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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Tsuboi, Tomofumi, Serikawa, Masahiro, Sasaki, Tamito, Ishii, Yasutaka, Fujimoto, Yoshifumi, Yamaguchi, Atsushi, Ishigaki, Takashi, Shimizu, Akinori, Kurihara, Keisuke, Tatsukawa, Yumiko, Miyaki, Eisuke, Chayama, Kazuaki
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