首页> 美国卫生研究院文献>Endoscopy International Open >International multicenter comparative trial of transluminal EUS-guided biliary drainage via hepatogastrostomy vs. choledochoduodenostomy approaches
【2h】

International multicenter comparative trial of transluminal EUS-guided biliary drainage via hepatogastrostomy vs. choledochoduodenostomy approaches

机译:经肝胃造瘘术与胆总管十二指肠造瘘术经腔内EUS引导胆管引流的国际多中心比较试验

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

>Background and study aims: Endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) can be performed entirely transgastrically (hepatogastrostomy/EUS-HG) or transduodenally (choledochoduodenostomy/EUS-CDS). It is unknown how both techniques compare. The aims of this study were to compare efficacy and safety of both techniques and identify predictors of adverse events. >Patients and methods: Consecutive jaundiced patients with distal malignant biliary obstruction who underwent EUS-BD at multiple international centers were included. Technical/clinical success, adverse events, stent complications, and survival were assessed. >Results: A total of 121 patients underwent EUS-BD (CDS 60, HG 61). Technical success was achieved in 112 (92.56 %) patients (EUS-CDS 93.3 %, EUS-HG 91.8 %, P = 0.75). Clinical success was attained in 85.5 % of patients who underwent EUS-CDS group as compared to 82.1 % of patients who underwent EUS-HG (P = 0.64). Adverse events occurred more commonly in the EUS-HG group (19.67 % vs. 13.3 %, P = 0.37). Both plastic stenting (OR 4.95, 95 %CI 1.41 – 17.38, P = 0.01) and use of non-coaxial electrocautery (OR 3.95, 95 %CI 1.16 – 13.40, P = 0.03) were independently associated with adverse events. Length of hospital stay was significantly shorter in the CDS group (5.6 days vs. 12.7 days, P < 0.001). Mean follow-up duration was 151 ± 159 days. The 1-year stent patency probability was greater in the EUS-CDS group [0.98 (95 %CI 0.76 – 0.96) vs 0.60 (95 %CI 0.35 – 0.78)] but overall patency was not significantly different. There was no difference in median survival times between the groups (P = 0.36) >Conclusions: Both EUS-CDS and EUS-HG are effective and safe techniques for the treatment of distal biliary obstruction after failed ERCP. However, CDS is associated with shorter hospital stay, improved stent patency, and fewer procedure- and stent-related complications. Metallic stents should be placed whenever feasible and non-coaxial electrocautery should be avoided when possible as plastic stenting and non-coaxial electrocautery were independently associated with occurrence of adverse events.
机译:>背景和研究目的:内镜超声引导下胆汁引流术(EUS-BD)可以完全经胃(肝胃造瘘术/ EUS-HG)或经十二指肠(胆总管十二指肠吻合术/ EUS-CDS)进行。尚不知道这两种技术如何比较。这项研究的目的是比较两种技术的有效性和安全性,并确定不良事件的预测因子。 >患者和方法:包括在多个国际中心接受EUS-BD的连续性黄疸伴远端恶性胆道梗阻的患者。评估技术/临床成功率,不良事件,支架并发症和生存率。 >结果:总共121例患者接受了EUS-BD(CDS 60,HG 61)。 112名(92.56%)患者获得了技术成功(EUS-CDS 93.3%,EUS-HG 91.8%,P = 0.75)。接受EUS-CDS组的患者中有85.5%的患者获得了临床成功,而接受EUS-HG的患者中有82.1%的患者获得了临床成功(P = 0.64)。 EUS-HG组不良事件的发生率更高(19.67 %%对13.3 %%,P = 0.37)。塑料支架置入(OR 4.95,95%CI 1.41–17.38,P = 0.01)和使用非同轴电灼(OR 3.95,95%CI 1.16 -13.40,P = 0.03)均与不良事件相关。 CDS组的住院时间明显缩短(5.6天vs. 12.7天,P <0.001)。平均随访时间为151±±159天。 EUS-CDS组1年支架通畅的可能性更大[0.98(95%CI 0.76-0.96)vs 0.60(95%CI 0.35-0.78)],但总体通畅率没有显着差异。两组之间的中位生存时间无差异(P = 0.36)。>结论: EUS-CDS和EUS-HG都是治疗ERCP失败后远端胆道梗阻的有效且安全的技术。但是,CDS与住院时间短,支架通畅性提高以及与手术和支架相关的并发症少有关。应尽可能放置金属支架,并应尽可能避免非同轴电灼,因为塑料支架和非同轴电灼与不良事件的发生独立相关。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号