Primary endoscopic bile duct stone removal for severe acute cholangitis: a retrospective study.

IF 3 Q2 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY
Yu Ishii, Akihiro Nakayama, Kei Nakatani, Shigetoshi Nishihara, Shu Oikawa, Tomono Usami, Toshihiro Noguchi, Yuta Mitsui, Hitoshi Yoshida
{"title":"Primary endoscopic bile duct stone removal for severe acute cholangitis: a retrospective study.","authors":"Yu Ishii,&nbsp;Akihiro Nakayama,&nbsp;Kei Nakatani,&nbsp;Shigetoshi Nishihara,&nbsp;Shu Oikawa,&nbsp;Tomono Usami,&nbsp;Toshihiro Noguchi,&nbsp;Yuta Mitsui,&nbsp;Hitoshi Yoshida","doi":"10.1177/26317745211044009","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>While the Tokyo Guidelines 2018 suggest primary stone removal for mild to moderate cholangitis, a guideline for severe acute cholangitis is not mentioned. We, therefore, investigated the clinical outcomes of patients with severe acute cholangitis to confirm the usefulness and safety of primary stone removal.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>This study included 104 severe acute cholangitis patients without gallstone pancreatitis diagnosed at our institution between January 2014 and December 2020. Patients with percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage as the primary drainage, bile duct stenosis, and endoscopically unidentified bile duct stones were excluded from this study. The clinical results of 14 patients with primary stone removal (primary group) and 23 patients with elective stone removal (elective group) were then retrospectively examined (excluding abnormal values due to underlying diseases).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Upon comparing the patient characteristics between groups, the elective group had significantly higher cardiovascular dysfunction (57% vs 7%; <i>p</i> = 0.004), septic shock (39% vs 0%; <i>p</i> = 0.006), disseminated intravascular coagulation treatment (57% vs 14%; <i>p</i> = 0.016), and positive blood cultures (91% vs 43%; <i>p</i> = 0.006) than those in the primary group. Endoscopic sphincterotomy for naïve papilla (90% vs 21%; <i>p</i> = 0.01) and endoscopic nasobiliary drainage (50% vs 9%; <i>p</i> = 0.014) were higher in the primary group, while endoscopic biliary stenting (7% vs 87%; <i>p</i> < 0.001) was lower than that in the elective group.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>There were no significant differences in adverse events or complete stone removal rates between the two groups. In the primary group, the period from the first endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography to stone removal (0 days vs 12 days; <i>p</i> < 0.001) and hospitalization period (12 days vs 26 days; <i>p</i> = 0.012) were significantly shorter and the hospitalization cost ($7731 vs $18758; <i>p</i> < 0.001) was significantly lower than those in the elective group.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>If patients are appropriately selected, bile duct stones may be safely removed for the treatment of severe acute cholangitis.</p>","PeriodicalId":40947,"journal":{"name":"Therapeutic Advances in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy","volume":"14 ","pages":"26317745211044009"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-09-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/bf/fb/10.1177_26317745211044009.PMC8477704.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Therapeutic Advances in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/26317745211044009","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: While the Tokyo Guidelines 2018 suggest primary stone removal for mild to moderate cholangitis, a guideline for severe acute cholangitis is not mentioned. We, therefore, investigated the clinical outcomes of patients with severe acute cholangitis to confirm the usefulness and safety of primary stone removal.

Method: This study included 104 severe acute cholangitis patients without gallstone pancreatitis diagnosed at our institution between January 2014 and December 2020. Patients with percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage as the primary drainage, bile duct stenosis, and endoscopically unidentified bile duct stones were excluded from this study. The clinical results of 14 patients with primary stone removal (primary group) and 23 patients with elective stone removal (elective group) were then retrospectively examined (excluding abnormal values due to underlying diseases).

Results: Upon comparing the patient characteristics between groups, the elective group had significantly higher cardiovascular dysfunction (57% vs 7%; p = 0.004), septic shock (39% vs 0%; p = 0.006), disseminated intravascular coagulation treatment (57% vs 14%; p = 0.016), and positive blood cultures (91% vs 43%; p = 0.006) than those in the primary group. Endoscopic sphincterotomy for naïve papilla (90% vs 21%; p = 0.01) and endoscopic nasobiliary drainage (50% vs 9%; p = 0.014) were higher in the primary group, while endoscopic biliary stenting (7% vs 87%; p < 0.001) was lower than that in the elective group.

Discussion: There were no significant differences in adverse events or complete stone removal rates between the two groups. In the primary group, the period from the first endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography to stone removal (0 days vs 12 days; p < 0.001) and hospitalization period (12 days vs 26 days; p = 0.012) were significantly shorter and the hospitalization cost ($7731 vs $18758; p < 0.001) was significantly lower than those in the elective group.

Conclusion: If patients are appropriately selected, bile duct stones may be safely removed for the treatment of severe acute cholangitis.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

原发性内镜下胆管结石清除术治疗严重急性胆管炎:一项回顾性研究。
引言:虽然《2018年东京指南》建议对轻度至中度胆管炎进行原发性结石切除,但没有提及对严重急性胆管炎的指南。因此,我们研究了严重急性胆管炎患者的临床结果,以证实原发性结石切除的有效性和安全性。方法:本研究纳入了2014年1月至2020年12月在我院诊断的104名无胆源性胰腺炎的重症急性胆管炎患者。本研究排除了以经皮肝穿刺胆道引流为主要引流、胆管狭窄和内镜下不明胆管结石的患者。对14例原发性除石(原发组)和23例择期除石(择期组)患者的临床结果进行回顾性分析(不包括由于潜在疾病引起的异常值) = 0.004)、感染性休克(39%对0%;p = 0.006),弥散性血管内凝血治疗(57%对14%;p = 0.016)和阳性血液培养物(91%对43%;p = 0.006)。内窥镜乳头括约肌切开术治疗幼稚乳头(90%vs 21%;p = 0.01)和内镜下鼻胆管引流术(50%vs9%;p = 0.014)高于原发组,而内镜下胆道支架置入术(7%对87%;p 讨论:两组之间的不良事件或结石完全清除率没有显著差异。在原发组中,从第一次内镜逆行胰胆管造影到结石清除的时间(0天vs 12天;p p = 0.012)明显缩短,住院费用(7731美元对18758美元;p 结论:如果选择合适的患者,可以安全地取出胆管结石治疗严重急性胆管炎。
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
CiteScore
4.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
8
审稿时长
13 weeks
×
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