Outcomes of preoperative endoscopic nasobiliary drainage and endoscopic retrograde biliary drainage for malignant distal biliary obstruction prior to pancreaticoduodenectomy.
ABSTRACT: 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: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: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:INTRODUCTION: Controversy exists over the preferred technique of preoperative biliary drainage (PBD) in patients with hilar cholangiocarcinoma (HCCA) requiring major liver resection. The current study compared outcomes of endoscopic biliary drainage (EBD) and percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD) in patients with resectable HCCA. METHODS: One hundred fifteen consecutive patients were explored for HCCA between 2001 and July 2008 and assigned by initial PBD procedure to either EBD or PTBD. RESULTS: Of these patients, 101 (88%) underwent PBD; 90 patients underwent EBD as primary procedure, and 11 PTBD. The technical success rate of initial drainage was 81% in the EBD versus 100% in the PTBD group (P = 0.20). Stent dislocation was similar in the EBD and PTBD groups (23% vs. 20%, P = 0.70). Infectious complications were significantly more common in the endoscopic group (48% vs. 9%, P < 0.05). Patients in the EBD group underwent more drainage procedures (2.8 vs. 1.4, P < 0.01) and had a significantly longer drainage period until laparotomy (mean 15 weeks vs. 11 weeks in the PTBD group; P < 0.05). In 30 patients, EBD was converted to PTBD due to failure of the endoscopic approach. CONCLUSIONS: Preoperative percutaneous drainage could outperform endoscopic stent placement in patients with resectable HCCA, showing fewer infectious complications, using less procedures.
Project description:The aim of the present study was to compare the effects of percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD) and endoscopic biliary drainage (EBD) for resected malignant obstruction jaundice (MOJ) on the incidence rate of implantation metastasis. Databases including PubMed, EMbase, Web of Science and Cochrane Library were utilized. With reference to literature reported until January 2019, controlled clinical trials were designed to compare the effects of PTBD and EBD for MOJ on the incidence rate of implantation metastasis. Subsequently, odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated with Review Manager 5.3.0 software. A total of 10 studies were enrolled in this meta-analysis, including 1,085 cases in the PTBD group and 1,379 cases in the EBD group. The results revealed that there was a significant difference in the incidence rate of implantation metastasis between the PTBD group and EBD group (OR=0.35, 95% CI: 0.23-0.53, P<0.00001). Subgroup analysis revealed that the incidence rates of both catheter-related implantation metastasis and peritoneal metastasis were lower in the EBD group (OR=0.23, 95% CI: 0.12-0.44, P<0.00001; OR=0.47, 95% CI: 0.31-0.74, P=0.0008, respectively), and the advantage of EBD was demonstrated in perihilar cholangiocarcinoma, distal cholangiocarcinoma and pancreatic carcinoma (OR=0.35, 95% CI: 0.17-0.74, P=0.006; OR=0.32, 95% CI: 0.17-0.60, P=0.0005; OR=0.27, 95% CI: 0.19-0.40, P<0.00001, respectively). In conclusion, this meta-analysis revealed the appropriate choice of preoperative biliary drainage for resected MOJ. The application of EBD reduced the incidence rate of implantation metastasis, however more evidence is required from future studies, to confirm the results.
Project description:Background. Palliation in advanced unresectable hilar malignancies can be achieved by endoscopic (EBD) or percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD). It is unclear if one approach is superior to the other in this group of patients. Aims. Compare clinical outcomes of EBD versus PTBD. Methods. (i) Study Selection Criterion. Studies using PTBD and EBD for palliation of advanced unresectable hilar malignancies. (ii) Data Collection and Extraction. Articles were searched in Medline, PubMed, and Ovid journals. (iii) Statistical Method. Fixed and random effects models were used to calculate the pooled proportions. Results. Initial search identified 786 reference articles, in which 62 articles were selected and reviewed. Data was extracted from nine studies (N = 546) that met the inclusion criterion. The pooled odds ratio for successful biliary drainage in PTBD versus EBD was 2.53 (95% CI = 1.57 to 4.08). Odds ratio for overall adverse effects in PTBD versus EBD groups was 0.81 (95% CI = 0.52 to 1.26). Odds ratio for 30-day mortality rate in PTBD group versus EBD group was 0.84 (95% CI = 0.37 to 1.91). Conclusions. In patients with advanced unresectable hilar malignancies, palliation with PTBD seems to be superior to EBD. PTBD is comparable to EBD in regard to overall adverse effects and 30-day mortality.
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: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: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: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/AIM:Malignant obstructive jaundice (MOJ) is a common condition caused by several primary and secondary cancers. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate technical success rate and safety of percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD) versus endoscopic biliary drainage (EBD) in MOJ. MATERIALS AND METHODS:Relevant trials were identified by searching electronic databases and conference meetings. We included thirteen retrospective studies and four randomized controlled trials, with PTBD performed in 2353 patients and EBD in 8178 patients. Outcomes of interest included: technical success rate, overall complications, 30-day mortality rate and risk of bleeding, pancreatitis, cholangitis and tube dislocation. RESULTS:The differences in technical success rate, total complications, 30-day mortality rate and tube dislocation were not statistically significant between the two groups. Patients receiving PTBD showed a lower risk of pancreatitis (OR=0.14, 95%CI=0.06-0.31) and cholangitis (OR=0.52, 95%CI=0.30-0.90) when compared to EBD while PTBD was associated with higher risk of bleeding (OR=1.78; 95%CI=1.32-2.39). CONCLUSION:Our meta-analysis indicates the presence of some advantages and limits for both PTBD and EBD. We highlight the paucity of quality-of-life data, a vital element which should be carefully pondered in future studies and in choosing the optimal technique in patients with MOJ.