Browse
Submit Data
Databases
API
Help

Dataset Information

26 Views

0 Connections

0 Citations

0 Reanalyses

0 Downloads

Omics score: 0

Conversion of transpapillary drainage to endoscopic ultrasound-guided hepaticogastrostomy and gallbladder drainage in a case of malignant biliary obstruction with recurrent cholangitis and cholecystitis (with videos).

ABSTRACT: 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.

SUBMITTER: Nakai Y

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5488525 | biostudies-literature | 2017 May-Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Json Xml

Publications

Conversion of transpapillary drainage to endoscopic ultrasound-guided hepaticogastrostomy and gallbladder drainage in a case of malignant biliary obstruction with recurrent cholangitis and cholecystitis (with videos).

Nakai Yousuke Y Isayama Hiroyuki H Matsubara Saburo S Koike Kazuhiko K

Endoscopic ultrasound 20170501 3

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 ...[more]

PMID: 28621299

Similar Datasets

Endoscopic transpapillary gallbladder drainage for management of acute cholecystitis with coagulopathy.

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

Endoscopic transpapillary gallbladder drainage for the management of acute calculus cholecystitis patients unfit for urgent cholecystectomy.

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

Tips and tricks for endoscopic transpapillary gallbladder drainage.

Project description:Background and aimsPercutaneous gallbladder drainage has traditionally been the reference standard treatment for cholecystitis in patients deemed unfit for surgery. Endoscopic transpapillary gallbladder drainage has emerged as a reliable alternative that offers an internal, incisionless option in nonsurgical patients. The aim of this study was to describe techniques for successful selective cystic duct cannulation and gallbladder drainage during ERCP.MethodsA series of endoscopic transpapillary gallbladder procedures is shown, including endoscopic and fluoroscopic video and images. Each case highlights best practices, devices, and techniques to aid with successful completion of challenging cases.ResultsStandard cystic duct cannulation and gallbladder access is described using a standard catheter and a 0.035-inch angled guidewire. Challenges to selective cystic duct cannulation are overcome using various approaches, including using a rotatable catheter system, downsizing to a smaller guidewire, occluding the proximal common hepatic duct with an occlusion balloon, and directly intubating the cystic duct using peroral cholangioscopy. Dilation of the cystic duct is performed using standard devices designed for biliary intervention, but smaller, percutaneous angioplasty balloons are used for small ducts and severe strictures. After dilation, a plastic, double-pigtail stent is deployed across the papilla, and access is reobtained in a similar fashion to place a second, parallel stent. To eliminate the need to re-access the gallbladder after initial stent deployment, a cytology brush catheter is repurposed to obtain dual-wire access within the gallbladder before initial stent deployment.ConclusionsWhen the fundamentals of ERCP and the techniques described here are used, endoscopic transpapillary gallbladder drainage can be performed safely and effectively to treat cholecystitis in patients who are not surgical candidates.

| S-EPMC10665532 | biostudies-literature

ERCP transpapillary nasogallbladder drainage: a last resort for endoscopic management of cholecystitis

Project description: Not available

| S-EPMC10500200 | biostudies-literature

Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Gallbladder Drainage versus Percutaneous Gallbladder Drainage for Acute Cholecystitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Project description:Background: Percutaneous transhepatic gallbladder drainage (PT-GBD) has been the treatment of choice for acute cholecystitis patients who are not suitable for surgery. The effectiveness of endoscopic ultrasound-guided gallbladder drainage (EUS-GBD) as an alternative to PT-GBD is not clear. In this meta-analysis, we have compared their efficacy and adverse events. Methods: We adhered to the PRISMA statement to conduct this meta-analysis. Online databases were searched for studies that compared EUS-GBD and PT-GBD for acute cholecystitis. The primary outcomes of interest were technical success, clinical success, and adverse events. The pooled odds ratio (OR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated using the random-effects model. Results: A total of 396 articles were screened, and 11 eligible studies were identified. There were 1136 patients, of which 57.5% were male, 477 (mean age 73.33 ± 11.28 years) underwent EUS-GBD, and 698 (mean age 73.77 ± 8.7 years) underwent PT-GBD. EUS-GBD had significantly better technical success (OR 0.40; 95% CI 0.17-0.94; p = 0.04), fewer adverse events (OR 0.35; 95% CI 0.21-0.61; p = 0.00), and lower reintervention rates (OR 0.18; 95% CI 0.05-0.57; p = 0.00) than PT-GBD. No difference in clinical success (OR 1.34; 95% CI 0.65-2.79; p = 0.42), readmission rate (OR 0.34; 95% CI 0.08-1.54; p = 0.16), or mortality rate (OR 0.73; 95% CI 0.30-1.80; p = 0.50) was noted. There was low heterogeneity (I2 = 0) among the studies. Egger's test showed no significant publication bias (p = 0.595). Conclusion: EUS-GBD can be a safe and effective alternative to PT-GBD for treating acute cholecystitis in non-surgical patients and has fewer adverse events and a lower reintervention rate than PT-GBD.

| S-EPMC9954901 | biostudies-literature

Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Gallbladder Drainage Versus Percutaneous Drainage in Patients With Acute Cholecystitis Undergoing Elective Cholecystectomy.

