Cargando…

A comparison between non-sedation and general endotracheal anesthesia for retrograde endoscopic common bile duct stone removal: A tertiary center experience

BACKGROUND: Conscious sedation is not routinely administered for therapeutic endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in many countries. The aim of our retrospective study was to compare the safety and rate of success and complications during common bile duct (CBD) stone extraction usin...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Liang, Chih-Ming, Kuo, Chung-Mou, Lu, Lung-Sheng, Wu, Cheng-Kun, Tsai, Cheng-En, Kuo, Ming-Te, Chiu, Yi-Chun, Tai, Wen-Chen, Kuo, Yuan-Hung, Kuo, Chung-Huang, Chuah, Seng-Kee, Changchien, Chi-Sin
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Chang Gung University 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6543493/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31130249
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bj.2019.01.002
_version_ 1783423089613209600
author Liang, Chih-Ming
Kuo, Chung-Mou
Lu, Lung-Sheng
Wu, Cheng-Kun
Tsai, Cheng-En
Kuo, Ming-Te
Chiu, Yi-Chun
Tai, Wen-Chen
Kuo, Yuan-Hung
Kuo, Chung-Huang
Chuah, Seng-Kee
Changchien, Chi-Sin
author_facet Liang, Chih-Ming
Kuo, Chung-Mou
Lu, Lung-Sheng
Wu, Cheng-Kun
Tsai, Cheng-En
Kuo, Ming-Te
Chiu, Yi-Chun
Tai, Wen-Chen
Kuo, Yuan-Hung
Kuo, Chung-Huang
Chuah, Seng-Kee
Changchien, Chi-Sin
author_sort Liang, Chih-Ming
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Conscious sedation is not routinely administered for therapeutic endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in many countries. The aim of our retrospective study was to compare the safety and rate of success and complications during common bile duct (CBD) stone extraction using ERCPs performed with no-sedation (NS) or under general endotracheal anesthesia (GET). METHODS: The medical records of all patients who underwent ERCP for biliary stone extraction between January 2010 and September 2013 were reviewed, and patients classified to the NS and GET groups. The primary outcomes were the rate of success of complete stone removal and rate of complications, including post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP), perforation, bleeding, pneumonia, and mortality within 30 days post-ERCP. Operative time was recorded for analysis. RESULTS: During the study period, 630 patients underwent ERCP, 402 with NS and 105 with GET. Among the 402 patients in the NS group, 37 (9.2%) could not complete the procedure due to an inability to tolerate the procedure. The success rate of complete stone extraction was higher among patients in the GET group than the NS group (94.3% versus 75.6%, respectively; p < 0.001). The rate of contrast injection into the pancreatic duct was higher for the NS than GET group (24.9% versus 15.2%, respectively; p = 0.008). Although non-significant, there was a higher incidence of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) in the NS than in the GET group (10.4% versus 5.7%, respectively; p = 0.105), while the incidence of pneumonia was higher for the GET group. Biliary pancreatitis, contrast injection into the pancreatic duct and an operation time ≥30 min were independent risks factors for PEP. CONCLUSIONS: ERCP under GET is effective for CBD stone removal, but with slightly higher pneumonia rate after the procedure than non-sedated ERCP.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6543493
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher Chang Gung University
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-65434932019-06-04 A comparison between non-sedation and general endotracheal anesthesia for retrograde endoscopic common bile duct stone removal: A tertiary center experience Liang, Chih-Ming Kuo, Chung-Mou Lu, Lung-Sheng Wu, Cheng-Kun Tsai, Cheng-En Kuo, Ming-Te Chiu, Yi-Chun Tai, Wen-Chen Kuo, Yuan-Hung Kuo, Chung-Huang Chuah, Seng-Kee Changchien, Chi-Sin Biomed J Original Article BACKGROUND: Conscious sedation is not routinely administered for therapeutic endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in many countries. The aim of our retrospective study was to compare the safety and rate of success and complications during common bile duct (CBD) stone extraction using ERCPs performed with no-sedation (NS) or under general endotracheal anesthesia (GET). METHODS: The medical records of all patients who underwent ERCP for biliary stone extraction between January 2010 and September 2013 were reviewed, and patients classified to the NS and GET groups. The primary outcomes were the rate of success of complete stone removal and rate of complications, including post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP), perforation, bleeding, pneumonia, and mortality within 30 days post-ERCP. Operative time was recorded for analysis. RESULTS: During the study period, 630 patients underwent ERCP, 402 with NS and 105 with GET. Among the 402 patients in the NS group, 37 (9.2%) could not complete the procedure due to an inability to tolerate the procedure. The success rate of complete stone extraction was higher among patients in the GET group than the NS group (94.3% versus 75.6%, respectively; p < 0.001). The rate of contrast injection into the pancreatic duct was higher for the NS than GET group (24.9% versus 15.2%, respectively; p = 0.008). Although non-significant, there was a higher incidence of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) in the NS than in the GET group (10.4% versus 5.7%, respectively; p = 0.105), while the incidence of pneumonia was higher for the GET group. Biliary pancreatitis, contrast injection into the pancreatic duct and an operation time ≥30 min were independent risks factors for PEP. CONCLUSIONS: ERCP under GET is effective for CBD stone removal, but with slightly higher pneumonia rate after the procedure than non-sedated ERCP. Chang Gung University 2019-04 2019-05-07 /pmc/articles/PMC6543493/ /pubmed/31130249 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bj.2019.01.002 Text en © 2019 Chang Gung University. Publishing services by Elsevier B.V. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
