Comparative Analysis of ERCP and PTBD for Biliary Interventions for Readmission Rates and Patient Outcomes.

IF 2.8 4区 医学 Q2 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY
Daniel Huai-En Wang, Patrick Chang, Supisara Tintara, Frederick Chang, Jennifer Phan
{"title":"Comparative Analysis of ERCP and PTBD for Biliary Interventions for Readmission Rates and Patient Outcomes.","authors":"Daniel Huai-En Wang, Patrick Chang, Supisara Tintara, Frederick Chang, Jennifer Phan","doi":"10.1097/MCG.0000000000002074","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD) are interventions used to relieve biliary obstruction. The utility of ERCP compared with PTBD is not fully understood from a utilization outcome standpoint. Our study compares readmission rates and hospitalization outcomes in ERCP and PTBD.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Using the National Readmission Database (NRD) 2016 to 2020, we identified all patients with an ERCP or PTBD completed during admission. The study cohort was first analyzed by 3 weighted study arms including those admitted with cholangitis, biliary/pancreatic malignancy, and choledocholithiasis. Second, we analyzed the cohort by a 1:1, unweighted propensity match. The primary outcome was 30 day, 90 day, and 6 month readmission. Secondary outcomes were readmission/overall mortality, cost, and length of stay. Outcomes were analyzed using multivariate analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 621,735 admissions were identified associated with 589,796 ERCP and 31,939 PTBD. In the propensity matched cohort, PTBD had a higher readmission rate at 30 days (20.38% vs. 13.71% P<0.0001), 90 days (14.63% vs. 13.14%, P<0.0001) but lower rate at 6 months (8.50% vs. 9.67%, P=0.0003). Secondary outcomes included increased PTBD-associated hospital length of stay (9.01 d vs. 6.74 d, P<0.0001), hospitalization cost ($106,947.97 vs. $97,602.25, P<0.0001), and overall mortality (6.86% vs. 4.35%, P<0.0001). No major differences were found for mortality among readmissions at 30 days (7.19% vs. 6.88%, P=0.5382), 90 day (6.82% vs. 6.51%, P=0.5612), and 6 months (5.08% vs. 5.91%, P=0.1744).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>ERCP demonstrated superior results compared with PTBD for readmission rates, length of stay and overall mortality. For failed ERCP cases, emerging data for Endoscopic ultrasound guided-biliary drainage (EUS-BD) offers potential over PTBD and may provide additional options for the future in tertiary referral centers with experience.</p>","PeriodicalId":15457,"journal":{"name":"Journal of clinical gastroenterology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of clinical gastroenterology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/MCG.0000000000002074","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD) are interventions used to relieve biliary obstruction. The utility of ERCP compared with PTBD is not fully understood from a utilization outcome standpoint. Our study compares readmission rates and hospitalization outcomes in ERCP and PTBD.

Methods: Using the National Readmission Database (NRD) 2016 to 2020, we identified all patients with an ERCP or PTBD completed during admission. The study cohort was first analyzed by 3 weighted study arms including those admitted with cholangitis, biliary/pancreatic malignancy, and choledocholithiasis. Second, we analyzed the cohort by a 1:1, unweighted propensity match. The primary outcome was 30 day, 90 day, and 6 month readmission. Secondary outcomes were readmission/overall mortality, cost, and length of stay. Outcomes were analyzed using multivariate analysis.

Results: A total of 621,735 admissions were identified associated with 589,796 ERCP and 31,939 PTBD. In the propensity matched cohort, PTBD had a higher readmission rate at 30 days (20.38% vs. 13.71% P<0.0001), 90 days (14.63% vs. 13.14%, P<0.0001) but lower rate at 6 months (8.50% vs. 9.67%, P=0.0003). Secondary outcomes included increased PTBD-associated hospital length of stay (9.01 d vs. 6.74 d, P<0.0001), hospitalization cost ($106,947.97 vs. $97,602.25, P<0.0001), and overall mortality (6.86% vs. 4.35%, P<0.0001). No major differences were found for mortality among readmissions at 30 days (7.19% vs. 6.88%, P=0.5382), 90 day (6.82% vs. 6.51%, P=0.5612), and 6 months (5.08% vs. 5.91%, P=0.1744).

Conclusions: ERCP demonstrated superior results compared with PTBD for readmission rates, length of stay and overall mortality. For failed ERCP cases, emerging data for Endoscopic ultrasound guided-biliary drainage (EUS-BD) offers potential over PTBD and may provide additional options for the future in tertiary referral centers with experience.

ERCP和PTBD胆道介入治疗在再入院率和患者预后方面的比较分析。
背景:内镜逆行胰胆管造影术(ERCP)和经皮经肝胆道引流术(PTBD)是用于缓解胆道梗阻的干预措施。从使用效果的角度来看,ERCP 与经皮经肝胆道引流术的效用尚不完全清楚。我们的研究比较了ERCP和PTBD的再入院率和住院结果:我们利用 2016 年至 2020 年全国再入院数据库(NRD),确定了所有在入院期间完成 ERCP 或 PTBD 的患者。研究队列首先由 3 个加权研究臂进行分析,包括胆管炎、胆道/胰腺恶性肿瘤和胆总管结石。其次,我们通过 1:1 的非加权倾向匹配对队列进行了分析。主要结果是 30 天、90 天和 6 个月的再入院情况。次要结果是再入院/总死亡率、费用和住院时间。结果采用多变量分析法进行分析:结果:共发现 621,735 例入院患者,其中 589,796 例为 ERCP 患者,31,939 例为 PTBD 患者。在倾向匹配队列中,PTBD 的 30 天再入院率更高(20.38% 对 13.71%):ERCP在再入院率、住院时间和总死亡率方面均优于PTBD。对于ERCP失败的病例,内镜超声引导胆道引流术(EUS-BD)的新数据比PTBD更有潜力,可为有经验的三级转诊中心提供更多选择。
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
Journal of clinical gastroenterology
Journal of clinical gastroenterology 医学-胃肠肝病学
CiteScore
5.60
自引率
3.40%
发文量
339
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology gathers the world''s latest, most relevant clinical studies and reviews, case reports, and technical expertise in a single source. Regular features include cutting-edge, peer-reviewed articles and clinical reviews that put the latest research and development into the context of your practice. Also included are biographies, focused organ reviews, practice management, and therapeutic recommendations.
×
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