ERCP transpapillary nasogallbladder drainage: a last resort for endoscopic management of cholecystitis
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER:
PROVIDER: S-EPMC10500200 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Jul
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Acute cholecystitis is a common and frequently occurring disease, and laparoscopic cholecystectomy is the preferred treatment method. Percutaneous transhepatic gallbladder drainage is regarded as the first-line palliative procedure for elderly patients with poor cardiopulmonary function who cannot tolerate general anesthesia. However, for patients with acute cholecystitis who are undergoing treatment with oral antithrombotics or who have abnormal coagulation mechanisms, endoscopic transpapillary gallbladder drainage may be a good choice. Endoscopic transpapillary gallbladder drainage is an endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography-based technique that drains the gallbladder by placing a tube into the cavity of the gallbladder though the cystic gall duct. It is the application of the concept of natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery in the biliary system. This technique can not only achieve gallbladder drainage but can also minimize the risk of procedure-induced bleeding. In this paper, we describe a representative case to introduce the key points of this procedure and the associated clinical care, hoping to provide useful information for clinicians and nurses.
| S-EPMC8168036 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesEndoscopic transpapillary gallbladder drainage (ETGBD) has been proposed as an alternative to surgery or percutaneous cholecystostomy in patients with acute calculus cholecystitis (ACC). We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of ETGBD via endoscopic transpapillary gallbladder stenting (ETGBS) or endoscopic naso-gallbladder drainage (ENGBD) as either a bridging or a definitive treatment option for patients with ACC when a cholecystectomy is delayed or cannot be performed.MethodsFrom July 2014 to December 2018, 171 patients with ACC in whom ETGBD were attempted were retrospectively reviewed. The technical and clinical success rates and adverse events were evaluated. Moreover, the predictive factors for technical success and the stent patency in the ETGBS group with high surgical risk were examined.ResultsThe technical and clinical success rates by intention-to-treat analysis for ETGBD were 90.6% (155/171) and 90.1% (154/171), respectively. Visible cystic duct on cholangiography were significant technical success predictor (adjusted odds ratio: 7.099, 95% confidence interval: 1.983-25.407, P = 0.003) as per logistic regression analysis. Adverse events occurred in 12.2% of patients (21/171: mild pancreatitis, n = 9; acute cholangitis, n = 6; post-endoscopic sphincterotomy bleeding, n = 4; and stent migration, n = 1; ACC recurrence, n = 1), but all patients were treated with conservative management and endoscopic treatment. Among the ETGBS group, the median stent patency in 70 patients with high surgical risk was 503 days (interquartile range: 404.25-775 days).ConclusionsETGBD, using either ETGBS or ENGBD, may be a suitable bridging option for ACC patients unfit for urgent cholecystectomy. In high surgical risk patients, ETGBS may be a promising and useful treatment modality with low ACC recurrence.
| S-EPMC7546490 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background and study aimsCholecystectomy (CCY) is the standard treatment for acute cholecystitis. For non-surgical patients, percutaneous cholecystostomy tube (PT-GBD) is recommended but is associated with high readmission rates and poor quality of life. Endoscopic gallbladder decompression techniques, including endoscopic transpapillary gallbladder drainage (ET-GBD) and endoscopic ultrasound-guided gallbladder drainage (EUS-GBD), are alternatives. Studies comparing ET-GBD and EUS-GBD have shown EUS-GBD to have superior outcomes. However, these studies assessed ET-GBD mostly via single transcystic stent placement (SSET-GBD). This study aimed to compare outcomes of dual transcystic stents (DSET-GBD) and EUS-GBD in non-surgical candidates with acute cholecystitis.Patients and methodsA multicenter analysis was conducted on patients who underwent ET-GBD or EUS-GBD between January 2019 and January 2023. Data were extracted from electronic medical records and outcomes including technical success, success, adverse events (AEs), and recurrence rates of cholecystitis were measured.ResultsOf 129 procedures (56 EUS-GBD; 73 ET-GBD), technical success was achieved in 87.5% of EUS-GBD and 86.3% of ET-GBD attempts. Immediate clinical success was achieved in 98.1% for EUS-GBD and 100% for DSET-GBD. AE rates were similar between the groups. Recurrent cholecystitis rates were 5.3% for EUS-GBD and 8.2% for DSET-GBD ( P = 0.692).ConclusionsThis study demonstrates that DSET-GBD has similarly low rates of recurrent acute cholecystitis compared with EUS-GBD. DSET-GBD should be considered as an alternative management strategy for management of acute cholecystitis in patients who are unable to undergo CCY.
| S-EPMC11855224 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC11884956 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC10665532 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) has been increasingly reported as an alternative to percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage in failed endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. Moreover, conversion to EUS-BD can be a good alternative when transpapillary biliary drainage is technically possible but complicated by cholangitis because EUS-BD enables one-step internal drainage not traversing the tumor. Herein, we report a case of recurrent cholangitis due to hemobilia and cholecystitis due to tumor involvement to the cystic duct after transpapillary stent placement, which was successfully managed by conversion to EUS-BD and EUS-guided gallbladder drainage in one session.
