Compliance with evidence-based multidisciplinary guidelines on perihilar cholangiocarcinoma
Background Discrepancies are often noted between management of perihilar cholangiocarcinoma (PHC) in regional hospitals and the eventual treatment plan in specialized centers. Objective The objective of this article is to evaluate whether regional centers adhere to guideline recommendations followin...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | United European gastroenterology journal 2017-06, Vol.5 (4), p.519-526 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext bestellen |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 526 |
---|---|
container_issue | 4 |
container_start_page | 519 |
container_title | United European gastroenterology journal |
container_volume | 5 |
creator | Coelen, Robert JS Huiskens, Joost Olthof, Pim B Roos, Eva Wiggers, Jimme K Schoorlemmer, Annuska van Delden, Otto M Klümpen, Heinz-Josef Rauws, Erik AJ van Gulik, Thomas M |
description | Background
Discrepancies are often noted between management of perihilar cholangiocarcinoma (PHC) in regional hospitals and the eventual treatment plan in specialized centers.
Objective
The objective of this article is to evaluate whether regional centers adhere to guideline recommendations following implementation in 2013.
Methods
Data were analyzed from all consecutive patients with suspected PHC referred to our academic center between June 2013 and December 2015. Frequency and quality of biliary drainage and imaging at referring centers were assessed as well as the impact of inadequate initial drainage.
Results
Biliary drainage was attempted at regional centers in 83 of 158 patients (52.5%), with a technical and therapeutic success rate of 79.5% and 50%, respectively, and a complication rate of 45.8%. The computed tomography protocol was not in accordance with guidelines in 52.8% of referrals. In 45 patients (54.2%) who underwent drainage in regional centers, additional drainage procedures were required after referral. Initial inadequate biliary drainage at a regional center was significantly associated with more procedures and a prolonged waiting time until surgery. A trend toward more drainage-related complications was observed among patients with inadequate initial drainage (54.7% vs. 39.0%, p = 0.061).
Conclusion
Despite available guidelines, suboptimal management of PHC persists in many regional centers and affects eventual treatment strategies. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1177/2050640616673517 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_24P</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_5446149</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sage_id>10.1177_2050640616673517</sage_id><sourcerecordid>1907006719</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4846-ccded85cf2029b719959dd82bf1b85f232a6c5afdc499f74d6e2a58e594a81103</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFUU1PAyEUJEajpnr3ZPboZRUosHAx0aZ-JCZe7MkDYeFti9ldKnQ1_nsx1UZNjO_CA2aGeQxCRwSfElJVZxRzLBgWRIhqzEm1hfY_jkrBCNve9FjsocOUnnAuKRmlbBftUcllrvE-epyEbtl601soXv1qUcCLd5B3ZW0SuKIb2pV3PlmfUb2Jb8V8yIDcQypCXywh-oVvTSzsIrSmn_tgTbS-D505QDuNaRMcfq4jNLuaPkxuyrv769vJxV1pmWSitNaBk9w2FFNVV0QprpyTtG5ILXlDx9QIy03jLFOqqZgTQA2XwBUzkhA8HqHzte5yqDtwFvpVNK1eRt9lwzoYr3_e9H6h5-FFc8YEYSoLnHwKxPA8QFrpLk8MbZ4HwpA0UbjCWGRrGYrXUBtDShGazTME649Y9O9YMuX4u70N4SuEDFBrwKtv4e1fQT2bXtPLK4wrIjK3XHOTmYN-CkPs81f_beYdb9Gnsw</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1907006719</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Compliance with evidence-based multidisciplinary guidelines on perihilar cholangiocarcinoma</title><source>Wiley Online Library (Open Access Collection)</source><creator>Coelen, Robert JS ; Huiskens, Joost ; Olthof, Pim B ; Roos, Eva ; Wiggers, Jimme K ; Schoorlemmer, Annuska ; van Delden, Otto M ; Klümpen, Heinz-Josef ; Rauws, Erik AJ ; van Gulik, Thomas M</creator><creatorcontrib>Coelen, Robert JS ; Huiskens, Joost ; Olthof, Pim B ; Roos, Eva ; Wiggers, Jimme K ; Schoorlemmer, Annuska ; van Delden, Otto M ; Klümpen, Heinz-Josef ; Rauws, Erik AJ ; van Gulik, Thomas M</creatorcontrib><description>Background
Discrepancies are often noted between management of perihilar cholangiocarcinoma (PHC) in regional hospitals and the eventual treatment plan in specialized centers.
