Digestive diseases and sciences · 2018
No Association of Timing of Endoscopic Biliary Drainage with Clinical Outcomes in Patients with Non-severe Acute Cholangitis.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание 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.
Hakuta Ryunosuke, Hamada Tsuyoshi, Nakai Yousuke, Kogure Hirofumi, Uchino Rie, Takahara Naminatsu, Mizuno Suguru, Suzuki Tatsunori, Sato Tatsuya, Takeda Tsuyoshi, Ishigaki Kazunaga, Saito Kei, Saito Tomotaka, Tada Minoru, Isayama Hiroyuki, Koike Kazuhiko
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Biliary drainage via endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is the first-line treatment for acute cholangitis. Despite the established effectiveness of urgent biliary drainage in patients with severe acute cholangitis, the indication of this procedure for non-severe acute cholangitis is controversial.
AIMS: To assess the safety of elective drainage (≥ 12 h of admission) for non-severe acute cholangitis.
METHODS: We retrospectively identified 461 patients with non-severe acute cholangitis who underwent endoscopic biliary drainage. Using linear regression models with adjustment for a variety of potential confounders, we compared elective versus urgent biliary drainage (< 12 h of admission) in terms of clinical outcomes. The primary outcome was the length of stay.
RESULTS: There were 98 and 201 patients who underwent elective and urgent biliary drainage, respectively. The median length of stay was 11 days in both groups (P = 0.52). The timing of ERCP was not associated with length of stay in the multivariable model (P = 0.52). Secondary outcomes including in-hospital mortality and recurrence of cholangitis were not different between the groups.
CONCLUSIONS: Elective biliary drainage was not associated with worse clinical outcomes of non-severe acute cholangitis as compared to urgent drainage. Further investigation is warranted to justify the elective drainage for non-severe cholangitis.
AIMS: To assess the safety of elective drainage (≥ 12 h of admission) for non-severe acute cholangitis.
METHODS: We retrospectively identified 461 patients with non-severe acute cholangitis who underwent endoscopic biliary drainage. Using linear regression models with adjustment for a variety of potential confounders, we compared elective versus urgent biliary drainage (< 12 h of admission) in terms of clinical outcomes. The primary outcome was the length of stay.
RESULTS: There were 98 and 201 patients who underwent elective and urgent biliary drainage, respectively. The median length of stay was 11 days in both groups (P = 0.52). The timing of ERCP was not associated with length of stay in the multivariable model (P = 0.52). Secondary outcomes including in-hospital mortality and recurrence of cholangitis were not different between the groups.
CONCLUSIONS: Elective biliary drainage was not associated with worse clinical outcomes of non-severe acute cholangitis as compared to urgent drainage. Further investigation is warranted to justify the elective drainage for non-severe cholangitis.