Techniques of biliary drainage for acute cholangitis: Tokyo Guidelines.
ABSTRACT: Biliary decompression and drainage done in a timely manner is the cornerstone of acute cholangitis treatment. The mortality rate of acute cholangitis was extremely high when no interventional procedures, other than open drainage, were available. At present, endoscopic drainage is the procedure of first choice, in view of its safety and effectiveness. In patients with severe (grade III) disease, defined according to the severity assessment criteria in the Guidelines, biliary drainage should be done promptly with respiration management, while patients with moderate (grade II) disease also need to undergo drainage promptly with close monitoring of their responses to the primary care. For endoscopic drainage, endoscopic nasobiliary drainage (ENBD) or stent placement procedures are performed. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have reported no difference in the drainage effect of these two procedures, but case-series studies have indicated the frequent occurrence of hemorrhage associated with endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST), and complications such as pancreatitis. Although the usefulness of percutaneous transhepatic drainage is supported by the case-series studies, its lower success rate and higher complication rates makes it a second-option procedure.
Project description:Biliary drainage is a radical method to relieve cholestasis, a cause of acute cholangitis, and takes a central part in the treatment of acute cholangitis. Emergent drainage is essential for severe cases, whereas patients with moderate and mild disease should also receive drainage as soon as possible if they do not respond to conservative treatment, and their condition has not improved. Biliary drainage can be achieved via three different routes/procedures: endoscopic, percutaneous transhepatic, and open methods. The clinical value of both endoscopic and percutaneous transhepatic drainage is well known. Endoscopic drainage is associated with a low morbidity rate and shorter duration of hospitalization; therefore, this approach is advocated whenever it is applicable. In endoscopic drainage, either endoscopic nasobiliary drainage (ENBD) or tube stent placement can be used. There is no significant difference in the success rate, effectiveness, and morbidity between the two procedures. The decision to perform endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) is made based on the patient's condition and the number and diameter of common bile duct stones. Open drainage, on the other hand, should be applied only in patients for whom endoscopic or percutaneous transhepatic drainage is contraindicated or has not been successfully performed. Cholecystectomy is recommended in patients with gallbladder stones, following the resolution of acute cholangitis with medical treatment, unless the patient has poor operative risk factors or declines surgery.
Project description:To compare the outcomes of preoperative endoscopic nasobiliary drainage (ENBD) and endoscopic retrograde biliary drainage (ERBD) in patients with malignant distal biliary obstruction prior to pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD).Data from 153 consecutive patients who underwent preoperative endoscopic biliary drainage prior to PD between January 2009 and July 2016 were analyzed. We compared the clinical data, procedure-related complications of endoscopic biliary drainage (EBD) and postoperative complications of PD between the ENBD and ERBD groups. Univariate and multivariate analyses with odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (95%CIs) were used to identify the risk factors for deep abdominal infection after PD.One hundred and two (66.7%) patients underwent ENBD, and 51 (33.3%) patients underwent ERBD. Endoscopic sphincterotomy was less frequently performed in the ENBD group than in the ERBD group (P = 0.039); the EBD duration in the ENBD group was shorter than that in the ERBD group (P = 0.036). After EBD, the levels of total bilirubin (TB) and alanine aminotransferase (ALT) were obviously decreased in both groups, and the decreases of TB and ALT in the ERBD group were greater than those in the ENBD group (P = 0.004 and P = 0.000, respectively). However, the rate of EBD procedure-related cholangitis was significantly higher in the ERBD group than in the ENBD group (P = 0.007). The postoperative complications of PD as graded by the Clavien-Dindo classification system were not significantly different between the two groups (P = 0.864). However, the incidence of deep abdominal infection after PD was significantly lower in the ENBD group than in the ERBD group (P = 0.019). Male gender (OR = 3.92; 95%CI: 1.63-9.47; P = 0.002), soft pancreas texture (OR = 3.60; 95%CI: 1.37-9.49; P = 0.009), length of biliary stricture (≥ 1.5 cm) (OR = 5.20; 95%CI: 2.23-12.16; P = 0.000) and ERBD method (OR = 4.08; 95%CI: 1.69-9.87; P = 0.002) were independent risk factors for deep abdominal infection after PD.ENBD is an optimal method for patients with malignant distal biliary obstruction prior to PD. ERBD is superior to ENBD in terms of patient tolerance and the effect of biliary drainage but is associated with an increased risk of EBD procedure-related cholangitis and deep abdominal infection after PD.
