首页> 外文期刊>Endoscopy: Journal for Clinical Use Biopsy and Technique >Endoscopic ultrasound versus endoscopic retrograde cholangiography for patients with intermediate probability of bile duct stones: a randomized trial comparing two management strategies.
【24h】

Endoscopic ultrasound versus endoscopic retrograde cholangiography for patients with intermediate probability of bile duct stones: a randomized trial comparing two management strategies.

机译:内镜超声与内镜逆行胆管造影术对胆管结石可能性中等的患者:比较两种治疗策略的随机试验。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: Diagnostic endoscopic retrograde cholangiography (ERC) is being replaced by endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) in patients with suspected bile duct stones. The assumption that such an approach is advantageous, however, has never been tested in a randomized trial. PATIENTS AND METHODS: 100 patients with intermediate probability of bile duct stones were randomly allocated to EUS or ERC. Two patients in the ERC group were excluded; the remaining 98 patients received the allocated intervention and were entered into the analysis (EUS, 50 patients; ERC, 48 patients). Detected stones were removed endoscopically; patients without stones were followed for 1 year. The primary end point was the proportion of patients with a negative outcome, related to either endoscopic procedures (complications) or to false-negative diagnosis of stones. Investigators assessing the negative outcomes were not blinded to group assignment. The secondary end point was the total number of endoscopic procedures(EUS and ERC) performed in each group to diagnose and treat stones. RESULTS: Bile duct stone prevalence was 28% and 25% in the EUS and ERC groups, respectively (P > 0.05). In the EUS group, 71 endoscopic procedures were performed, and 63 in the ERC group (mean per patient, 1.42 +/- 0.76, and 1.31 +/- 0.55, respectively; P > 0.05). In the EUS group, these included 49 successful and one failed initial EUS, 15 ERCs for bile duct stone treatment, and six procedures required during follow-up. In the ERC group there were 36 successful and 12 failed initial ERCs, 13 repeat procedures (EUS or ERC) performed after failed or equivocal initial ERC, and two procedures during follow-up. Five patients in the EUS group (10%, 95% CI 4-22) and 19 patients in the ERC group (40%, 95% CI 27-54) experienced a negative outcome (P < 0.001). No difference was observed when only moderate to severe complications were considered (6%, 95% CI 1-17, and 10%, 95% CI 4-23, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with intermediate probability of bile duct stones, the management strategy based on EUS (with selective ERC in patients with confirmed stones) is safer and not associated with an excess of endoscopic procedures compared with a strategy based on ERC alone.
机译:背景和研究目的:对于疑似胆管结石的患者,诊断性内窥镜逆行胆管造影术(ERC)被内窥镜超声检查(EUS)取代。然而,从未在随机试验中检验过这种方法是否有利的假设。患者与方法:将100例中度胆管结石可能性患者随机分配至EUS或ERC。 ERC组中有2例患者被排除在外。其余98名患者接受了分配的干预措施并进入分析(EUS,50例; ERC,48例)。内窥镜检查发现结石;无结石患者随访1年。主要终点是与内窥镜检查(并发症)或结石的假阴性诊断有关的结果为阴性的患者比例。评估阴性结果的研究者并未盲目地进行小组分配。次要终点是每组中用于诊断和治疗结石的内窥镜检查程序(EUS和ERC)的总数。结果:EUS和ERC组胆管结石患病率分别为28%和25%(P> 0.05)。在EUS组中,进行了71例内窥镜检查,在ERC组中进行了63例(平均每例患者,分别为1.42 +/- 0.76和1.31 +/- 0.55; P> 0.05)。在EUS组中,包括49例成功的EUS和1例失败的初始EUS,15例胆管结石治疗的ERC,以及随访期间需要进行的6例手术。在ERC组中,有36例成功的ERC和12例失败的初始ERC,在失败或模棱两可的初始ERC之后执行了13次重复程序(EUS或ERC),在随访期间进行了2例程序。 EUS组有5例患者(10%,95%CI 4-22)和ERC组19例(40%,95%CI 27-54)阴性(P <0.001)。仅考虑中度至重度并发症时,未观察到差异(分别为6%,95%CI 1-17和10%,95%CI 4-23)。结论:在胆管结石可能性中等的患者中,与仅基于ERC的策略相比,基于EUS的治疗策略(对已确诊结石的患者进行选择性ERC)的治疗策略更安全,且与内镜手术量无关。

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