Percutaneous Transhepatic Biliary Drainage Complicated by Bilothorax.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Kim SH
PROVIDER: S-EPMC4815327 | biostudies-other | 2015 Mar
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other
Similar Datasets
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC6030706 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background and study aimsPreoperative biliary drainage is often initiated with endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in patients with potentially resectable perihilar cholangiocarcinoma (PHC), but additional percutaneous transhepatic catheter (PTC) drainage is frequently required. This study aimed to develop and validate a prediction model to identify patients with a high risk of inadequate ERCP drainage.Patients and methodsPatients with potentially resectable PHC and (attempted) preoperative ERCP drainage were included from two specialty center cohorts between 2001 and 2013. Indications for additional PTC drainage were failure to place an endoscopic stent, failure to relieve jaundice, cholangitis, or insufficient drainage of the future liver remnant. A prediction model was derived from the European cohort and externally validated in the USA cohort.ResultsOf the 288 patients, 108 (38%) required additional preoperative PTC drainage after inadequate ERCP drainage. Independent risk factors for additional PTC drainage were proximal biliary obstruction on preoperative imaging (Bismuth 3 or 4) and predrainage total bilirubin level. The prediction model identified three subgroups: patients with low risk (7%), moderate risk (40%), and high risk (62%). The high-risk group consisted of patients with a total bilirubin level above 150 µmol/L and Bismuth 3a or 4 tumors, who typically require preoperative drainage of the angulated left bile ducts. The prediction model had good discrimination (area under the curve 0.74) and adequate calibration in the external validation cohort.ConclusionsSelected patients with potentially resectable PHC have a high risk (62%) of inadequate preoperative ERCP drainage requiring additional PTC drainage. These patients might do better with initial PTC drainage instead of ERCP.
| S-EPMC4745253 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background and study aims Preoperative biliary drainage of hilar cholangiocarcinoma (HC) is controversial. The goal of this study was to compare the clinical outcome and associated complications for types II, III, and IV HC managed by percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD) and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). Patients and methods Between January 2011 and June 2017, a total of 180 patients with II, III, and IV HC were enrolled in this retrospective cohort study. According to the drainage method, patients were divided into two groups: PTBD (n = 81) and ERCP (n = 99). This study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03104582, and was completed. Results Compared with the PTBD group, the ERCP group had a higher incidence of post-procedural cholangitis (37 [37.37 %] vs. 18 [22.22 %], P = 0.028) and pancreatitis (17 [17.17 %] vs. 2 [2.47 %], P = 0.001); required more salvaged biliary drainage (18 [18.18 %] vs. 5 [6.17 %], P = 0.029), and incurred a higher cost ( P < 0.05). Patients with type III and IV HC in the ERCP group had more cholangitis than those in the PTBD group (26 [36.62 %] vs. 11 [18.03 %], P = 0.018). The rate of cholangitis in patients who received endoscopic bilateral biliary stents insertion was higher than patients with unilateral stenting (23 [50.00 %] vs. 9 [26.47 %], P = 0.034), and underwent PTBD internal-external drainage had a higher incidence of cholangitis than those with only external drainage (11 [34.36 %] vs. 7 [14.29 %], P = 0.034). No significant difference in the rate of cholangitis was observed between the endoscopic unilateral stenting group and the endoscopic nasobiliary drainage group (9 [26.47 %] vs. 5 [26.32 %], P = 0.990). Conclusion Compared to ERCP, PTBD reduced the rate of cholangitis, pancreatitis, salvage biliary drainage, and decreased hospitalization costs in patients with types II, III, and IV HC. Risk of cholangitis for patients with types III and IV was significantly lower in the PTBD group.
| S-EPMC6976325 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Biliary drainage for Perihilar Cholangiocarcinoma (PCCA) can be performed either by endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography or Percutaneous Transhepatic Biliary Drainage (PTBD). To date there is no consensus about which method is preferred. Taking that into account, the aim of this study is to compare Endoscopic Biliary Drainage (EBD) versus percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage in patients with perihilar cholangiocarcinoma through a systematic review and metanalysis. A comprehensive search of multiple electronic databases was performed. Evaluated outcomes included technical success, clinical success, post drainage complications (cholangitis, pancreatitis, bleeding, and major complications), crossover, hospital length stay, and seeding metastases. Data extracted from the studies were used to calculate Mean Differences (MD). Seventeen studies were included, with a total of 2284 patients (EBD = 1239, PTBD = 1045). Considering resectable PCCA, the PTBD group demonstrated lower rates of crossover (RD = 0.29; 95% CI 0.07‒0.51; p = 0.009 I² = 90%), post-drainage complications (RD = 0.20; 95% CI 0.06‒0.33; p < 0.0001; I² = 78%), and post-drainage pancreatitis (RD = 0.10; 95% CI 0.05‒0.16; p < 0.0001; I² = 64%). The EBD group presented reduced length of hospital stay (RD = -2.89; 95% CI -3.35 ‒ -2,43; p < 0.00001; I² = 42%). Considering palliative PCCA, the PTBD group demonstrated a higher clinical success (RD = -0.19; 95% CI -0.27 ‒ -0.11; p < 0.00001; I² = 0%) and less post-drainage cholangitis (RD = 0.08; 95% CI 0.01‒0.15; p = 0.02; I² = 48%) when compared to the EBD group. There was no statistical difference between the groups regarding: technical success, post-drainage bleeding, major post-drainage complications, and seeding metastases.
