BMC surgery · 2022
Outcomes of delayed versus early endoscopic intervention for acute biliary pancreatitis with non-severe acute cholangitis.
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.
Lyu Yunxiao, Ye Shenjian, Wang Bin
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Despite previous studies on endoscopic interventions in patients with acute biliary pancreatitis (ABP), the optimal time to perform endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) for ABP with non-severe acute cholangitis (AC) remains controversial.
METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort analysis of patients with concurrent ABP and non-severe AC. The patients were divided into two groups: those who underwent ERCP ≤ 72 h after admission (early ERCP group) and those who underwent ERCP > 72 h after admission (delayed ERCP group). The primary outcomes were the technical success rate and ERCP-related complications.
RESULTS: The study involved 164 patients (early ERCP, n = 70; delayed ERCP, n = 94) who were treated from 1 December 2 to 2016 to 12 December 2021. The patients' baseline characteristics were not significantly different between the two groups. The technical success rate of ERCP was similar between the two groups (94.29% vs. 97.87%, p = 0.43). Morbidity was also similar between the two groups (p = 0.83). There was no significant difference in the total hospital stay (p = 0.13). However, the early ERCP group had a longer post-ERCP hospital stay (p < 0.001).
CONCLUSION: This retrospective analysis showed that delayed ERCP performed > 72 h after admission has economic and safety outcomes similar to those of early ERCP for patients with concurrent ABP and non-severe AC.
METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort analysis of patients with concurrent ABP and non-severe AC. The patients were divided into two groups: those who underwent ERCP ≤ 72 h after admission (early ERCP group) and those who underwent ERCP > 72 h after admission (delayed ERCP group). The primary outcomes were the technical success rate and ERCP-related complications.
RESULTS: The study involved 164 patients (early ERCP, n = 70; delayed ERCP, n = 94) who were treated from 1 December 2 to 2016 to 12 December 2021. The patients' baseline characteristics were not significantly different between the two groups. The technical success rate of ERCP was similar between the two groups (94.29% vs. 97.87%, p = 0.43). Morbidity was also similar between the two groups (p = 0.83). There was no significant difference in the total hospital stay (p = 0.13). However, the early ERCP group had a longer post-ERCP hospital stay (p < 0.001).
CONCLUSION: This retrospective analysis showed that delayed ERCP performed > 72 h after admission has economic and safety outcomes similar to those of early ERCP for patients with concurrent ABP and non-severe AC.