使用4-Fr与6-Fr鼻胆管引流:一项前瞻性、多中心、随机、对照研究

Diagnostic and Therapeutic Endoscopy Pub Date : 2017-01-01 Epub Date: 2017-04-19 DOI:10.1155/2017/7156719
Tomofumi Tsuboi, Masahiro Serikawa, Tamito Sasaki, Yasutaka Ishii, Yoshifumi Fujimoto, Atsushi Yamaguchi, Takashi Ishigaki, Akinori Shimizu, Keisuke Kurihara, Yumiko Tatsukawa, Eisuke Miyaki, Kazuaki Chayama
{"title":"使用4-Fr与6-Fr鼻胆管引流:一项前瞻性、多中心、随机、对照研究","authors":"Tomofumi Tsuboi,&nbsp;Masahiro Serikawa,&nbsp;Tamito Sasaki,&nbsp;Yasutaka Ishii,&nbsp;Yoshifumi Fujimoto,&nbsp;Atsushi Yamaguchi,&nbsp;Takashi Ishigaki,&nbsp;Akinori Shimizu,&nbsp;Keisuke Kurihara,&nbsp;Yumiko Tatsukawa,&nbsp;Eisuke Miyaki,&nbsp;Kazuaki Chayama","doi":"10.1155/2017/7156719","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><i>Background and Aim.</i> Endoscopic nasobiliary drainage (NBD) effects according to diameter remain unclear. We aimed to assess the drainage effects of the 4-Fr and 6-Fr NBD catheters. <i>Methods.</i> This prospective, multicenter, randomized, controlled study was conducted at Hiroshima University Hospital and related facilities within Hiroshima Prefecture. Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in 246 patients revealed acute cholangitis, obstructive jaundice, and/or extrahepatic cholestasis; 4-Fr or 6-Fr NBD catheters were randomly allocated and placed in these patients. The primary endpoint was the efficacy of NBD based on the technical success rate and clinical success (rates of change in blood test and amount of bile output). Secondary endpoints included the spontaneous catheter displacement rate and nasal discomfort. <i>Results.</i> The technical success rate and clinical success did not differ significantly between groups. No spontaneous catheter displacement was noted in either group. Nasal discomfort due to catheter placement was significantly lower in the 4-Fr group versus the 6-Fr group (24 h after ERCP: 2.4 versus 3.5 cm, <i>P</i> = 0.005; 48 h after ERCP: 2.2 versus 3.1 cm, <i>P</i> = 0.01). <i>Conclusion.</i> The 4-Fr NBD catheter was not inferior to 6-Fr NBD catheter in terms of clinical success; the 4-Fr NBD catheter was useful to reduce nasal discomfort.</p>","PeriodicalId":11288,"journal":{"name":"Diagnostic and Therapeutic Endoscopy","volume":"2017 ","pages":"7156719"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1155/2017/7156719","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Use of 4-Fr versus 6-Fr Nasobiliary Catheter for Biliary Drainage: A Prospective, Multicenter, Randomized, Controlled Study.\",\"authors\":\"Tomofumi Tsuboi,&nbsp;Masahiro Serikawa,&nbsp;Tamito Sasaki,&nbsp;Yasutaka Ishii,&nbsp;Yoshifumi Fujimoto,&nbsp;Atsushi Yamaguchi,&nbsp;Takashi Ishigaki,&nbsp;Akinori Shimizu,&nbsp;Keisuke Kurihara,&nbsp;Yumiko Tatsukawa,&nbsp;Eisuke Miyaki,&nbsp;Kazuaki Chayama\",\"doi\":\"10.1155/2017/7156719\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p><i>Background and Aim.</i> Endoscopic nasobiliary drainage (NBD) effects according to diameter remain unclear. We aimed to assess the drainage effects of the 4-Fr and 6-Fr NBD catheters. <i>Methods.</i> This prospective, multicenter, randomized, controlled study was conducted at Hiroshima University Hospital and related facilities within Hiroshima Prefecture. Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in 246 patients revealed acute cholangitis, obstructive jaundice, and/or extrahepatic cholestasis; 4-Fr or 6-Fr NBD catheters were randomly allocated and placed in these patients. The primary endpoint was the efficacy of NBD based on the technical success rate and clinical success (rates of change in blood test and amount of bile output). Secondary endpoints included the spontaneous catheter displacement rate and nasal discomfort. <i>Results.</i> The technical success rate and clinical success did not differ significantly between groups. No spontaneous catheter displacement was noted in either group. Nasal discomfort due to catheter placement was significantly lower in the 4-Fr group versus the 6-Fr group (24 h after ERCP: 2.4 versus 3.5 cm, <i>P</i> = 0.005; 48 h after ERCP: 2.2 versus 3.1 cm, <i>P</i> = 0.01). <i>Conclusion.</i> The 4-Fr NBD catheter was not inferior to 6-Fr NBD catheter in terms of clinical success; the 4-Fr NBD catheter was useful to reduce nasal discomfort.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":11288,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Diagnostic and Therapeutic Endoscopy\",\"volume\":\"2017 \",\"pages\":\"7156719\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2017-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1155/2017/7156719\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Diagnostic and Therapeutic Endoscopy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/7156719\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2017/4/19 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Diagnostic and Therapeutic Endoscopy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/7156719","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2017/4/19 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

