Derivaciones biliodigestivas en obstrucción maligna. Drenaje guiado por ultrasonido endoscópico vs. percutáneo. Un estudio comparativo

María Fernanda Torres-Ruiz, José Guillermo de la Mora-Levy, Juan Octavio Alonso-Larraga, Julio C. Sanchez-del Monte, Angélica I. Hernandez-Guerrero
{"title":"Derivaciones biliodigestivas en obstrucción maligna. Drenaje guiado por ultrasonido endoscópico vs. percutáneo. Un estudio comparativo","authors":"María Fernanda Torres-Ruiz,&nbsp;José Guillermo de la Mora-Levy,&nbsp;Juan Octavio Alonso-Larraga,&nbsp;Julio C. Sanchez-del Monte,&nbsp;Angélica I. Hernandez-Guerrero","doi":"10.1016/j.endomx.2015.12.001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><p>The current method of reference for malignant biliary obstruction is endoscopic retrograde cholangio-pancreatography (ERCP); however, this is not always successful or possible. In these cases, percutaneous drainage is the alternative option, but this is associated, among other adverse events, with patient discomfort and a high re-intervention rate. Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided drainage is currently being introduced as a new approach when ERCP fails, as it can be performed during the same intervention with internal drainage.</p></div><div><h3>Objective</h3><p>To compare EUS-guided and percutaneous biliary drainage in patients with malignant biliary obstruction with failed ERCP.</p></div><div><h3>Material and methods</h3><p>The study included all patients with malignant biliary obstruction in which EUS-guided or percutaneous drainage was performed after a failed ERCP. The patients were divided into two groups; those that underwent percutaneous drainage and those who had EUS-guided drainage performed. Variables of interest included: technical and clinical success, early and late complications, and re-interventions.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>The EUS-guided drainage group (A) included 27 patients, with 29 procedures, and 31 patients in the percutaneous drainage group (B), with 55 interventions. Technical success in group A was 79.3%, and clinical success 92.8%. In group B technical success was 90.9%, and clinical success was 68.7%, (<em>P</em> <!-->=<!--> <!-->.13 and <em>P</em> <!-->=<!--> <!-->.07, respectively). There were early complications in 13.7% in group A vs 9.0% in group B (<em>P</em> <!-->=<!--> <!-->.50), while late complications and re-interventions were significantly higher in group B (<em>P</em> <!-->=<!--> <!-->&lt;<!--> <!-->.002)</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>Clinical success was better in patients with EUS-guided biliary drainage, and complications and re-interventions were lower than in patients with percutaneous drainage. EUS-guided biliary drainage seems a better alternative than percutaneous drainage when ERCP fails.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":100465,"journal":{"name":"Endoscopia","volume":"27 4","pages":"Pages 162-167"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2015-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.endomx.2015.12.001","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Endoscopia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0188989315000925","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Introduction

The current method of reference for malignant biliary obstruction is endoscopic retrograde cholangio-pancreatography (ERCP); however, this is not always successful or possible. In these cases, percutaneous drainage is the alternative option, but this is associated, among other adverse events, with patient discomfort and a high re-intervention rate. Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided drainage is currently being introduced as a new approach when ERCP fails, as it can be performed during the same intervention with internal drainage.

Objective

To compare EUS-guided and percutaneous biliary drainage in patients with malignant biliary obstruction with failed ERCP.

Material and methods

The study included all patients with malignant biliary obstruction in which EUS-guided or percutaneous drainage was performed after a failed ERCP. The patients were divided into two groups; those that underwent percutaneous drainage and those who had EUS-guided drainage performed. Variables of interest included: technical and clinical success, early and late complications, and re-interventions.

Results

The EUS-guided drainage group (A) included 27 patients, with 29 procedures, and 31 patients in the percutaneous drainage group (B), with 55 interventions. Technical success in group A was 79.3%, and clinical success 92.8%. In group B technical success was 90.9%, and clinical success was 68.7%, (P = .13 and P = .07, respectively). There were early complications in 13.7% in group A vs 9.0% in group B (P = .50), while late complications and re-interventions were significantly higher in group B (P = < .002)

Conclusions

Clinical success was better in patients with EUS-guided biliary drainage, and complications and re-interventions were lower than in patients with percutaneous drainage. EUS-guided biliary drainage seems a better alternative than percutaneous drainage when ERCP fails.

恶性梗阻的胆总管分流术。内镜与经皮超声引导引流。比较研究
目前恶性胆道梗阻的参考方法是内镜逆行胰胆管造影(ERCP);然而,这并不总是成功或可能的。在这些情况下,经皮引流是另一种选择,但除其他不良事件外,这与患者不适和高再干预率有关。目前,内镜超声(EUS)引导引流是ERCP失败时的一种新方法,因为它可以在与内部引流相同的干预过程中进行。目的比较ERCP失败的恶性胆道梗阻患者在EUS引导下和经皮胆道引流的疗效。材料和方法本研究包括所有在ERCP失败后进行EUS引导或经皮胆管引流的恶性胆道阻塞患者。将患者分为两组;那些接受经皮引流的患者和那些接受EUS引导引流的患者进行了引流。感兴趣的变量包括:技术和临床成功率、早期和晚期并发症以及再干预。结果EUS引导引流组(A)包括27名患者,共29次手术,经皮引流组(B)包括31名患者,共计55次干预。A组技术成功率为79.3%,临床成功率为92.8%。B组技术成功度为90.9%,临床成功度为68.7%(分别为P=.13和P=.07)。A组早期并发症发生率为13.7%,B组为9.0%(P=.50),而B组晚期并发症和再干预率明显较高(P=<;.002)。结论EUS引导下胆道引流患者的临床成功率较高,并发症和再介入率低于经皮引流患者。当ERCP失败时,EUS引导的胆道引流似乎是比经皮引流更好的选择。
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
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信