Cargando…
Use of 4-Fr versus 6-Fr Nasobiliary Catheter for Biliary Drainage: A Prospective, Multicenter, Randomized, Controlled Study
Background and Aim. Endoscopic nasobiliary drainage (NBD) effects according to diameter remain unclear. We aimed to assess the drainage effects of the 4-Fr and 6-Fr NBD catheters. Methods. This prospective, multicenter, randomized, controlled study was conducted at Hiroshima University Hospital and...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Hindawi
2017
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5414505/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28503061 http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2017/7156719 |
_version_ | 1783233390099562496 |
---|---|
author | Tsuboi, Tomofumi Serikawa, Masahiro Sasaki, Tamito Ishii, Yasutaka Fujimoto, Yoshifumi Yamaguchi, Atsushi Ishigaki, Takashi Shimizu, Akinori Kurihara, Keisuke Tatsukawa, Yumiko Miyaki, Eisuke Chayama, Kazuaki |
author_facet | Tsuboi, Tomofumi Serikawa, Masahiro Sasaki, Tamito Ishii, Yasutaka Fujimoto, Yoshifumi Yamaguchi, Atsushi Ishigaki, Takashi Shimizu, Akinori Kurihara, Keisuke Tatsukawa, Yumiko Miyaki, Eisuke Chayama, Kazuaki |
author_sort | Tsuboi, Tomofumi |
collection | PubMed |
description | Background and Aim. Endoscopic nasobiliary drainage (NBD) effects according to diameter remain unclear. We aimed to assess the drainage effects of the 4-Fr and 6-Fr NBD catheters. Methods. This prospective, multicenter, randomized, controlled study was conducted at Hiroshima University Hospital and related facilities within Hiroshima Prefecture. Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in 246 patients revealed acute cholangitis, obstructive jaundice, and/or extrahepatic cholestasis; 4-Fr or 6-Fr NBD catheters were randomly allocated and placed in these patients. The primary endpoint was the efficacy of NBD based on the technical success rate and clinical success (rates of change in blood test and amount of bile output). Secondary endpoints included the spontaneous catheter displacement rate and nasal discomfort. Results. The technical success rate and clinical success did not differ significantly between groups. No spontaneous catheter displacement was noted in either group. Nasal discomfort due to catheter placement was significantly lower in the 4-Fr group versus the 6-Fr group (24 h after ERCP: 2.4 versus 3.5 cm, P = 0.005; 48 h after ERCP: 2.2 versus 3.1 cm, P = 0.01). Conclusion. The 4-Fr NBD catheter was not inferior to 6-Fr NBD catheter in terms of clinical success; the 4-Fr NBD catheter was useful to reduce nasal discomfort. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5414505 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2017 |
publisher | Hindawi |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-54145052017-05-14 Use of 4-Fr versus 6-Fr Nasobiliary Catheter for Biliary Drainage: A Prospective, Multicenter, Randomized, Controlled Study Tsuboi, Tomofumi Serikawa, Masahiro Sasaki, Tamito Ishii, Yasutaka Fujimoto, Yoshifumi Yamaguchi, Atsushi Ishigaki, Takashi Shimizu, Akinori Kurihara, Keisuke Tatsukawa, Yumiko Miyaki, Eisuke Chayama, Kazuaki Diagn Ther Endosc Clinical Study Background and Aim. Endoscopic nasobiliary drainage (NBD) effects according to diameter remain unclear. We aimed to assess the drainage effects of the 4-Fr and 6-Fr NBD catheters. Methods. This prospective, multicenter, randomized, controlled study was conducted at Hiroshima University Hospital and related facilities within Hiroshima Prefecture. Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in 246 patients revealed acute cholangitis, obstructive jaundice, and/or extrahepatic cholestasis; 4-Fr or 6-Fr NBD catheters were randomly allocated and placed in these patients. The primary endpoint was the efficacy of NBD based on the technical success rate and clinical success (rates of change in blood test and amount of bile output). Secondary endpoints included the spontaneous catheter displacement rate and nasal discomfort. Results. The technical success rate and clinical success did not differ significantly between groups. No spontaneous catheter displacement was noted in either group. Nasal discomfort due to catheter placement was significantly lower in the 4-Fr group versus the 6-Fr group (24 h after ERCP: 2.4 versus 3.5 cm, P = 0.005; 48 h after ERCP: 2.2 versus 3.1 cm, P = 0.01). Conclusion. The 4-Fr NBD catheter was not inferior to 6-Fr NBD catheter in terms of clinical success; the 4-Fr NBD catheter was useful to reduce nasal discomfort. Hindawi 2017 2017-04-19 /pmc/articles/PMC5414505/ /pubmed/28503061 http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2017/7156719 Text en Copyright © 2017 Tomofumi Tsuboi et al. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Clinical Study Tsuboi, Tomofumi Serikawa, Masahiro Sasaki, Tamito Ishii, Yasutaka Fujimoto, Yoshifumi Yamaguchi, Atsushi Ishigaki, Takashi Shimizu, Akinori Kurihara, Keisuke Tatsukawa, Yumiko Miyaki, Eisuke Chayama, Kazuaki Use of 4-Fr versus 6-Fr Nasobiliary Catheter for Biliary Drainage: A Prospective, Multicenter, Randomized, Controlled Study |
title | Use of 4-Fr versus 6-Fr Nasobiliary Catheter for Biliary Drainage: A Prospective, Multicenter, Randomized, Controlled Study |
title_full | Use of 4-Fr versus 6-Fr Nasobiliary Catheter for Biliary Drainage: A Prospective, Multicenter, Randomized, Controlled Study |
title_fullStr | Use of 4-Fr versus 6-Fr Nasobiliary Catheter for Biliary Drainage: A Prospective, Multicenter, Randomized, Controlled Study |
title_full_unstemmed | Use of 4-Fr versus 6-Fr Nasobiliary Catheter for Biliary Drainage: A Prospective, Multicenter, Randomized, Controlled Study |
title_short | Use of 4-Fr versus 6-Fr Nasobiliary Catheter for Biliary Drainage: A Prospective, Multicenter, Randomized, Controlled Study |
title_sort | use of 4-fr versus 6-fr nasobiliary catheter for biliary drainage: a prospective, multicenter, randomized, controlled study |
topic | Clinical Study |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5414505/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28503061 http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2017/7156719 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT tsuboitomofumi useof4frversus6frnasobiliarycatheterforbiliarydrainageaprospectivemulticenterrandomizedcontrolledstudy AT serikawamasahiro useof4frversus6frnasobiliarycatheterforbiliarydrainageaprospectivemulticenterrandomizedcontrolledstudy AT sasakitamito useof4frversus6frnasobiliarycatheterforbiliarydrainageaprospectivemulticenterrandomizedcontrolledstudy AT ishiiyasutaka useof4frversus6frnasobiliarycatheterforbiliarydrainageaprospectivemulticenterrandomizedcontrolledstudy AT fujimotoyoshifumi useof4frversus6frnasobiliarycatheterforbiliarydrainageaprospectivemulticenterrandomizedcontrolledstudy AT yamaguchiatsushi useof4frversus6frnasobiliarycatheterforbiliarydrainageaprospectivemulticenterrandomizedcontrolledstudy AT ishigakitakashi useof4frversus6frnasobiliarycatheterforbiliarydrainageaprospectivemulticenterrandomizedcontrolledstudy AT shimizuakinori useof4frversus6frnasobiliarycatheterforbiliarydrainageaprospectivemulticenterrandomizedcontrolledstudy AT kuriharakeisuke useof4frversus6frnasobiliarycatheterforbiliarydrainageaprospectivemulticenterrandomizedcontrolledstudy AT tatsukawayumiko useof4frversus6frnasobiliarycatheterforbiliarydrainageaprospectivemulticenterrandomizedcontrolledstudy AT miyakieisuke useof4frversus6frnasobiliarycatheterforbiliarydrainageaprospectivemulticenterrandomizedcontrolledstudy AT chayamakazuaki useof4frversus6frnasobiliarycatheterforbiliarydrainageaprospectivemulticenterrandomizedcontrolledstudy |