| S-EPMC10757298 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesOver 2500 percutaneous transhepatic cholangiography and biliary drainage (PTCD) procedures are yearly performed in the Netherlands. Most interventions are performed for treatment of biliary obstruction following unsuccessful endoscopic biliary cannulation. Our aim was to evaluate complication rates and risk factors for complications in PTCD patients after failed ERCP.MethodsWe performed an observational study collecting data from a cohort that was subjected to PTCD during a 5-year period in one academic and four teaching hospitals. Primary objective was the development of infectious (sepsis, cholangitis, abscess, or cholecystitis) and non-infectious complications (bile leakage, severe hemorrhage, etc.) and mortality within 30 days of the procedure. Subsequently, risk factors for complications and mortality were analyzed with a multilevel logistic regression analysis.ResultsA total of 331 patients underwent PTCD of whom 205 (61.9%) developed PTCD-related complications. Of the 224 patients without a pre-existent infection, 91 (40.6%) developed infectious complications, i.e., cholangitis in 26.3%, sepsis in 24.6%, abscess formation in 2.7%, and cholecystitis in 1.3%. Non-infectious complications developed in 114 of 331 patients (34.4%). 30-day mortality was 17.2% (N = 57). Risk factors for infectious complications included internal drainage and drain obstruction, while multiple re-interventions were a risk factor for non-infectious complications.ConclusionBoth infectious and non-infectious complications are frequent after PTCD, most often due to biliary drain obstruction.
| S-EPMC9388415 | biostudies-literature
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
Project description:INTRODUCTION: Controversy exists over the preferred technique of preoperative biliary drainage (PBD) in patients with hilar cholangiocarcinoma (HCCA) requiring major liver resection. The current study compared outcomes of endoscopic biliary drainage (EBD) and percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD) in patients with resectable HCCA. METHODS: One hundred fifteen consecutive patients were explored for HCCA between 2001 and July 2008 and assigned by initial PBD procedure to either EBD or PTBD. RESULTS: Of these patients, 101 (88%) underwent PBD; 90 patients underwent EBD as primary procedure, and 11 PTBD. The technical success rate of initial drainage was 81% in the EBD versus 100% in the PTBD group (P = 0.20). Stent dislocation was similar in the EBD and PTBD groups (23% vs. 20%, P = 0.70). Infectious complications were significantly more common in the endoscopic group (48% vs. 9%, P < 0.05). Patients in the EBD group underwent more drainage procedures (2.8 vs. 1.4, P < 0.01) and had a significantly longer drainage period until laparotomy (mean 15 weeks vs. 11 weeks in the PTBD group; P < 0.05). In 30 patients, EBD was converted to PTBD due to failure of the endoscopic approach. CONCLUSIONS: Preoperative percutaneous drainage could outperform endoscopic stent placement in patients with resectable HCCA, showing fewer infectious complications, using less procedures.
| S-EPMC2793391 | biostudies-other
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.
| S-EPMC7671754 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD) has been an effective treatment to access the biliary tree, especially in case of endoscopically inaccessible biliary tree. In general, PTBD techniques are divided into two methods: fluoroscopy-guided PTBD and ultrasound (US)-guided PTBD. This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of US-guided PTBD, focusing on radiation exposure according to intrahepatic duct (IHD) dilatation degree, differences between right- and left-sided approaches and differences between benign and malignant biliary stenosis/obstruction. We evaluated technical success, clinical success, procedural data (the number of liver capsule punctures, procedural time, fluoroscopy time and radiation dose), and procedure-related complications. During the study period, a total of 123 patients with biliary stenosis/obstruction or bile leakage were initially eligible. We excluded 76 patients treated with only ERCP or initially treated with ERCP followed underwent PTBD insertion. Finally, a total of 50 procedures were performed in 47 patients. Of the 47 patients, 8 patients had anatomical alteration due to previous surgery, 6 patients refused ERCP, and 3 patients failed ERCP. For the remaining 30 patients, PTBD was performed on weekend or at night, 11 of whom had poor general condition, 10 patients underwent ERCP 3 to 4 days later after PTBD insertion, 6 patients improved after PTBD insertion without ERCP, 1 patient died, and 1 patient was referred to other hospital. Remaining 1 patient underwent surgery due to Mirizzi syndrome. All procedures were performed by two interventional radiologists. Technical success rate was 100%, clinical success was 94%, and the complication rate was 10%. Fluoroscopy time and the reported radiation dose were significantly lower in patients with dilated bile ducts than in those with non-dilated bile ducts, when biliary puncture under US guidance was performed initially. However, even in patients with non-dilated bile ducts undergoing initial trials of biliary puncture under US guidance, the fluoroscopy time and the reported radiation dose were low, based on current studies. No statistical significant differences were observed in terms of technical and dosimetry results according to right-sided and left-sided procedures and benign and malignant biliary stenosis/obstruction. Thus, US-guided PTBD was found to be a safe and effective technique that significantly reduced fluoroscopy time and radiation doses.
| S-EPMC9635691 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC7859426 | biostudies-literature