Project description:Preoperative biliary drainage (PBD) has been widely used to treat patients with malignant biliary obstruction. However, it is still unclear which method of PBD (endoscopic nasobiliary drainage or endoscopic biliary stenting) is more effective. Thus, we carried out a meta-analysis to compare the safety and efficacy of endoscopic nasobiliary drainage (ENBD) and endoscopic biliary stenting (EBS) in malignant biliary obstruction in terms of preoperative and postoperative complications.We conducted a literature search of EMBASE databases, PubMed, and the Cochrane Library to identify relevant available articles that were published in English, and we then compared ENBD and EBS in malignant biliary obstruction patients. The preoperative cholangitis rate, the preoperative pancreatitis rate, the incidence of stent dysfunction, the postoperative pancreatic fistula rate, and morbidity were analyzed. Odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were used to express the pooled effect on dichotomous variables, and the pooled analyses were performed using RevMan 5.3.Seven published studies (n?=?925 patients) were included in this meta-analysis. We determined that patients with malignant biliary obstruction who received ENBD had reductions in the preoperative cholangitis rate (OR?=?0.35, 95% CI?=?0.25-0.51, P?<?0.0001), the postoperative pancreatic fistula rate (OR?=?0.38, 95% CI?=?0.18-0.82, P?=?0.01), the incidence of stent dysfunction (OR?=?0.39, 95% CI?=?0.28-0.56, P?<?0.0001), and morbidity (OR?=?0.47, 95% CI?=?0.27-0.82, P?=?0.008) compared with patients who received EBS.The current meta-analysis suggests that ENBD is better than EBS for malignant biliary obstruction in terms of the preoperative cholangitis rate, the postoperative pancreatic fistula rate, the incidence of stent dysfunction, and morbidity. However, a limitation is that there are no data from randomized controlled trials.
Project description:BACKGROUND:To compare the efficacy of endoscopic nasobiliary drainage (ENBD) and endoscopic biliary stenting (EBS) in preoperative biliary drainage (PBD). METHODS:ENBD and EBS related literature of patients with malignant biliary obstruction published before September 2019 were collected from PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library for comparison analysis. Revman 5.3 statistical software was used for analysis. RESULTS:Nine studies were used for our comparative study. A total of 1435 patients were included, which consisted of 813 in the ENBD group and 622 in the EBS group. Meta-analysis showed that patients with malignant biliary obstruction who received ENBD had reductions in the rates of preoperative cholangitis (RR? = ?0.46, 95% CI? = ?0.34-0.62, P? < ?0.00001), preoperative pancreatitis (RR? = ?0.69, 95% CI? = ?0.50-0.95, P? = 0.02), stent dysfunction (RR? = ?0.58, 95% CI? = ?0.43-0.80, P? = 0.0008), morbidity (RR? = ?0.77, 95% CI? = ?0.64-0.93, P? = ?0.007), and postoperative pancreatic fistula (RR? = ?0.65, 95% CI? = ?0.45-0.92, P? = ?0.02) compared with patients who received EBS. CONCLUSIONS:The rates of preoperative cholangitis, preoperative pancreatitis, post-operative pancreatic fistula, stent dysfunction, and morbidity of ENBD patients were lower than those of EBS patients. In clinical practice, the physical condition of each patient and their tolerance should be fully considered. ENBD should be given priority. EBS should be replaced if stent dysfunction or intolerance occurs.
Project description:We posed six clinical questions (CQ) on preoperative biliary drainage and organized all pertinent evidence regarding these questions. CQ 1. Is preoperative biliary drainage necessary for patients with jaundice? The indications for preoperative drainage for jaundiced patients are changing greatly. Many reports state that, excluding conditions such as cholangitis and liver dysfunction, biliary drainage is not necessary before pancreatoduodenectomy or less invasive surgery. However, the morbidity and mortality of extended hepatectomy for biliary cancer is still high, and the most common cause of death is hepatic failure; therefore, preoperative biliary drainage is desirable in patients who are to undergo extended hepatectomy. CQ 2. What procedures are appropriate for preoperative biliary drainage? There are three methods of biliary drainage: percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD), endoscopic nasobiliary drainage (ENBD) or endoscopic retrograde biliary drainage (ERBD), and surgical drainage. ERBD is an internal drainage method, and PTBD and ENBD are external methods. However, there are no reports of comparisons of preoperative biliary drainage methods using randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Thus, at this point, a method should be used that can be safely performed with the equipment and techniques available at each facility. CQ 3. Which is better, unilateral or bilateral biliary drainage, in malignant hilar obstruction? Unilateral biliary drainage of the future remnant hepatic lobe is usually enough even when intrahepatic bile ducts are separated into multiple units due to hilar malignancy. Bilateral biliary drainage should be considered in the following cases: those in which the operative procedure is difficult to determine before biliary drainage; those in which cholangitis has developed after unilateral drainage; and those in which the decrease in serum bilirubin after unilateral drainage is very slow. CQ 4. What is the best treatment for post-drainage fever? The most likely cause of high fever in patients with biliary drainage is cholangitis due to problems with the existing drainage catheter or segmental cholangitis if an undrained segment is left. In the latter case, urgent drainage is required. CQ 5. Is bile culture necessary in patients with biliary drainage who are to undergo surgery? Monitoring of bile cultures is necessary for patients with biliary drainage to determine the appropriate use of antibiotics during the perioperative period. CQ 6. Is bile replacement useful for patients with external biliary drainage? Maintenance of the enterohepatic bile circulation is vitally important. Thus, preoperative bile replacement in patients with external biliary drainage is very likely to be effective when highly invasive surgery (e.g., extended hepatectomy for hilar cholangiocarcinoma) is planned.
