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, José Guillermo de la Mora-Levy, Juan Octavio Alonso-Larraga, Julio C. Sanchez-del Monte, 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> <!-->=<!--> <!--><<!--> <!-->.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.