Primary endoscopic bile duct stone removal for severe acute cholangitis: a retrospective study

Introduction: While the Tokyo Guidelines 2018 suggest primary stone removal for mild to moderate cholangitis, a guideline for severe acute cholangitis is not mentioned. We, therefore, investigated the clinical outcomes of patients with severe acute cholangitis to confirm the usefulness and safety of...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Therapeutic advances in gastrointestinal endoscopy 2021, Vol.14, p.26317745211044009-26317745211044009
Hauptverfasser: Ishii, Yu, Nakayama, Akihiro, Nakatani, Kei, Nishihara, Shigetoshi, Oikawa, Shu, Usami, Tomono, Noguchi, Toshihiro, Mitsui, Yuta, Yoshida, Hitoshi
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Introduction: While the Tokyo Guidelines 2018 suggest primary stone removal for mild to moderate cholangitis, a guideline for severe acute cholangitis is not mentioned. We, therefore, investigated the clinical outcomes of patients with severe acute cholangitis to confirm the usefulness and safety of primary stone removal. Method: This study included 104 severe acute cholangitis patients without gallstone pancreatitis diagnosed at our institution between January 2014 and December 2020. Patients with percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage as the primary drainage, bile duct stenosis, and endoscopically unidentified bile duct stones were excluded from this study. The clinical results of 14 patients with primary stone removal (primary group) and 23 patients with elective stone removal (elective group) were then retrospectively examined (excluding abnormal values due to underlying diseases). Results: Upon comparing the patient characteristics between groups, the elective group had significantly higher cardiovascular dysfunction (57% vs 7%; p = 0.004), septic shock (39% vs 0%; p = 0.006), disseminated intravascular coagulation treatment (57% vs 14%; p = 0.016), and positive blood cultures (91% vs 43%; p = 0.006) than those in the primary group. Endoscopic sphincterotomy for naïve papilla (90% vs 21%; p = 0.01) and endoscopic nasobiliary drainage (50% vs 9%; p = 0.014) were higher in the primary group, while endoscopic biliary stenting (7% vs 87%; p 
ISSN:2631-7745
2631-7745
DOI:10.1177/26317745211044009