Project description:BACKGROUND:Endoscopic nasobiliary drainage (ENBD) is widely used for biliary decompression in patients with biliary disease. However, it is difficult to reposition a nasobiliary catheter from the mouth to nostril. We developed a new device, which has a curved flexible loop and bar-handle, for repositioning of ENBD catheter. The aim of this study was to evaluate the usefulness of the new loop-device for facilitating the repositioning of an ENBD catheter from the mouth to nostril. METHODS:Between January 2015 and December 2017, a comparative observational study was performed to evaluate the time taken for repositioning a nasobiliary catheter during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and compare the results of ENBD procedure between the new loop-device and conventional techniques. In the subgroup analysis, we evaluated the occurrence of oral cavity injury and the time taken to transfer ENBD catheter from the mouth to nostril. RESULTS:In all, 145 ENBD procedures were performed using these two techniques. The procedure time was significantly shorter in the new technique group than in the conventional group. (44?s vs. 194?s, p?<?0.001). The total success rate of new device technique was 97.3%. No complication, including oral cavity injury, was observed. CONCLUSIONS:The technique using our new loop-device was useful for repositioning a nasobiliary catheter from the mouth to nostril in ERCP. The new device does not require the removal of the mouthpiece before ENBD positioning, which can help perform the ENBD procedure rapidly and avoid the finger injury of endoscopists.
Project description:Background and study aims ?Preoperative biliary drainage of hilar cholangiocarcinoma (HC) is controversial. The goal of this study was to compare the clinical outcome and associated complications for types II, III, and IV HC managed by percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD) and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). Patients and methods ?Between January 2011 and June 2017, a total of 180 patients with II, III, and IV HC were enrolled in this retrospective cohort study. According to the drainage method, patients were divided into two groups: PTBD (n?=?81) and ERCP (n?=?99). This study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03104582, and was completed. Results ?Compared with the PTBD group, the ERCP group had a higher incidence of post-procedural cholangitis (37 [37.37?%] vs. 18 [22.22?%], P ?=?0.028) and pancreatitis (17 [17.17?%] vs. 2 [2.47?%], P ?=?0.001); required more salvaged biliary drainage (18 [18.18?%] vs. 5 [6.17?%], P ?=?0.029), and incurred a higher cost ( P ?<?0.05). Patients with type III and IV HC in the ERCP group had more cholangitis than those in the PTBD group (26 [36.62?%] vs. 11 [18.03?%], P ?=?0.018). The rate of cholangitis in patients who received endoscopic bilateral biliary stents insertion was higher than patients with unilateral stenting (23 [50.00?%] vs. 9 [26.47?%], P ?=?0.034), and underwent PTBD internal-external drainage had a higher incidence of cholangitis than those with only external drainage (11 [34.36?%] vs. 7 [14.29?%], P ?=?0.034). No significant difference in the rate of cholangitis was observed between the endoscopic unilateral stenting group and the endoscopic nasobiliary drainage group (9 [26.47?%] vs. 5 [26.32?%], P ?=?0.990). Conclusion ?Compared to ERCP, PTBD reduced the rate of cholangitis, pancreatitis, salvage biliary drainage, and decreased hospitalization costs in patients with types II, III, and IV HC. Risk of cholangitis for patients with types III and IV was significantly lower in the PTBD group.
