首页> 外文期刊>Alimentary pharmacology & therapeutics. >Randomised clinical trial: MRCP-first vs. ERCP-first approach in patients with suspected biliary obstruction due to bile duct stones
【24h】

Randomised clinical trial: MRCP-first vs. ERCP-first approach in patients with suspected biliary obstruction due to bile duct stones

机译:随机临床试验:怀疑因胆管结石而致胆道梗阻的患者采用MRCP优先与ERCP优先

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Background The preferred initial investigation with either magnetic resonance (MRCP) or endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in patients with suspected biliary obstruction remains controversial in many clinical settings. Aim To assess the effectiveness of an initial MRCP vs. ERCP in the work-up of patients at moderate likelihood of a suspected biliary obstruction. Methods Patients with an unconfirmed benign biliary obstruction, based on laboratory and ultrasound findings, were randomised to an ERCP-first or MRCP-first strategy, stratified by level of obstruction. The primary outcome was the occurrence of a disease or procedure-related bilio-pancreatic adverse events within the next 12 months. Secondary outcomes were the number of subsequent bilio-pancreatic procedures, duration of hospitalisation, days away from activities of daily living (ADL), quality of life (SF-36) and mortality. Results We randomised 126 patients to ERCP-first and 131 to MRCP-first (age 54 ± 18 years, 62% female, 39% post-cholecystectomy). In follow-up, 18/126 (14.3%) ERCP-first and 25/131 (19.1%) MRCP-first patients experienced a procedure- or disease-related complication (P = 0.30) (disease-related in 13 and 18 patients, and procedure-related in 5 and 7 patients respectively). A cause of biliary obstruction was found in 39.7% vs. 49.6% of patients (P = 0.11). Sixty-six (50%) patients in the MRCP-first group ended up avoiding an ERCP in follow-up. ERCP-first and MRCP-first patients were away from usual activities for 3.4 ± 7.7 days and 2.0 ± 4.8 days respectively (P < 0.001). Conclusion A strategy of MRCP-first decreased the need for subsequent MRCPs, but not complications. Further study is required to define factors influencing the eventual use of MRCP vs. ERCP in appropriately selected patients (ClinicalTrial.gov: NCT01424657).
机译:背景技术在可疑的胆道梗阻患者中,首选磁共振检查(MRCP)或内窥镜逆行胰胆管造影(ERCP)进行初步研究在许多临床环境中仍存在争议。目的评估在怀疑胆道梗阻可能性中等的患者接受初次MRCP对比ERCP的有效性。方法根据实验室和超声检查结果,未确诊胆道梗阻的患者被随机分为ERCP优先或MRCP优先策略,并按阻塞程度分层。主要结局是在接下来的12个月内发生某种疾病或与手术相关的胆道-胰腺不良反应。次要结果是随后的胆胰手术次数,住院时间,离日常生活活动的天数(ADL),生活质量(SF-36)和死亡率。结果我们将126例患者随机分为ERCP优先和131例MRCP优先(年龄54±18岁,女性62%,胆囊切除术后39%)。在随访中,以ERCP为首的18/126(14.3%)和以MRCP为首的25/131(19.1%)的患者经历了与手术或疾病相关的并发症(P = 0.30)(与疾病相关的13和18位患者,分别与5例和7例患者的手术相关)。胆道阻塞的原因在39.7%的患者中为49.6%(P = 0.11)。 MRCP-first组中有66名(50%)患者在随访中最终避免了ERCP。 ERCP优先患者和MRCP优先患者分别远离常规活动3.4±7.7天和2.0±4.8天(P <0.001)。结论采取MRCP优先的策略可以减少后续MRCP的需求,但不能减少并发症。需要进一步的研究来确定影响在适当选择的患者中最终使用MRCP和ERCP的因素(ClinicalTrial.gov:NCT01424657)。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

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