背景和目的。内镜下鼻胆道引流术(NBD)根据直径的效果尚不清楚。我们的目的是评估4-Fr和6-Fr NBD导管的引流效果。方法。这项前瞻性、多中心、随机对照研究在广岛大学医院和广岛县的相关机构进行。内镜逆行胆管造影(ERCP)对246例急性胆管炎、梗阻性黄疸和/或肝外胆汁淤积患者进行检查;随机分配4-Fr或6-Fr NBD导管并放置在这些患者中。主要终点是基于技术成功率和临床成功率(血液检查变化率和胆汁排出量)的NBD疗效。次要终点包括自发性导管移位率和鼻腔不适。结果。两组间技术成功率和临床成功率无显著差异。两组均未见自发性导管移位。与6-Fr组相比,4-Fr组因置管引起的鼻腔不适显著降低(ERCP后24小时:2.4 cm vs 3.5 cm, P = 0.005;ERCP后48 h: 2.2 vs 3.1 cm, P = 0.01)。结论。在临床成功方面,4-Fr NBD导管并不逊于6-Fr NBD导管;4-Fr NBD导管有助于减少鼻腔不适。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Use of 4-Fr versus 6-Fr Nasobiliary Catheter for Biliary Drainage: A Prospective, Multicenter, Randomized, Controlled Study.

Use of 4-Fr versus 6-Fr Nasobiliary Catheter for Biliary Drainage: A Prospective, Multicenter, Randomized, Controlled Study.

Use of 4-Fr versus 6-Fr Nasobiliary Catheter for Biliary Drainage: A Prospective, Multicenter, Randomized, Controlled Study.

Background and Aim. Endoscopic nasobiliary drainage (NBD) effects according to diameter remain unclear. We aimed to assess the drainage effects of the 4-Fr and 6-Fr NBD catheters. Methods. This prospective, multicenter, randomized, controlled study was conducted at Hiroshima University Hospital and related facilities within Hiroshima Prefecture. Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in 246 patients revealed acute cholangitis, obstructive jaundice, and/or extrahepatic cholestasis; 4-Fr or 6-Fr NBD catheters were randomly allocated and placed in these patients. The primary endpoint was the efficacy of NBD based on the technical success rate and clinical success (rates of change in blood test and amount of bile output). Secondary endpoints included the spontaneous catheter displacement rate and nasal discomfort. Results. The technical success rate and clinical success did not differ significantly between groups. No spontaneous catheter displacement was noted in either group. Nasal discomfort due to catheter placement was significantly lower in the 4-Fr group versus the 6-Fr group (24 h after ERCP: 2.4 versus 3.5 cm, P = 0.005; 48 h after ERCP: 2.2 versus 3.1 cm, P = 0.01). Conclusion. The 4-Fr NBD catheter was not inferior to 6-Fr NBD catheter in terms of clinical success; the 4-Fr NBD catheter was useful to reduce nasal discomfort.

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
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信