胆总管结石引起的急性胆管炎的一期内镜治疗与二期内镜治疗:一项回顾性多中心队列研究。

IF 3.2 3区 医学 Q2 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY
Akinori Maruta, Takuji Iwashita, Kensaku Yoshida, Yuhei Iwasa, Mitsuru Okuno, Keisuke Iwata, Ryuichi Tezuka, Shinya Uemura, Shogo Shimizu, Masahito Shimizu
{"title":"胆总管结石引起的急性胆管炎的一期内镜治疗与二期内镜治疗:一项回顾性多中心队列研究。","authors":"Akinori Maruta,&nbsp;Takuji Iwashita,&nbsp;Kensaku Yoshida,&nbsp;Yuhei Iwasa,&nbsp;Mitsuru Okuno,&nbsp;Keisuke Iwata,&nbsp;Ryuichi Tezuka,&nbsp;Shinya Uemura,&nbsp;Shogo Shimizu,&nbsp;Masahito Shimizu","doi":"10.1002/jhbp.1431","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>One-stage endoscopic management, where papillary interventions and stone removal are simultaneously performed, has been reported to be an effective treatment for acute cholangitis caused by common bile duct stones (CBDS). However, there have been few reports comparing it with two-stage management, and there is no established strategy for the indication of one-stage management. The aim of the present study was to compare the short- and long-term outcomes between one- and two-stage management for acute cholangitis caused by CBDS.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>We retrospectively studied 577 patients who underwent one- or two-stage endoscopic management for acute cholangitis between May 2010 and December 2020. The patients were divided into one- and two-stage groups by endoscopic management. The clinical outcomes were compared between groups.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>The technical and clinical success were similar in both groups, although the length of hospital stay was significantly shorter in the one-stage group. Although there was no difference in the early adverse event (AE) between two groups, post-ERCP pancreatitis was recognized in 3.4% and 10.0%, which was significantly higher in the two-stage group. The cumulative late AE rate was 22.6% and 14.1%, which was significantly higher in the one-stage group. In the multivariate analyses, intervention (one-stage), number of CBDS ≥2, biliary drainage, the use of ML, and gallbladder stone were identified as significant factors associated with the recurrence of CBDS.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>Although one-stage endoscopic management is useful and safe with reducing hospital stays, diligent postoperative follow-up with consideration to recurrence of CBDS is essential.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":16056,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Hepato‐Biliary‐Pancreatic Sciences","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"One-stage versus two-stage endoscopic management for acute cholangitis caused by common bile duct stones: A retrospective multicenter cohort study\",\"authors\":\"Akinori Maruta,&nbsp;Takuji Iwashita,&nbsp;Kensaku Yoshida,&nbsp;Yuhei Iwasa,&nbsp;Mitsuru Okuno,&nbsp;Keisuke Iwata,&nbsp;Ryuichi Tezuka,&nbsp;Shinya Uemura,&nbsp;Shogo Shimizu,&nbsp;Masahito Shimizu\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/jhbp.1431\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Background</h3>\\n \\n <p>One-stage endoscopic management, where papillary interventions and stone removal are simultaneously performed, has been reported to be an effective treatment for acute cholangitis caused by common bile duct stones (CBDS). However, there have been few reports comparing it with two-stage management, and there is no established strategy for the indication of one-stage management. The aim of the present study was to compare the short- and long-term outcomes between one- and two-stage management for acute cholangitis caused by CBDS.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Methods</h3>\\n \\n <p>We retrospectively studied 577 patients who underwent one- or two-stage endoscopic management for acute cholangitis between May 2010 and December 2020. The patients were divided into one- and two-stage groups by endoscopic management. The clinical outcomes were compared between groups.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Results</h3>\\n \\n <p>The technical and clinical success were similar in both groups, although the length of hospital stay was significantly shorter in the one-stage group. Although there was no difference in the early adverse event (AE) between two groups, post-ERCP pancreatitis was recognized in 3.4% and 10.0%, which was significantly higher in the two-stage group. The cumulative late AE rate was 22.6% and 14.1%, which was significantly higher in the one-stage group. In the multivariate analyses, intervention (one-stage), number of CBDS ≥2, biliary drainage, the use of ML, and gallbladder stone were identified as significant factors associated with the recurrence of CBDS.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\\n \\n <p>Although one-stage endoscopic management is useful and safe with reducing hospital stays, diligent postoperative follow-up with consideration to recurrence of CBDS is essential.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16056,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Hepato‐Biliary‐Pancreatic Sciences\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Hepato‐Biliary‐Pancreatic Sciences\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jhbp.1431\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Hepato‐Biliary‐Pancreatic Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jhbp.1431","RegionNum":3,"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

