedercpformalignantdistalbiliaryobstruction AT darcymichael comparisonbetweenendoscopicultrasoundguidedrendezvousandpercutaneousbiliarydrainageafterfailedercpformalignantdistalbiliaryobstruction AT fujiilaularissal comparisonbetweenendoscopicultrasoundguidedrendezvousandpercutaneousbiliarydrainageafterfailedercpformalignantdistalbiliaryobstruction AT mulladydanielk comparisonbetweenendoscopicultrasoundguidedrendezvousandpercutaneousbiliarydrainageafterfailedercpformalignantdistalbiliaryobstruction AT gaddamsrinivas comparisonbetweenendoscopicultrasoundguidedrendezvousandpercutaneousbiliarydrainageafterfailedercpformalignantdistalbiliaryobstruction AT muradfarism comparisonbetweenendoscopicultrasoundguidedrendezvousandpercutaneousbiliarydrainageafterfailedercpformalignantdistalbiliaryobstruction AT earlydaynas comparisonbetweenendoscopicultrasoundguidedrendezvousandpercutaneousbiliarydrainageafterfailedercpformalignantdistalbiliaryobstruction AT edmundowiczstevena comparisonbetweenendoscopicultrasoundguidedrendezvousandpercutaneousbiliarydrainageafterfailedercpformalignantdistalbiliaryobstruction AT kushnirvladimirm comparisonbetweenendoscopicultrasoundguidedrendezvousandpercutaneousbiliarydrainageafterfailedercpformalignantdistalbiliaryobstruction |