Endoscopic Transpapillary Gallbladder Drainage With 2 Stents Versus 1 Stent Reduces Reinterventions: A Multicenter Study

IF 1.2 Q4 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY
James D. Haddad , Natalie Wilson , Vijay S. Are , Shawn L. Shah , Danny Issa , Tarek Sawas , Mohammad Bilal , Thomas Tielleman
{"title":"Endoscopic Transpapillary Gallbladder Drainage With 2 Stents Versus 1 Stent Reduces Reinterventions: A Multicenter Study","authors":"James D. Haddad ,&nbsp;Natalie Wilson ,&nbsp;Vijay S. Are ,&nbsp;Shawn L. Shah ,&nbsp;Danny Issa ,&nbsp;Tarek Sawas ,&nbsp;Mohammad Bilal ,&nbsp;Thomas Tielleman","doi":"10.1016/j.tige.2024.09.006","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>BACKGROUND AND AIMS</h3><div>Endoscopic transpapillary gallbladder drainage (ETGBD) is a therapeutic option for gallstone-related gallbladder disease in nonsurgical candidates. However, the optimal stenting strategy and follow-up has not been established. We aimed to determine whether there was a decreased need for unplanned reintervention in patients undergoing placement of two transpapillary gallbladder stents compared with that in those undergoing placement of one stent.</div></div><div><h3>METHODS</h3><div>We performed a multicenter retrospective analysis of patients undergoing ETGBD between June 2013 and October 2022. The primary outcome was clinical success as defined by resolution of symptoms without the need for another drainage strategy. Secondary outcomes included the adverse events of postendoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis, cholangitis, bleeding, perforation, or death. Factors associated with placement of two stents, unplanned reintervention, and adverse events were assessed.</div></div><div><h3>RESULTS</h3><div>We included 75 patients who underwent ETGBD, with a median follow-up of 407 days (IQR: 71-1504 days). Technical and clinical success were 88.2% and 81.3%, respectively. Unplanned reintervention was significantly lower in the double stenting group (0% vs 25.4%; <em>P</em> = 0.02). Use of a 7 French stent (odds ratio [OR]: 15.5; 95% CI: 1.9-125; <em>P</em> = 0.01) and presence of a percutaneous cholecystostomy tube (OR: 10.8; 95% CI: 2.8-41.3; <em>P</em> = 0.001) were associated with placement of two stents. There was no significant difference in adverse events between groups (OR: 0.9; 95% CI: 0.09-8.8; <em>P</em> = 0.94).</div></div><div><h3>CONCLUSION</h3><div>ETGBD is safe and effective in nonoperative candidates. Single transpapillary gallbladder stenting is associated with more unplanned reinterventions, and 7 French stent diameter and previous percutaneous cholecystostomy tube may be associated with ability to place a second stent. Endoscopists should consider planned exchange of solitary transpapillary gallbladder stents or interval placement of a second stent if placement of two stents was unsuccessful at the index procedure.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":36169,"journal":{"name":"Techniques and Innovations in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy","volume":"27 1","pages":"Article 150899"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Techniques and Innovations in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590030724000709","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Endoscopic transpapillary gallbladder drainage (ETGBD) is a therapeutic option for gallstone-related gallbladder disease in nonsurgical candidates. However, the optimal stenting strategy and follow-up has not been established. We aimed to determine whether there was a decreased need for unplanned reintervention in patients undergoing placement of two transpapillary gallbladder stents compared with that in those undergoing placement of one stent.

METHODS

We performed a multicenter retrospective analysis of patients undergoing ETGBD between June 2013 and October 2022. The primary outcome was clinical success as defined by resolution of symptoms without the need for another drainage strategy. Secondary outcomes included the adverse events of postendoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis, cholangitis, bleeding, perforation, or death. Factors associated with placement of two stents, unplanned reintervention, and adverse events were assessed.

RESULTS

We included 75 patients who underwent ETGBD, with a median follow-up of 407 days (IQR: 71-1504 days). Technical and clinical success were 88.2% and 81.3%, respectively. Unplanned reintervention was significantly lower in the double stenting group (0% vs 25.4%; P = 0.02). Use of a 7 French stent (odds ratio [OR]: 15.5; 95% CI: 1.9-125; P = 0.01) and presence of a percutaneous cholecystostomy tube (OR: 10.8; 95% CI: 2.8-41.3; P = 0.001) were associated with placement of two stents. There was no significant difference in adverse events between groups (OR: 0.9; 95% CI: 0.09-8.8; P = 0.94).

CONCLUSION

ETGBD is safe and effective in nonoperative candidates. Single transpapillary gallbladder stenting is associated with more unplanned reinterventions, and 7 French stent diameter and previous percutaneous cholecystostomy tube may be associated with ability to place a second stent. Endoscopists should consider planned exchange of solitary transpapillary gallbladder stents or interval placement of a second stent if placement of two stents was unsuccessful at the index procedure.
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.10
自引率
50.00%
发文量
60
×
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