Effect of prophylactic biliary stent in reducing recurrence of adverse events among patients awaiting cholecystectomy: an analysis of the Nationwide Readmissions Database

iGIE Pub Date : 2024-06-01 DOI:10.1016/j.igie.2024.04.007
Saurabh Chandan MD , Bhanu Pinnam MD , Dushyant Singh Dahiya MD , Babu P. Mohan MD , Daryl Ramai MD , Antonio Facciorusso MD, PhD , Justin Paul Canakis DO , Mohammad Bilal MD , Harshal Mandavdhare MBBS, MD, DM , Douglas G. Adler MD
{"title":"Effect of prophylactic biliary stent in reducing recurrence of adverse events among patients awaiting cholecystectomy: an analysis of the Nationwide Readmissions Database","authors":"Saurabh Chandan MD ,&nbsp;Bhanu Pinnam MD ,&nbsp;Dushyant Singh Dahiya MD ,&nbsp;Babu P. Mohan MD ,&nbsp;Daryl Ramai MD ,&nbsp;Antonio Facciorusso MD, PhD ,&nbsp;Justin Paul Canakis DO ,&nbsp;Mohammad Bilal MD ,&nbsp;Harshal Mandavdhare MBBS, MD, DM ,&nbsp;Douglas G. Adler MD","doi":"10.1016/j.igie.2024.04.007","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background and Aims</h3><p>In patients awaiting cholecystectomy, the role of endoscopic biliary sphincterotomy (EST) with biliary stenting is controversial. We aimed to assess the impact of biliary stenting in these patients.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>The Nationwide Readmissions Database (2016-2020) was queried to identify adult hospitalizations with cholelithiasis and choledocholithiasis that underwent ERCP with EST without biliary stenting (group 1) and biliary stenting (group 2). Readmission characteristics, post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP), mean length of hospital stay (LOS), and mean total hospitalization charge (THC) were analyzed.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>For all biliary events, the risks of 30-day (1.18% vs .67%; adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.78, 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.55-2.04; <em>P</em> &lt; .001), 60-day (2.12% vs 1.04%; aHR, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.82-2.28; <em>P</em> &lt; .001), and 90-day (2.66% vs 1.27%; aHR, 2.07; 95% CI, 1.86-2.30; <em>P</em> &lt; .001) readmissions were higher in group 2 than in group 1. Similarly, the risks of 30-, 60-, and 90-day readmissions for choledocholithiasis, cholecystitis, cholangitis, and gallstone pancreatitis, and mean LOS and THC were higher in group 2 than in group 1. After adjusting for confounders, group 2 had higher rates of readmission for PEP within 48 hours after hospital discharge (.05% vs .03%; adjusted odds ratio, 1.93; 95% CI, 1.05-3.52; <em>P</em> = .032) compared with group 1, whereas there was no statistical difference in the rates of PEP from 48 hours to 7 days after hospital discharge between the groups.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>For biliary events, patients with biliary stenting had higher readmission risk, LOS, THC, and PEP within 48 hours after discharge compared with nonstented patients.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":100652,"journal":{"name":"iGIE","volume":"3 2","pages":"Pages 254-260"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2949708624000402/pdfft?md5=add0d93bcb621d9644d6793c3fe1d256&pid=1-s2.0-S2949708624000402-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"iGIE","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2949708624000402","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background and Aims

In patients awaiting cholecystectomy, the role of endoscopic biliary sphincterotomy (EST) with biliary stenting is controversial. We aimed to assess the impact of biliary stenting in these patients.

Methods

The Nationwide Readmissions Database (2016-2020) was queried to identify adult hospitalizations with cholelithiasis and choledocholithiasis that underwent ERCP with EST without biliary stenting (group 1) and biliary stenting (group 2). Readmission characteristics, post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP), mean length of hospital stay (LOS), and mean total hospitalization charge (THC) were analyzed.

Results

For all biliary events, the risks of 30-day (1.18% vs .67%; adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.78, 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.55-2.04; P < .001), 60-day (2.12% vs 1.04%; aHR, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.82-2.28; P < .001), and 90-day (2.66% vs 1.27%; aHR, 2.07; 95% CI, 1.86-2.30; P < .001) readmissions were higher in group 2 than in group 1. Similarly, the risks of 30-, 60-, and 90-day readmissions for choledocholithiasis, cholecystitis, cholangitis, and gallstone pancreatitis, and mean LOS and THC were higher in group 2 than in group 1. After adjusting for confounders, group 2 had higher rates of readmission for PEP within 48 hours after hospital discharge (.05% vs .03%; adjusted odds ratio, 1.93; 95% CI, 1.05-3.52; P = .032) compared with group 1, whereas there was no statistical difference in the rates of PEP from 48 hours to 7 days after hospital discharge between the groups.

Conclusions

For biliary events, patients with biliary stenting had higher readmission risk, LOS, THC, and PEP within 48 hours after discharge compared with nonstented patients.

结石清除后预防性胆道支架对减少胆囊切除术前患者不良事件复发的影响:美国再入院数据库分析
背景和目的在等待胆囊切除术的患者中,内镜胆道括约肌切开术(EST)与胆道支架植入术的作用存在争议。我们旨在评估胆道支架植入术对这些患者的影响。方法查询了全国再入院数据库(2016-2020 年),以确定接受ERCP 并行EST 但未行胆道支架植入术(第 1 组)和胆道支架植入术(第 2 组)的胆石症和胆总管结石成人住院患者。结果对于所有胆道事件,30 天(1.18% vs .67%;调整后危险比 [aHR],1.78,95% 置信区间 [CI],1.55-2.04;P < .001)、60 天(2.12% vs 1.04%;aHR,2.0;95% CI,1.同样,胆总管结石、胆囊炎、胆管炎和胆石性胰腺炎的 30 天、60 天和 90 天再入院风险以及平均住院日和 THC 在第 2 组均高于第 1 组。调整混杂因素后,与第一组相比,第二组在出院后 48 小时内因 PEP 再次入院的比例更高(.05% vs .03%;调整后的几率比为 1.93;95% CI 为 1.05-3.52;P = .结论对于胆道事件,与非支架置入患者相比,胆道支架置入患者在出院后 48 小时内的再入院风险、LOS、THC 和 PEP 均较高。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信