Digestive endoscopy : official journal of the Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society · 2022
Long-term outcomes of endoscopic ultrasound-guided gallbladder drainage versus in situ or ex situ percutaneous gallbladder drainage in real-world practice.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Cho Sung Hyun, Oh Dongwook, Song Tae Jun, Gwon Dong Il, Ko Gi-Young, Ko Heung-Kyu, Park Do Hyun, Seo Dong-Wan, Lee Sung Koo, Kim Myung-Hwan, Lee Sang Soo
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: Many studies showed better outcomes of endoscopic ultrasound-guided gallbladder drainage (EUS-GBD) when compared with percutaneous transhepatic gallbladder drainage (P-GBD) in which most tubes were left in situ. However, no studies have directly compared EUS-GBD with P-GBD after tube removal (ex situ). We compared the long-term outcomes of EUS-GBD and ex situ or in situ P-GBD in high surgical risk patients with acute cholecystitis.
METHODS: We reviewed the records of 182 patients (EUS-GBD, n = 75; P-GBD, n = 107) who underwent gallbladder drainage. The procedural outcomes, long-term outcomes, and adverse events were compared.
RESULTS: The EUS-GBD group and the P-GBD group had similar rates of technical and clinical success. Early adverse events were less common in the EUS-GBD group (5.5% vs. 18.9%, P = 0.010). The long-term outcomes were evaluated in 168 patients (EUS-GBD, n = 67; P-GBD ex situ, n = 84; P-GBD in situ, n = 17). The rate of cholecystitis recurrence in the EUS-GBD group (6.0%) was similar to that in the P-GBD ex situ group (9.6%, P = 0.422), but significantly lower than that in the P-GBD in situ group (23.5%, P = 0.049). P-GBD in situ was a significant predictor of recurrent cholecystitis (hazard ratio 14.6; 95% confidence interval 2.9-72.8).
CONCLUSION: The long-term recurrence rate of acute cholecystitis in patients who underwent EUS-GBD was comparable to that in patients whose P-GBD could be removed. However, patients in whom P-GBD could not be removed showed higher rates of recurrent cholecystitis than patients with EUS-GBD.
METHODS: We reviewed the records of 182 patients (EUS-GBD, n = 75; P-GBD, n = 107) who underwent gallbladder drainage. The procedural outcomes, long-term outcomes, and adverse events were compared.
RESULTS: The EUS-GBD group and the P-GBD group had similar rates of technical and clinical success. Early adverse events were less common in the EUS-GBD group (5.5% vs. 18.9%, P = 0.010). The long-term outcomes were evaluated in 168 patients (EUS-GBD, n = 67; P-GBD ex situ, n = 84; P-GBD in situ, n = 17). The rate of cholecystitis recurrence in the EUS-GBD group (6.0%) was similar to that in the P-GBD ex situ group (9.6%, P = 0.422), but significantly lower than that in the P-GBD in situ group (23.5%, P = 0.049). P-GBD in situ was a significant predictor of recurrent cholecystitis (hazard ratio 14.6; 95% confidence interval 2.9-72.8).
CONCLUSION: The long-term recurrence rate of acute cholecystitis in patients who underwent EUS-GBD was comparable to that in patients whose P-GBD could be removed. However, patients in whom P-GBD could not be removed showed higher rates of recurrent cholecystitis than patients with EUS-GBD.