内镜下鼻胆道引流术在预防内镜后乳头状球囊扩张性胰腺炎方面优于胆道支架置入术。

IF 3.4 3区 医学 Q1 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY
Therapeutic Advances in Gastroenterology Pub Date : 2025-08-29 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.1177/17562848251365025
Junlong Lin, Baifeng Qian, Zhichao Li, Jialin Chen, Kai Gao, Jianpeng Cai, Yunpeng Hua
{"title":"内镜下鼻胆道引流术在预防内镜后乳头状球囊扩张性胰腺炎方面优于胆道支架置入术。","authors":"Junlong Lin, Baifeng Qian, Zhichao Li, Jialin Chen, Kai Gao, Jianpeng Cai, Yunpeng Hua","doi":"10.1177/17562848251365025","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Endoscopic papillary balloon dilation (EPBD) has been recommended as a potential alternative to endoscopic sphincterotomy for common bile duct stones (CBDS), due to protecting the sphincter function.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This retrospective study aims to evaluate the safety and efficacy of endoscopic nasobiliary drainage (ENBD) versus endoscopic retrograde biliary drainage (ERBD) after EPBD for CBDS.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>This study is a retrospective analysis of patients with CBDS who underwent EPBD followed by either ENBD or ERBD. It enrolled 283 patients, who underwent slow dilation and long-duration EPBD for CBDS with ENBD (eNbd group, <i>n</i> = 154) or ERBD (eRbd group, <i>n</i> = 129) from January 2022 to September 2023.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to balance preoperative baselines and intraoperative specifics, resulting in 220 matched patients (110 patients per group). The incidence rate of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) was compared between the two groups, and risk factors for PEP were analyzed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>After PSM, there were no significant differences in the baseline between the eNbd group and the eRbd group. The eNbd group exhibited significantly greater reduction in serum bilirubin levels compared to the eRbd group. Before PSM, the incidence rate of PEP was 2.6% (4/154) in the eNbd group and 8.5% (11/129) in the eRbd group (<i>p</i> = 0.027). After PSM, the incidence rate of PEP was 2.7% (3/110) in the eNbd group and 9.1% (10/110) in the eRbd group (<i>p</i> = 0.045). In addition, subgroup analysis revealed that patients with multiple stones may have a higher likelihood of developing PEP.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>ENBD may be an optimal choice for patients with CBDS undergoing EPBD, and the presence of multiple stones may be particularly relevant when considering the risk of PEP.</p>","PeriodicalId":48770,"journal":{"name":"Therapeutic Advances in Gastroenterology","volume":"18 ","pages":"17562848251365025"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12397597/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Endoscopic nasobiliary drainage is superior to biliary stent placement in preventing postendoscopic papillary balloon dilation pancreatitis.\",\"authors\":\"Junlong Lin, Baifeng Qian, Zhichao Li, Jialin Chen, Kai Gao, Jianpeng Cai, Yunpeng Hua\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/17562848251365025\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Endoscopic papillary balloon dilation (EPBD) has been recommended as a potential alternative to endoscopic sphincterotomy for common bile duct stones (CBDS), due to protecting the sphincter function.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This retrospective study aims to evaluate the safety and efficacy of endoscopic nasobiliary drainage (ENBD) versus endoscopic retrograde biliary drainage (ERBD) after EPBD for CBDS.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>This study is a retrospective analysis of patients with CBDS who underwent EPBD followed by either ENBD or ERBD. It enrolled 283 patients, who underwent slow dilation and long-duration EPBD for CBDS with ENBD (eNbd group, <i>n</i> = 154) or ERBD (eRbd group, <i>n</i> = 129) from January 2022 to September 2023.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to balance preoperative baselines and intraoperative specifics, resulting in 220 matched patients (110 patients per group). The incidence rate of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) was compared between the two groups, and risk factors for PEP were analyzed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>After PSM, there were no significant differences in the baseline between the eNbd group and the eRbd group. The eNbd group exhibited significantly greater reduction in serum bilirubin levels compared to the eRbd group. Before PSM, the incidence rate of PEP was 2.6% (4/154) in the eNbd group and 8.5% (11/129) in the eRbd group (<i>p</i> = 0.027). After PSM, the incidence rate of PEP was 2.7% (3/110) in the eNbd group and 9.1% (10/110) in the eRbd group (<i>p</i> = 0.045). In addition, subgroup analysis revealed that patients with multiple stones may have a higher likelihood of developing PEP.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>ENBD may be an optimal choice for patients with CBDS undergoing EPBD, and the presence of multiple stones may be particularly relevant when considering the risk of PEP.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48770,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Therapeutic Advances in Gastroenterology\",\"volume\":\"18 \",\"pages\":\"17562848251365025\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-08-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12397597/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Therapeutic Advances in Gastroenterology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/17562848251365025\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Therapeutic Advances in Gastroenterology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17562848251365025","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:由于保护括约肌功能,内镜下乳头状球囊扩张术(EPBD)已被推荐作为内镜下括约肌切开术治疗胆总管结石(CBDS)的潜在替代方法。目的:本回顾性研究旨在评价内镜下鼻胆道引流(ENBD)与内镜下逆行胆道引流(ERBD)治疗CBDS的安全性和有效性。设计:本研究是对接受EPBD后再接受ENBD或ERBD的CBDS患者的回顾性分析。该研究纳入了283例患者,这些患者在2022年1月至2023年9月期间接受了缓慢扩张和长时间EPBD治疗伴有ENBD的CBDS (ENBD组,n = 154)或ERBD (ERBD组,n = 129)。方法:采用倾向评分匹配(PSM)平衡术前基线和术中特征,得到220例匹配患者(每组110例)。比较两组ercp术后胰腺炎(PEP)的发生率,并分析PEP的危险因素。结果:PSM后,eNbd组和eRbd组的基线无显著差异。与eRbd组相比,eNbd组的血清胆红素水平明显降低。PSM前,eNbd组PEP发生率为2.6% (4/154),eRbd组PEP发生率为8.5% (11/129)(p = 0.027)。PSM后,eNbd组PEP发生率为2.7% (3/110),eRbd组PEP发生率为9.1% (10/110)(p = 0.045)。此外,亚组分析显示,多发性结石患者发生PEP的可能性更高。结论:ENBD可能是接受EPBD的CBDS患者的最佳选择,在考虑PEP风险时,多发结石的存在可能特别相关。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Endoscopic nasobiliary drainage is superior to biliary stent placement in preventing postendoscopic papillary balloon dilation pancreatitis.

