ERCP和PTBD胆道介入治疗在再入院率和患者预后方面的比较分析。

IF 2.8 4区 医学 Q2 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY
Daniel Huai-En Wang, Patrick Chang, Supisara Tintara, Frederick Chang, Jennifer Phan
{"title":"ERCP和PTBD胆道介入治疗在再入院率和患者预后方面的比较分析。","authors":"Daniel Huai-En Wang, Patrick Chang, Supisara Tintara, Frederick Chang, Jennifer Phan","doi":"10.1097/MCG.0000000000002074","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD) are interventions used to relieve biliary obstruction. The utility of ERCP compared with PTBD is not fully understood from a utilization outcome standpoint. Our study compares readmission rates and hospitalization outcomes in ERCP and PTBD.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Using the National Readmission Database (NRD) 2016 to 2020, we identified all patients with an ERCP or PTBD completed during admission. The study cohort was first analyzed by 3 weighted study arms including those admitted with cholangitis, biliary/pancreatic malignancy, and choledocholithiasis. Second, we analyzed the cohort by a 1:1, unweighted propensity match. The primary outcome was 30 day, 90 day, and 6 month readmission. Secondary outcomes were readmission/overall mortality, cost, and length of stay. Outcomes were analyzed using multivariate analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 621,735 admissions were identified associated with 589,796 ERCP and 31,939 PTBD. In the propensity matched cohort, PTBD had a higher readmission rate at 30 days (20.38% vs. 13.71% P<0.0001), 90 days (14.63% vs. 13.14%, P<0.0001) but lower rate at 6 months (8.50% vs. 9.67%, P=0.0003). Secondary outcomes included increased PTBD-associated hospital length of stay (9.01 d vs. 6.74 d, P<0.0001), hospitalization cost ($106,947.97 vs. $97,602.25, P<0.0001), and overall mortality (6.86% vs. 4.35%, P<0.0001). No major differences were found for mortality among readmissions at 30 days (7.19% vs. 6.88%, P=0.5382), 90 day (6.82% vs. 6.51%, P=0.5612), and 6 months (5.08% vs. 5.91%, P=0.1744).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>ERCP demonstrated superior results compared with PTBD for readmission rates, length of stay and overall mortality. For failed ERCP cases, emerging data for Endoscopic ultrasound guided-biliary drainage (EUS-BD) offers potential over PTBD and may provide additional options for the future in tertiary referral centers with experience.</p>","PeriodicalId":15457,"journal":{"name":"Journal of clinical gastroenterology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparative Analysis of ERCP and PTBD for Biliary Interventions for Readmission Rates and Patient Outcomes.\",\"authors\":\"Daniel Huai-En Wang, Patrick Chang, Supisara Tintara, Frederick Chang, Jennifer Phan\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/MCG.0000000000002074\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD) are interventions used to relieve biliary obstruction. The utility of ERCP compared with PTBD is not fully understood from a utilization outcome standpoint. Our study compares readmission rates and hospitalization outcomes in ERCP and PTBD.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Using the National Readmission Database (NRD) 2016 to 2020, we identified all patients with an ERCP or PTBD completed during admission. The study cohort was first analyzed by 3 weighted study arms including those admitted with cholangitis, biliary/pancreatic malignancy, and choledocholithiasis. Second, we analyzed the cohort by a 1:1, unweighted propensity match. The primary outcome was 30 day, 90 day, and 6 month readmission. Secondary outcomes were readmission/overall mortality, cost, and length of stay. Outcomes were analyzed using multivariate analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 621,735 admissions were identified associated with 589,796 ERCP and 31,939 PTBD. In the propensity matched cohort, PTBD had a higher readmission rate at 30 days (20.38% vs. 13.71% P<0.0001), 90 days (14.63% vs. 13.14%, P<0.0001) but lower rate at 6 months (8.50% vs. 9.67%, P=0.0003). Secondary outcomes included increased PTBD-associated hospital length of stay (9.01 d vs. 6.74 d, P<0.0001), hospitalization cost ($106,947.97 vs. $97,602.25, P<0.0001), and overall mortality (6.86% vs. 4.35%, P<0.0001). No major differences were found for mortality among readmissions at 30 days (7.19% vs. 6.88%, P=0.5382), 90 day (6.82% vs. 6.51%, P=0.5612), and 6 months (5.08% vs. 5.91%, P=0.1744).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>ERCP demonstrated superior results compared with PTBD for readmission rates, length of stay and overall mortality. For failed ERCP cases, emerging data for Endoscopic ultrasound guided-biliary drainage (EUS-BD) offers potential over PTBD and may provide additional options for the future in tertiary referral centers with experience.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15457,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of clinical gastroenterology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of clinical gastroenterology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/MCG.0000000000002074\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"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 clinical gastroenterology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/MCG.0000000000002074","RegionNum":4,"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:内镜逆行胰胆管造影术(ERCP)和经皮经肝胆道引流术(PTBD)是用于缓解胆道梗阻的干预措施。从使用效果的角度来看,ERCP 与经皮经肝胆道引流术的效用尚不完全清楚。我们的研究比较了ERCP和PTBD的再入院率和住院结果:我们利用 2016 年至 2020 年全国再入院数据库(NRD),确定了所有在入院期间完成 ERCP 或 PTBD 的患者。研究队列首先由 3 个加权研究臂进行分析,包括胆管炎、胆道/胰腺恶性肿瘤和胆总管结石。其次,我们通过 1:1 的非加权倾向匹配对队列进行了分析。主要结果是 30 天、90 天和 6 个月的再入院情况。次要结果是再入院/总死亡率、费用和住院时间。结果采用多变量分析法进行分析:结果:共发现 621,735 例入院患者,其中 589,796 例为 ERCP 患者,31,939 例为 PTBD 患者。在倾向匹配队列中,PTBD 的 30 天再入院率更高(20.38% 对 13.71%):ERCP在再入院率、住院时间和总死亡率方面均优于PTBD。对于ERCP失败的病例,内镜超声引导胆道引流术(EUS-BD)的新数据比PTBD更有潜力,可为有经验的三级转诊中心提供更多选择。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparative Analysis of ERCP and PTBD for Biliary Interventions for Readmission Rates and Patient Outcomes.

