Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
A Comparative Evaluation of EUS-Guided Biliary Drainage and Percutaneous Drainage in Patients with Distal Malignant Biliary Obstruction and Failed ERCP
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
A Comparative Evaluation of EUS-Guided Biliary Drainage and Percutaneous Drainage in Patients with Distal Malignant Biliary Obstruction and Failed ERCP
Do you wish to request the book?
A Comparative Evaluation of EUS-Guided Biliary Drainage and Percutaneous Drainage in Patients with Distal Malignant Biliary Obstruction and Failed ERCP
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
A Comparative Evaluation of EUS-Guided Biliary Drainage and Percutaneous Drainage in Patients with Distal Malignant Biliary Obstruction and Failed ERCP
2015
Overview
Background and Aim
Endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage (EGBD) may be a safe, alternative technique to percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD) in patients who fail ERCP. However, it is currently unknown how both techniques compare in terms of efficacy, safety, and cost. The aims of this study were to compare efficacy, safety, and cost of EGBD to that of PTBD.
Methods
Jaundiced patients with distal malignant biliary obstruction who underwent EGBD or PTBD after failed ERCP were included. Technical success, clinical success, and adverse events between the two groups were compared.
Results
A total of 73 patients with failed ERCP subsequently underwent EGBD (
n
= 22) or PTBD (
n
= 51). Although technical success was higher in the PTBD group (100 vs. 86.4 %,
p
= 0.007), clinical success was equivalent (92.2 vs. 86.4 %,
p
= 0.40). PTBD was associated with higher adverse event rate (index procedure: 39.2 vs. 18.2 %; all procedures including reinterventions: 80.4 vs. 15.7 %). Stent patency and survival were equivalent between both groups. Total charges were more than two times higher in the PTBD group (
p
= 0.004) mainly due to significantly higher rate of reinterventions (80.4 vs. 15.7 %,
p
< 0.001).
Conclusion
EGBD and PTBD are comparably effective techniques for treatment of distal malignant biliary obstruction after failed ERCP. However, EGBD is associated with decreased adverse events rate and is significantly less costly due to the need for fewer reinterventions. Our results suggest that EGBD should be the technique of choice for treatment of these patients at institutions with experienced interventional endosonographers.
Publisher
Springer US,Springer,Springer Nature B.V
Subject
/ Cholangiopancreatography, Endoscopic Retrograde
/ Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography
/ Endosonography - adverse effects
/ Female
/ Humans
/ Jaundice, Obstructive - diagnosis
/ Jaundice, Obstructive - etiology
/ Jaundice, Obstructive - therapy
/ Male
/ Medicine
/ Oncology
