Biliary Drainage in Patients With Unresectable, Malignant Obstruction Where ERCP Fails Endoscopic Ultrasonography-Guided Choledochoduodenostomy Versus Percutaneous Drainage

Carregando...
Imagem de Miniatura
Citações na Scopus
176
Tipo de produção
article
Data de publicação
2012
Título da Revista
ISSN da Revista
Título do Volume
Editora
LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
Autores
PAIONE, Jose B.
LO, Simon K.
RABELLO, Carolina
GUPTA, Kapil
Citação
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL GASTROENTEROLOGY, v.46, n.9, p.768-774, 2012
Projetos de Pesquisa
Unidades Organizacionais
Fascículo
Resumo
Background: Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography may fail because of malignant involvement of the second portion of the duodenum and the major papilla. Alternatives include percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD) or surgical bypass. Endoscopic ultrasonography-guided choledochoduodenostomy (EUS-CD) has been reported as an alternative. Objective: To prospectively compare EUS-CD and PTBD in patients with unresectable malignant biliary obstruction. Design: Prospective and randomized study. Setting: Tertiary center. Main Outcome Measurements: Success and efficacy comparison EUS-CD with PTBD. Results: Twenty-five subjects were randomized (13 EUS-CD and 12 PTBD). Mean age was 67 years (SD, 11.9). The 2 groups were similar before intervention in terms of quality of life [EUS-CD (58.3) vs. PTBD (57.8); P = 0.78], total bilirubin (16.4 vs. 17.2; P = 0.7), alkaline phosphatase (539 vs. 518; P = 0.7), and gamma-glutamyl transferase (554.3 vs. 743.5; P = 0.56). All procedures were technically and clinically successful in both groups. At 7-day follow-up there was a significant reduction in total bilirubin in both the groups (EUS-CD, 16.4 to 3.3; P = 0.002 and PTBD, 17.2 to 3.8; P = 0.01), although no difference was noted comparing the 2 groups (EUS-CD to PTBD; 3.3 vs. 3.8; P = 0.2). There was no difference between the complication rates in the 2 groups (P = 0.44), EUS-CD (2/13; 15.3%) and PTBD (3/12; 25%). Costs were similar in the 2 groups also ($5673-EUS-CD vs. $7570-PTBD; P = 0.39). Limitations: Small sample size and single center study. Conclusions: EUS-CD can be an effective and safe alternative to PTBD with similar success, complication rate, cost, and quality of life.
Palavras-chave
EUS, ERCP, PTBD
Referências
  1. Artifon Everson L A, 2010, JOP, V11, P597
  2. Artifon ELA, 2011, GASTROINTEST ENDOSC, V73, P1317, DOI 10.1016/j.gie.2010.10.041
  3. ASGE Guidelines for Clinical Application, 1999, GASTROINTEST ENDOSC, V50, P915
  4. Bahra M., 2008, V177, P111
  5. Bories E, 2007, ENDOSCOPY, V39, P287, DOI 10.1055/s-2007-966212
  6. Born P, 1998, SCAND J GASTROENTERO, V33, P544
  7. COTTON PB, 1972, GUT, V13, P1014, DOI 10.1136/gut.13.12.1014
  8. Giovannini M, 2001, ENDOSCOPY, V33, P898, DOI 10.1055/s-2001-17324
  9. Gupta K, 2007, REV GASTROENTEROL DI, V7, P22
  10. Hara K, 2010, DIGEST ENDOSC, V22, P147, DOI 10.1111/j.1443-1661.2010.00944.x
  11. Hara K, 2011, AM J GASTROENTEROL, V106, P1239, DOI 10.1038/ajg.2011.84
  12. Itoi T, 2008, WORLD J GASTROENTERO, V14, P6078, DOI 10.3748/wjg.14.6078
  13. Kahaleh M, 2005, GASTROINTEST ENDOSC, V61, P307, DOI 10.1016/S0016-5107(04)02585-4
  14. Kim YS, 2010, ENDOSCOPY, V42, P496, DOI 10.1055/s-0029-1244082
  15. Lai LH, 2010, GASTROINTEST ENDOSC, V72, P186, DOI 10.1016/j.gie.2010.01.052
  16. Mallery S, 2004, GASTROINTEST ENDOSC, V59, P100, DOI 10.1016/S0016-5107(03)02300-9
  17. SIVAK MV, 1974, CLEVELAND CLIN Q, V41, P93
  18. Yamao K, 2010, GUT LIVER, V4, pS67, DOI 10.5009/gnl.2010.4.S1.S67
  19. Yamao K, 2008, ENDOSCOPY, V40, P340, DOI 10.1055/s-2007-995485
  20. [Anonymous], 2002, NIH CONSENS STATE SC, V19, P1