Endoscopic nasobiliary drainage is superior to biliary stent placement in preventing postendoscopic papillary balloon dilation pancreatitis.

Endoscopic nasobiliary drainage is superior to biliary stent placement in preventing postendoscopic papillary balloon dilation pancreatitis.

Endoscopic nasobiliary drainage is superior to biliary stent placement in preventing postendoscopic papillary balloon dilation pancreatitis.

Background: Endoscopic papillary balloon dilation (EPBD) has been recommended as a potential alternative to endoscopic sphincterotomy for common bile duct stones (CBDS), due to protecting the sphincter function.

Objectives: This retrospective study aims to evaluate the safety and efficacy of endoscopic nasobiliary drainage (ENBD) versus endoscopic retrograde biliary drainage (ERBD) after EPBD for CBDS.

Design: This study is a retrospective analysis of patients with CBDS who underwent EPBD followed by either ENBD or ERBD. It enrolled 283 patients, who underwent slow dilation and long-duration EPBD for CBDS with ENBD (eNbd group, n = 154) or ERBD (eRbd group, n = 129) from January 2022 to September 2023.

Methods: Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to balance preoperative baselines and intraoperative specifics, resulting in 220 matched patients (110 patients per group). The incidence rate of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) was compared between the two groups, and risk factors for PEP were analyzed.

Results: After PSM, there were no significant differences in the baseline between the eNbd group and the eRbd group. The eNbd group exhibited significantly greater reduction in serum bilirubin levels compared to the eRbd group. Before PSM, the incidence rate of PEP was 2.6% (4/154) in the eNbd group and 8.5% (11/129) in the eRbd group (p = 0.027). After PSM, the incidence rate of PEP was 2.7% (3/110) in the eNbd group and 9.1% (10/110) in the eRbd group (p = 0.045). In addition, subgroup analysis revealed that patients with multiple stones may have a higher likelihood of developing PEP.

Conclusion: ENBD may be an optimal choice for patients with CBDS undergoing EPBD, and the presence of multiple stones may be particularly relevant when considering the risk of PEP.

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
Therapeutic Advances in Gastroenterology
Therapeutic Advances in Gastroenterology GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY-
CiteScore
6.70
自引率
2.40%
发文量
103
审稿时长
15 weeks
期刊介绍: Therapeutic Advances in Gastroenterology is an open access journal which delivers the highest quality peer-reviewed original research articles, reviews, and scholarly comment on pioneering efforts and innovative studies in the medical treatment of gastrointestinal and hepatic disorders. The journal has a strong clinical and pharmacological focus and is aimed at an international audience of clinicians and researchers in gastroenterology and related disciplines, providing an online forum for rapid dissemination of recent research and perspectives in this area. The editors welcome original research articles across all areas of gastroenterology and hepatology. The journal publishes original research articles and review articles primarily. Original research manuscripts may include laboratory, animal or human/clinical studies – all phases. Letters to the Editor and Case Reports will also be considered.
×
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