Dataset Information

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

ABSTRACT: 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.

SUBMITTER: Nam K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5838728 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Jan-Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

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

Nam Kwangwoo K Kim Dong Uk DU Lee Tae Hoon TH Iwashita Takuji T Nakai Yousuke Y Bolkhir Ahmed A Castro Lara Aguilera LA Vazquez-Sequeiros Enrique E de la Serna Carlos C Perez-Miranda Manuel M Lee John G JG Lee Sang Soo SS Seo Dong-Wan DW Lee Sung Koo SK Kim Myung-Hwan MH Park Do Hyun DH

Endoscopic ultrasound 20180101 1

<h4>Background and objectives</h4>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.<h4>Patients and methods</h4>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 decis ...[more]

PMID: 29451169

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background and study aims Endoscopic ultrasound-guided intrahepatic biliary drainage (EUS-IBD) struggles to find a place in management algorithms, especially compared to percutaneous drainage (PTBD). In the setting of hilar stenoses or postsurgical anatomy data are even more limited. Patients and methods All consecutive EUS-IBDs performed in our tertiary referral center between 2012 - 2019 were retrospectively evaluated. Rendez-vous (RVs), antegrade stenting (AS) and hepatico-gastrostomies (HGs) were compared. The predefined subgroup of EUS-IBD patients with proximal stenosis/surgically-altered anatomy was matched 1:1 with PTBD performed for the same indications. Efficacy, safety and events during follow-up were compared. Results One hundred four EUS-IBDs were included (malignancies = 87.7 %). These consisted of 16 RVs, 43 ASs and 45 HGs. Technical and clinical success rates were 89.4 % and 96.2 %, respectively. Any-degree, severe and fatal adverse events (AEs) occurred in 23.3 %, 2.9 %, and 0.9 % respectively. Benign indications were more common among RVs while proximal stenoses, surgically-altered anatomy, and disconnected left ductal system among HGs. Procedures were shorter with HGs performed with specifically designed stents (25 vs . 48 minutes, P = 0.004) and there was also a trend toward less dysfunction with those stents (6.7 % vs . 30 %, P = 0.09) compared with previous approaches. Among patients with proximal stenosis/surgically-altered anatomy, EUS-IBD vs. PTBD showed higher rates of clinical success (97.4 % vs. 79.5 %, P = 0.01), reduced post-procedural pain (17.8 % vs. 44.4 %, p = 0.004), shorter median hospital stay (7.5 vs 11.5 days, P = 0.01), lower rates of stent dysfunction (15.8 % vs. 42.9 %, P = 0.01), and the mean number of reinterventions was lower (0.4 vs. 2.8, P < 0.0001). Conclusions EUS-IBD has high technical and clinical success with an acceptable safety profile. HGs show comparable outcomes, which are likely to further improve with dedicated tools. For proximal strictures and surgically-altered anatomy, EUS-IBD seems superior to PTBD.

Project description: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.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.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.

Dataset Information

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

Publications

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

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets