Back to Search Start Over

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage versus percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage: predictors of successful outcome in patients who fail endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography.

Authors :
Sharaiha, Reem
Kumta, Nikhil
Desai, Amit
DeFilippis, Ersilia
Gabr, Moamen
Sarkisian, Alex
Salgado, Sanjay
Millman, Jennifer
Benvenuto, Andrea
Cohen, Michelle
Tyberg, Amy
Gaidhane, Monica
Kahaleh, Michel
Sharaiha, Reem Z
Kumta, Nikhil A
Desai, Amit P
DeFilippis, Ersilia M
Sarkisian, Alex M
Source :
Surgical Endoscopy & Other Interventional Techniques. Dec2016, Vol. 30 Issue 12, p5500-5505. 6p.
Publication Year :
2016

Abstract

<bold>Background: </bold>Patients with failed endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) are conventionally offered percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD). While PTBD is effective, it is associated with catheter-related complications, pain, and poor quality of life. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) is a minimally invasive endoscopic option increasingly offered as an alternative to PTBD. We compare outcomes of EUS-BD and PTBD in patients with biliary obstruction at a single tertiary care center.<bold>Methods: </bold>A retrospective review was performed in patients with biliary obstruction who underwent EUS-BD or PTBD after failed ERCP from June 2010 through December 2014 at a single tertiary care center. Patient demographics, procedural data, and clinical outcomes were documented for each group. The aim was to compare efficacy and safety of EUS-BD and PTBD and evaluate predictors of success.<bold>Results: </bold>A total of 60 patients were included (mean age 67.5 years, 65 % male). Forty-seven underwent EUS-BD, and thirteen underwent PTBD. Technical success rates of PTBD and EUS-BD were similar (91.6 vs. 93.3 %, p = 1.0). PTBD patients underwent significantly more re-interventions than EUS-BD patients (mean 4.9 versus 1.3, p < 0.0001), had more late (>24-h) adverse events (53.8 % vs. 6.6 %, p = 0.001) and experienced more pain (4.1 vs. 1.9, p = 0.016) post-procedure. In univariate analysis, clinical success was lower in the PTBD group (25 vs. 62.2 %, p = 0.03). In multivariable logistic regression analysis, EUS-BD was the sole predictor of clinical success and long-term resolution (OR 21.8, p = 0.009).<bold>Conclusion: </bold>Despite similar technical success rates compared to PTBD, EUS-BD results in a lower need for re-intervention, decreased rate of late adverse events, and lower pain scores, and is the sole predictor for clinical success and long-term resolution. EUS-BD should be the treatment of choice after a failed ERCP. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Details

Language :
English
ISSN :
18666817
Volume :
30
Issue :
12
Database :
Academic Search Index
Journal :
Surgical Endoscopy & Other Interventional Techniques
Publication Type :
Academic Journal
Accession number :
119498725
Full Text :
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-016-4913-y