摘要

背景:有报道称,对总胆管结石(CBDS)引起的急性胆管炎,同时进行乳头介入治疗和结石清除术的 "一期内镜治疗 "是一种有效的治疗方法。然而,很少有报道将其与两阶段疗法进行比较,而且也没有关于一阶段疗法适应症的既定策略。本研究旨在比较 CBDS 引起的急性胆管炎一期和二期治疗的短期和长期疗效:我们对 2010 年 5 月至 2020 年 12 月间接受一期或二期内镜治疗的 577 例急性胆管炎患者进行了回顾性研究。通过内镜治疗将患者分为一期和二期组。结果:结果:两组的技术和临床成功率相似,但一期组的住院时间明显更短。虽然两组的早期不良事件(AE)没有差异,但两组分别有 3.4% 和 10.0% 的患者发生了 ERCP 术后胰腺炎,而两阶段组的比例明显更高。晚期累积不良事件发生率分别为 22.6% 和 14.1%,单阶段组明显更高。在多变量分析中,干预(一期)、CBDS数量≥2、胆道引流、使用ML和胆囊结石被确定为CBDS复发的重要相关因素:结论:尽管单阶段内镜治疗既有效又安全,还能减少住院时间,但术后认真随访并考虑到 CBDS 的复发至关重要。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
One-stage versus two-stage endoscopic management for acute cholangitis caused by common bile duct stones: A retrospective multicenter cohort study

Background

One-stage endoscopic management, where papillary interventions and stone removal are simultaneously performed, has been reported to be an effective treatment for acute cholangitis caused by common bile duct stones (CBDS). However, there have been few reports comparing it with two-stage management, and there is no established strategy for the indication of one-stage management. The aim of the present study was to compare the short- and long-term outcomes between one- and two-stage management for acute cholangitis caused by CBDS.

Methods

We retrospectively studied 577 patients who underwent one- or two-stage endoscopic management for acute cholangitis between May 2010 and December 2020. The patients were divided into one- and two-stage groups by endoscopic management. The clinical outcomes were compared between groups.

Results

The technical and clinical success were similar in both groups, although the length of hospital stay was significantly shorter in the one-stage group. Although there was no difference in the early adverse event (AE) between two groups, post-ERCP pancreatitis was recognized in 3.4% and 10.0%, which was significantly higher in the two-stage group. The cumulative late AE rate was 22.6% and 14.1%, which was significantly higher in the one-stage group. In the multivariate analyses, intervention (one-stage), number of CBDS ≥2, biliary drainage, the use of ML, and gallbladder stone were identified as significant factors associated with the recurrence of CBDS.

Conclusion

Although one-stage endoscopic management is useful and safe with reducing hospital stays, diligent postoperative follow-up with consideration to recurrence of CBDS is essential.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Hepato‐Biliary‐Pancreatic Sciences
Journal of Hepato‐Biliary‐Pancreatic Sciences GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY-SURGERY
自引率
10.00%
发文量
178
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Hepato-Biliary-Pancreatic Sciences (JHBPS) is the leading peer-reviewed journal in the field of hepato-biliary-pancreatic sciences. JHBPS publishes articles dealing with clinical research as well as translational research on all aspects of this field. Coverage includes Original Article, Review Article, Images of Interest, Rapid Communication and an announcement section. Letters to the Editor and comments on the journal’s policies or content are also included. JHBPS welcomes submissions from surgeons, physicians, endoscopists, radiologists, oncologists, and pathologists.
×
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