Background: Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD) are interventions used to relieve biliary obstruction. The utility of ERCP compared with PTBD is not fully understood from a utilization outcome standpoint. Our study compares readmission rates and hospitalization outcomes in ERCP and PTBD.

Methods: Using the National Readmission Database (NRD) 2016 to 2020, we identified all patients with an ERCP or PTBD completed during admission. The study cohort was first analyzed by 3 weighted study arms including those admitted with cholangitis, biliary/pancreatic malignancy, and choledocholithiasis. Second, we analyzed the cohort by a 1:1, unweighted propensity match. The primary outcome was 30 day, 90 day, and 6 month readmission. Secondary outcomes were readmission/overall mortality, cost, and length of stay. Outcomes were analyzed using multivariate analysis.

Results: A total of 621,735 admissions were identified associated with 589,796 ERCP and 31,939 PTBD. In the propensity matched cohort, PTBD had a higher readmission rate at 30 days (20.38% vs. 13.71% P<0.0001), 90 days (14.63% vs. 13.14%, P<0.0001) but lower rate at 6 months (8.50% vs. 9.67%, P=0.0003). Secondary outcomes included increased PTBD-associated hospital length of stay (9.01 d vs. 6.74 d, P<0.0001), hospitalization cost ($106,947.97 vs. $97,602.25, P<0.0001), and overall mortality (6.86% vs. 4.35%, P<0.0001). No major differences were found for mortality among readmissions at 30 days (7.19% vs. 6.88%, P=0.5382), 90 day (6.82% vs. 6.51%, P=0.5612), and 6 months (5.08% vs. 5.91%, P=0.1744).

Conclusions: ERCP demonstrated superior results compared with PTBD for readmission rates, length of stay and overall mortality. For failed ERCP cases, emerging data for Endoscopic ultrasound guided-biliary drainage (EUS-BD) offers potential over PTBD and may provide additional options for the future in tertiary referral centers with experience.

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 clinical gastroenterology
Journal of clinical gastroenterology 医学-胃肠肝病学
CiteScore
5.60
自引率
3.40%
发文量
339
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology gathers the world''s latest, most relevant clinical studies and reviews, case reports, and technical expertise in a single source. Regular features include cutting-edge, peer-reviewed articles and clinical reviews that put the latest research and development into the context of your practice. Also included are biographies, focused organ reviews, practice management, and therapeutic recommendations.
×
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