| S-EPMC5488525 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesThe transpapillary drainage by endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP-D) cannot be performed without fluoroscopy, and there are many situations in which fluoroscopy is required even in endoscopic ultrasound-guided drainage (EUS-D). Previous studies have compared the efficacy, but not the radiation exposure of EUS-D and ERCP-D. While radiation exposure in ERCP-D has been previously evaluated, there is a paucity of information regarding radiation doses in EUS-D. This study aimed to assess radiation exposure in EUS-D compared with that in ERCP-D.MethodsThis retrospective single-center cohort study included consecutive patients who underwent EUS-D and ERCP-D between October 2017 and March 2019. The air kerma (AK, mGy), kerma-area product (KAP, Gycm2 ), fluoroscopy time (FT, min), and procedure time (PT, min) were assessed. The invasive probability weighting method was used to qualify the comparisons.ResultsWe enrolled 372 and 105 patients who underwent ERCP-D and EUS-D, respectively. The mean AK, KAP, and FT in the EUS-D group were higher by 53%, 28%, and 27%, respectively, than those in the ERCP-D group, whereas PT was shorter by approximately 11% (AK, 135.0 vs. 88.4; KAP, 28.1 vs. 21.9; FT, 20.4 vs. 16.0; PT, 38.7 vs. 43.5). The sub-analysis limited to biliary drainage cases showed the same trend (AK, 128.3 vs. 90.9; KAP, 27.0 vs. 22.2; FT, 16.4 vs. 16.1; PT, 32.5 vs. 44.4).ConclusionsThis is the first study to assess radiation exposure in EUS-D compared with that in ERCP-D. Radiation exposure was significantly higher in EUS-D than in ERCP-D, despite the shorter procedure time.
| S-EPMC9292288 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Video 1.
| S-EPMC9718657 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background and study aimsCholecystectomy is the standard treatment for acute cholecystitis, but it may not be suitable for all patients. For those who cannot undergo surgery, a percutaneous cholecystostomy tube (PCT) and ERCP-guided transpapillary gallbladder drainage are viable options. We aimed to perform a nationwide study to assess 30-day readmission rates, adverse events (AEs), and mortality rates in these two cohorts.Patients and methodsWe conducted a nationwide cohort study using data from the Nationwide Readmissions Database (NRD) from 2016 to 2019. We identified patients with acute cholecystitis during the index admission who underwent either PCT or ERCP-guided gallbladder drainage. Propensity score matching along with multivariable regression was used to compare cohorts.ResultsDuring the study period, 3,592 patients (average age 63.0 years) underwent endoscopic drainage, whereas 80,372 patients (average 70.8 years) underwent Interventional Radiology drainage. Utilizing multivariate Cox regression analysis, compared with ERCP, PCT had a higher risk for 30-day readmission (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.47; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.27 to 1.71; P < 0.001). The PCT group had a significantly higher rate of readmission for acute cholecystitis compared with the ERCP group (2.72% vs 0.86%; P < 0.005). Cox proportional hazard ratio showed a 3.41-fold increased risk (95% CI 1.99 to 5.84) for readmission in the PCT group. ERCP was consistently associated with lower rates of post-procedural AEs compared with PCT including acute hypoxemic respiratory failure ( P < 0.001), acute renal failure ( P < 0.001), shock ( P < 0.001), and need for blood transfusions ( P < 0.001).ConclusionsOur nationwide analysis revealed that ERCP-guided gallbladder drainage should be the preferred approach for managing acute cholecystitis when unfit for surgery.
| S-EPMC11866036 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background and objectivesEUS-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) is a feasible procedure when ERCP fails, as is percutaneous transhepatic BD (PTBD). However, little is known about patient perception and preference of EUS-BD and PTBD.Patients and methodsAn international multicenter survey was conducted in seven tertiary referral centers. In total, 327 patients, scheduled to undergo ERCP for suspected malignant biliary obstruction, were enrolled in the study. Patients received decision aids with visual representation regarding the techniques, benefits, and adverse events (AEs) of EUS-BD and PTBD. Patients were then asked the choice between the two simulated scenarios (EUS-BD or PTBD) after failed ERCP, the reasons for their preference, and whether altering AE rates would influence their prior choice.ResultsIn total, 313 patients (95.7%) responded to the questionnaire and 251 patients (80.2%) preferred EUS-BD. The preference of EUS-BD was 85.7% (186/217) with EUS-BD expertise, compared to 67.7% (65/96) without EUS-BD expertise (P < 0.001). The main reason for choosing EUS-BD was the possibility of internal drainage (78.1%). In multivariate analysis, the availability of EUS-BD expertise was the single independent factor that influenced patient preference (odds ratio: 3.168; 95% of confidence interval, 1.714-5.856; P < 0.001). The preference of EUS-BD increased as AE rates decreased (P < 0.001).ConclusionsIn this simulated scenario, approximately 80% of patients preferred EUS-BD over PTBD after failed ERCP. However, preference of EUS-BD declined as its AE rates increased. Further technical innovations and improved proficiency in EUS-BD for reducing AEs may encourage the use of this procedure as a routine clinical practice when ERCP fails.
| S-EPMC5838728 | biostudies-literature