Project description:The operative treatment combined with preoperative biliary drainage (PBD) has been established as a safe Klatskin tumor (KT) treatment strategy. However, there has always been a dispute for the preferred technique for PBD technique. This meta-analysis was conducted to compare the biliary drainage-related cholangitis, pancreatitis, hemorrhage, and the success rates of palliative relief of cholestasis between percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD) and endoscopic biliary drainage (EBD), to identify the best technique in the management of KT.PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science were searched systematically for prospective or retrospective studies reporting the biliary drainage-related cholangitis, pancreatitis, hemorrhage, and the success rates of palliative relief of cholestasis in patients with KT. A meta-analysis was performed, using the fixed or random-effect model, with Review Manager 5.3.PTBD was associated with lower risk of cholangitis (risk ratio [RR]?=?0.49, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.36-0.67; P?<?.00001), particularly in patients with Bismuth-Corlette type II, III, IV KT (RR?=?0.50, 95% CI: 0.33-0.77; P?=?.05). Compared with EBD, PTBD was also associated with a lower risk of pancreatitis (RR?=?0.35, 95% CI: 0.17-0.69; P?=?0.003) and with higher successful rates of palliative relief of cholestasis (RR?=?1.20, 95% CI: 1.10-1.31; P?<?.0001). The incidence of hemorrhage was similar in these 2 groups (RR 1.29, 95% CI: 0.51-3.27; P?=?.59). The risk of biliary drainage-related cholangitis (RR?=?1.96, 95% CI: 0.96-4.01; P?=?.06) and pancreatitis (RR?=?1.62, 95% CI: 0.76-3.47; P?=?.21) was similar between endoscopic nasobiliary drainage groups and biliary stenting.In patients with type II or type III or IV KT who need to have PBD, PTBD should be performed as an initial method of biliary drainage in terms of reducing the incidence of procedure related cholangitis, pancreatitis, and improving the rates of palliative relief of cholestasis. Well-conducted randomized controlled trials with a universial criterion for PBD are required to confirm these findings.
Project description:Post-endoscopic sphincterotomy bleeding is a common complication of biliary sphincterotomy, and the incidence varies from 1% to 48%. It can be challenging to localize the bleeder or to administer various interventions through a side-viewing endoscope. This study aimed to evaluate the risk factors of post-endoscopic sphincterotomy bleeding and the outcome of endoscopic intervention therapies. We retrospectively reviewed the records of 513 patients who underwent biliary sphincterotomy in Mackay Memorial Hospital between 2011 and 2016. The blood biochemistry, comorbidities, indication for sphincterotomy, severity of bleeding, endoscopic features of bleeder, and type of endoscopic therapy were analyzed. Post-endoscopic sphincterotomy bleeding occurred in 65 (12.6%) patients. Forty-five patients had immediate bleeding and 20 patients had delayed bleeding. The multivariate analysis of risk factors associated with post-endoscopic sphincterotomy bleeding were liver cirrhosis (P = 0.029), end-stage renal disease (P = 0.038), previous antiplatelet drug use (P<0.001), and duodenal ulcer (P = 0.023). The complications of pancreatitis and cholangitis were higher in the bleeding group, with statistical significance. Delayed bleeding occurred within 1 to 7 days (mean, 2.5 days), and 60% (12/20) of the patients received endoscopic evaluation. In the delayed bleeding group, the successful hemostasis rate was 71.4% (5/7), and 65% (13/20) of the patients had ceased bleeding without endoscopic hemostasis therapy. Comparison of different therapeutic modalities showed that cholangitis was higher in patients who received epinephrine spray (P = 0.042) and pancreatitis was higher in patients who received epinephrine injection and electrocoagulation (P = 0.041 and P = 0.039 respectively). Clinically, post-endoscopic sphincterotomy bleeding and further endoscopic hemostasis therapy increase the complication rate of pancreatitis and cholangitis. Realizing the effectiveness of each therapeutic modalities and appropriate management of different levels bleeding are important.
Project description:The effect of endoscopic sphincterotomy prior to endoscopic biliary stenting to prevent post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis remains to be fully elucidated. The aim of this study is to prospectively evaluate the non-inferiority of non-endoscopic sphincterotomy prior to stenting for naïve major duodenal papilla compared with endoscopic sphincterotomy prior to stenting in patients with biliary stricture.We designed a multicentre randomised controlled trial, for which we will recruit 370 patients with biliary stricture requiring endoscopic biliary stenting from 26 high-volume institutions in Japan. Patients will be randomly allocated to the endoscopic sphincterotomy group or the non-endoscopic sphincterotomy group. The main outcome measure is the incidence of pancreatitis within 2 days of initial transpapillary biliary drainage. Data will be analysed on completion of the study. We will calculate the 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of the incidence of pancreatitis in each group and analyse weather the difference in both groups with 95% CIs is within the non-inferiority margin (6%) using the Wald method.This study has been approved by the institutional review board of Hokkaido University Hospital (IRB: 016-0181). Results will be submitted for presentation at an international medical conference and published in a peer-reviewed journal.The University Hospital Medical Information Network ID: UMIN000025727 Pre-results.