spellingShingle Original Article
Liang, Chih-Ming
Kuo, Chung-Mou
Lu, Lung-Sheng
Wu, Cheng-Kun
Tsai, Cheng-En
Kuo, Ming-Te
Chiu, Yi-Chun
Tai, Wen-Chen
Kuo, Yuan-Hung
Kuo, Chung-Huang
Chuah, Seng-Kee
Changchien, Chi-Sin
A comparison between non-sedation and general endotracheal anesthesia for retrograde endoscopic common bile duct stone removal: A tertiary center experience
title A comparison between non-sedation and general endotracheal anesthesia for retrograde endoscopic common bile duct stone removal: A tertiary center experience
title_full A comparison between non-sedation and general endotracheal anesthesia for retrograde endoscopic common bile duct stone removal: A tertiary center experience
title_fullStr A comparison between non-sedation and general endotracheal anesthesia for retrograde endoscopic common bile duct stone removal: A tertiary center experience
title_full_unstemmed A comparison between non-sedation and general endotracheal anesthesia for retrograde endoscopic common bile duct stone removal: A tertiary center experience
title_short A comparison between non-sedation and general endotracheal anesthesia for retrograde endoscopic common bile duct stone removal: A tertiary center experience
title_sort comparison between non-sedation and general endotracheal anesthesia for retrograde endoscopic common bile duct stone removal: a tertiary center experience
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6543493/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31130249
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bj.2019.01.002
work_keys_str_mv AT liangchihming acomparisonbetweennonsedationandgeneralendotrachealanesthesiaforretrogradeendoscopiccommonbileductstoneremovalatertiarycenterexperience
AT kuochungmou acomparisonbetweennonsedationandgeneralendotrachealanesthesiaforretrogradeendoscopiccommonbileductstoneremovalatertiarycenterexperience
AT lulungsheng acomparisonbetweennonsedationandgeneralendotrachealanesthesiaforretrogradeendoscopiccommonbileductstoneremovalatertiarycenterexperience
AT wuchengkun acomparisonbetweennonsedationandgeneralendotrachealanesthesiaforretrogradeendoscopiccommonbileductstoneremovalatertiarycenterexperience
AT tsaichengen acomparisonbetweennonsedationandgeneralendotrachealanesthesiaforretrogradeendoscopiccommonbileductstoneremovalatertiarycenterexperience
AT kuomingte acomparisonbetweennonsedationandgeneralendotrachealanesthesiaforretrogradeendoscopiccommonbileductstoneremovalatertiarycenterexperience
AT chiuyichun acomparisonbetweennonsedationandgeneralendotrachealanesthesiaforretrogradeendoscopiccommonbileductstoneremovalatertiarycenterexperience
AT taiwenchen acomparisonbetweennonsedationandgeneralendotrachealanesthesiaforretrogradeendoscopiccommonbileductstoneremovalatertiarycenterexperience
AT kuoyuanhung acomparisonbetweennonsedationandgeneralendotrachealanesthesiaforretrogradeendoscopiccommonbileductstoneremovalatertiarycenterexperience
AT kuochunghuang acomparisonbetweennonsedationandgeneralendotrachealanesthesiaforretrogradeendoscopiccommonbileductstoneremovalatertiarycenterexperience
AT chuahsengkee acomparisonbetweennonsedationandgeneralendotrachealanesthesiaforretrogradeendoscopiccommonbileductstoneremovalatertiarycenterexperience
AT changchienchisin acomparisonbetweennonsedationandgeneralendotrachealanesthesiaforretrogradeendoscopiccommonbileductstoneremovalatertiarycenterexperience
AT liangchihming comparisonbetweennonsedationandgeneralendotrachealanesthesiaforretrogradeendoscopiccommonbileductstoneremovalatertiarycenterexperience
AT kuochungmou comparisonbetweennonsedationandgeneralendotrachealanesthesiaforretrogradeendoscopiccommonbileductstoneremovalatertiarycenterexperience
AT lulungsheng comparisonbetweennonsedationandgeneralendotrachealanesthesiaforretrogradeendoscopiccommonbileductstoneremovalatertiarycenterexperience
AT wuchengkun comparisonbetweennonsedationandgeneralendotrachealanesthesiaforretrogradeendoscopiccommonbileductstoneremovalatertiarycenterexperience
AT tsaichengen comparisonbetweennonsedationandgeneralendotrachealanesthesiaforretrogradeendoscopiccommonbileductstoneremovalatertiarycenterexperience
AT kuomingte comparisonbetweennonsedationandgeneralendotrachealanesthesiaforretrogradeendoscopiccommonbileductstoneremovalatertiarycenterexperience
AT chiuyichun comparisonbetweennonsedationandgeneralendotrachealanesthesiaforretrogradeendoscopiccommonbileductstoneremovalatertiarycenterexperience
AT taiwenchen comparisonbetweennonsedationandgeneralendotrachealanesthesiaforretrogradeendoscopiccommonbileductstoneremovalatertiarycenterexperience
AT kuoyuanhung comparisonbetweennonsedationandgeneralendotrachealanesthesiaforretrogradeendoscopiccommonbileductstoneremovalatertiarycenterexperience
AT kuochunghuang comparisonbetweennonsedationandgeneralendotrachealanesthesiaforretrogradeendoscopiccommonbileductstoneremovalatertiarycenterexperience
AT chuahsengkee comparisonbetweennonsedationandgeneralendotrachealanesthesiaforretrogradeendoscopiccommonbileductstoneremovalatertiarycenterexperience
AT changchienchisin comparisonbetweennonsedationandgeneralendotrachealanesthesiaforretrogradeendoscopiccommonbileductstoneremovalatertiarycenterexperience