Project description:IntroductionCholecystectomy (CCY) is the gold standard treatment of acute cholecystitis (AC). Nonsurgical management of AC includes percutaneous transhepatic gallbladder drainage (PT-GBD) and endoscopic ultrasound-guided gallbladder drainage (EUS-GBD). This study aims to compare outcomes of patients who undergo CCY after having received EUS-GBD vs PT-GBD.MethodsA multicenter international study was conducted in patients with AC who underwent EUS-GBD or PT-GBD, followed by an attempted CCY, between January 2018 and October 2021. Demographics, clinical characteristics, procedural details, postprocedure outcomes, and surgical details and outcomes were compared.ResultsOne hundred thirty-nine patients were included: EUS-GBD in 46 patients (27% male, mean age 74 years) and PT-GBD in 93 patients (50% male, mean age 72 years). Surgical technical success was not significantly different between the 2 groups. In the EUS-GBD group, there was decreased operative time (84.2 vs 165.4 minutes, P < 0.00001), time to symptom resolution (4.2 vs 6.3 days, P = 0.005), and length of stay (5.4 vs 12.3 days, P = 0.001) compared with the PT-GBD group. There was no difference in the rate of conversion from laparoscopic to open CCY: 5 of 46 (11%) in the EUS-GBD arm and 18 of 93 (19%) in the PT-GBD group ( P value 0.2324).DiscussionPatients who received EUS-GBD had a significantly shorter interval between gallbladder drainage and CCY, shorter surgical procedure times, and shorter length of stay for the CCY compared with those who received PT-GBD. EUS-GBD should be considered an acceptable modality for gallbladder drainage and should not preclude patients from eventual CCY.

| S-EPMC10299765 | biostudies-literature

Hepaticoduodenostomy in Combined Endoscopic Ultrasound-Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography Biliary Drainage for Malignant Hilar Biliary Obstruction.

Project description: Not available

| S-EPMC10993820 | biostudies-literature

Comparison of endoscopic naso-gallbladder drainage and percutaneous transhepatic gallbladder drainage in acute suppurative cholecystitis: Study Protocol Clinical Trial (SPIRIT Compliant).

Project description:INTRODUCTION:Transitional drainage, which is followed by cholecystectomy plays a key role in the management of acute cholecystitis, especially in high-risk surgical patients. Endoscopic naso-gallbladder drainage (ENGBD) is an alternative to percutaneous transhepatic gallbladder drainage (PTGBD) for patients who need temporary drainage. There is a lack of prospective comparison on the relevant outcomes of the two drainage methods during the period of drainage, especially the subsequent cholecystectomy. METHODS:This is a randomized controlled two-arm non-blind single center trial. Patients with acute cholecystitis undergo emergent or early cholecystectomy and need drainage will be randomly assigned to group PTGBD or ENGBD. Pain score is defined as the primary endpoint, whereas several secondary endpoints, such as the rates of technical success, clinical remission, open conversion of cholecystectomy will be determined to elucidate more detailed differences between two groups. The general feasibility, safety, and quality checks required for high-quality evidence will be adhered to. DISCUSSION:This study would provide the first type A evidence concerning the comparison of ENGBD versus PTGBD in surgically high-risk patients with acute cholecystitis, it will be the first trial designed to determine the impact of two drainage methods on not only peri-drainage but also peri-LC. TRIAL REGISTRATION:NCT03701464. Registered on October 10, 2018.

| S-EPMC7034714 | biostudies-literature

Safety of endoscopic ultrasound-guided hepaticogastrostomy in patients with malignant biliary obstruction and ascites.

Project description:Background/aimsEndoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided hepaticogastrostomy (EUS-HGS) is useful for patients with biliary cannulation failure or inaccessible papillae. However, it can lead to serious complications such as bile peritonitis in patients with ascites; therefore, development of a safe method to perform EUS-HGS is important. Herein, we evaluated the safety of EUS-HGS with continuous ascitic fluid drainage in patients with ascites.MethodsPatients with moderate or severe ascites who underwent continuous ascites drainage, which was initiated before EUS-HGS and terminated after the procedure at our institution between April 2015 and December 2022, were included in the study. We evaluated the technical and clinical success rates, EUS-HGS-related complications, and feasibility of re-intervention.ResultsTen patients underwent continuous ascites drainage, which was initiated before EUS-HGS and terminated after completion of the procedure. Median duration of ascites drainage before and after EUS-HGS was 2 and 4 days, respectively. Technical success with EUS-HGS was achieved in all 10 patients (100%). Clinical success with EUS-HGS was achieved in 9 of the 10 patients (90 %). No endoscopic complications such as bile peritonitis were observed.ConclusionIn patients with ascites, continuous ascites drainage, which is initiated before EUS-HGS and terminated after completion of the procedure, may prevent complications and allow safe performance of EUS-HGS.

| S-EPMC10984745 | biostudies-literature

Patient perception and preference of EUS-guided drainage over percutaneous drainage when endoscopic transpapillary biliary drainage fails: An international multicenter survey.

Project description:Background and Objectives:EUS-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 Methods:An 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. Results:In 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). Conclusions:In 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

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

OmicsDI is an Elixir interoperability service. Learn more ›

Tweets

OmicsDI Databases

PRIDE
PeptideAtlas
MassIVE
JPOST Repository
Physiome Model Repository

EGA
EVA
ENA
LINCS
PAXDB
Cell Collective

MetaboLights
Metabolomics Workbench
MetabolomeExpress
GNPS
BioModels
FAIRDOMHub

ArrayExpress
dbGaP
ExpressionAtlas
GEO
NODE

Information

Databases
Help
API
Contact us
Code on GitHub
Terms of use
Submit Data