Endoscopic ultrasound-guided hepaticogastrostomy versus percutaneous transhepatic drainage for malignant biliary obstruction after failed endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: a retrospective expertise-based study from two centers

Background: Percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD) is widely performed as a salvage procedure in patients with unresectable malignant obstruction of the common bile duct (CBD) after failed endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) or in case of surgically altered anatomy. Endo...

Celý popis

Uloženo v:
Podrobná bibliografie
Vydáno v:Therapeutic advances in gastroenterology Ročník 10; číslo 6; s. 483 - 493
Hlavní autoři: Sportes, Adrien, Camus, Marine, Greget, Michel, Leblanc, Sarah, Coriat, Romain, Hochberger, Jürgen, Chaussade, Stanislas, Grabar, Sophie, Prat, Frédéric
Médium: Journal Article
Jazyk:angličtina
Vydáno: London, England SAGE Publications 01.06.2017
Sage Publications Ltd
Sage Publishing
Témata:
Bile
Endoscopy
Gastroenterology
Life Sciences
Original Research
Pancreatic cancer
Success
Ultrasonic imaging
EUS
pancreatic cancer
ERCP
jaundice
PTBD
ISSN:1756-2848, 1756-283X, 1756-2848
On-line přístup:Získat plný text
Tagy: Přidat tag
Žádné tagy, Buďte první, kdo vytvoří štítek k tomuto záznamu!
Popis
Shrnutí:Background: Percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD) is widely performed as a salvage procedure in patients with unresectable malignant obstruction of the common bile duct (CBD) after failed endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) or in case of surgically altered anatomy. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided hepaticogastrostomy (EU-HGS) is a more recently introduced alternative to relieve malignant obstructive jaundice. The aim of this prospective observational study was to compare the outcome, efficacy and adverse events of EU-HGS and PTBD. Methods: From April 2012 to August 2015, consecutive patients with malignant CBD obstruction who underwent EU-HGS or PTBD in two tertiary-care referral centers were included. The primary endpoint was the clinical success rate. Secondary endpoints were technical success, overall survival, procedure-related adverse events, incidence of adverse events, and reintervention rate. Results: A total of 51 patients (EU-HGS, n = 31; PTBD, n = 20) were included. Median survival was 71 days (range 25–75th percentile; 30–95) for the EU-HGS group and 78 days (range 25–75th percentile; 42–108) for the PTBD group (p = 0.99). Technical success was achieved in all patients in both groups. Clinical success was achieved in 25 (86%) of 31 patients in the EU-HGS group and in 15 (83%) of 20 patients in the PTBD group (p = 0.88). There was no difference in adverse events rates between the two groups (EU-HGS: 16%; PTBD: 10%) (p = 0.69). Four deaths within 1 month (two hemorrhagic and two septic) were considered procedure related (two in the EU-HGS group and two in the PTBD group). Overall reintervention rate was significantly lower after EU-HGS (n = 2) than after PTBD (n = 21) (p = 0.0001). Length of hospital stay was shorter after EU-HGS (8 days versus 15 days; p = 0.002). Conclusions: EU-HGS can be an effective and safe mini invasive-procedure alternative to PTBD, with similar success and adverse-event rates, but with lower rates of reintervention and length of hospitalization.
Bibliografie:ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 14
content type line 23
ISSN:1756-2848
1756-283X
1756-2848
DOI:10.1177/1756283X17702096