Objective
The objective of this article is to evaluate whether regional centers adhere to guideline recommendations following implementation in 2013.
Methods
Data were analyzed from all consecutive patients with suspected PHC referred to our academic center between June 2013 and December 2015. Frequency and quality of biliary drainage and imaging at referring centers were assessed as well as the impact of inadequate initial drainage.
Results
Biliary drainage was attempted at regional centers in 83 of 158 patients (52.5%), with a technical and therapeutic success rate of 79.5% and 50%, respectively, and a complication rate of 45.8%. The computed tomography protocol was not in accordance with guidelines in 52.8% of referrals. In 45 patients (54.2%) who underwent drainage in regional centers, additional drainage procedures were required after referral. Initial inadequate biliary drainage at a regional center was significantly associated with more procedures and a prolonged waiting time until surgery. A trend toward more drainage-related complications was observed among patients with inadequate initial drainage (54.7% vs. 39.0%, p = 0.061).
Conclusion
Despite available guidelines, suboptimal management of PHC persists in many regional centers and affects eventual treatment strategies.</description><identifier>ISSN: 2050-6406</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2050-6414</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1177/2050640616673517</identifier><identifier>PMID: 28588883</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>London, England: SAGE Publications</publisher><subject>biliary drainage ; compliance ; guidelines ; management ; Original ; Perihilar cholangiocarcinoma</subject><ispartof>United European gastroenterology journal, 2017-06, Vol.5 (4), p.519-526</ispartof><rights>Author(s) 2016</rights><rights>2017 The Authors. UEG Journal published by Wiley Periodicals LLC. on behalf of United European Gastroenterology</rights><rights>Author(s) 2016 2016 United European Gastroenterology</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4846-ccded85cf2029b719959dd82bf1b85f232a6c5afdc499f74d6e2a58e594a81103</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4846-ccded85cf2029b719959dd82bf1b85f232a6c5afdc499f74d6e2a58e594a81103</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5446149/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5446149/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,727,780,784,885,1417,11562,27924,27925,45574,45575,46052,46476,53791,53793</link.rule.ids><linktorsrc>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1177%2F2050640616673517$$EView_record_in_Wiley-Blackwell$$FView_record_in_$$GWiley-Blackwell</linktorsrc><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28588883$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Coelen, Robert JS</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Huiskens, Joost</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Olthof, Pim B</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Roos, Eva</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wiggers, Jimme K</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Schoorlemmer, Annuska</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>van Delden, Otto M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Klümpen, Heinz-Josef</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rauws, Erik AJ</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>van Gulik, Thomas M</creatorcontrib><title>Compliance with evidence-based multidisciplinary guidelines on perihilar cholangiocarcinoma</title><title>United European gastroenterology journal</title><addtitle>United European Gastroenterol J</addtitle><description>Background
Discrepancies are often noted between management of perihilar cholangiocarcinoma (PHC) in regional hospitals and the eventual treatment plan in specialized centers.
Objective
The objective of this article is to evaluate whether regional centers adhere to guideline recommendations following implementation in 2013.
Methods
Data were analyzed from all consecutive patients with suspected PHC referred to our academic center between June 2013 and December 2015. Frequency and quality of biliary drainage and imaging at referring centers were assessed as well as the impact of inadequate initial drainage.
Results
Biliary drainage was attempted at regional centers in 83 of 158 patients (52.5%), with a technical and therapeutic success rate of 79.5% and 50%, respectively, and a complication rate of 45.8%. The computed tomography protocol was not in accordance with guidelines in 52.8% of referrals. In 45 patients (54.2%) who underwent drainage in regional centers, additional drainage procedures were required after referral. Initial inadequate biliary drainage at a regional center was significantly associated with more procedures and a prolonged waiting time until surgery. A trend toward more drainage-related complications was observed among patients with inadequate initial drainage (54.7% vs. 39.0%, p = 0.061).
Conclusion
Despite available guidelines, suboptimal management of PHC persists in many regional centers and affects eventual treatment strategies.</description><subject>biliary drainage</subject><subject>compliance</subject><subject>guidelines</subject><subject>management</subject><subject>Original</subject><subject>Perihilar cholangiocarcinoma</subject><issn>2050-6406</issn><issn>2050-6414</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2017</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNqFUU1PAyEUJEajpnr3ZPboZRUosHAx0aZ-JCZe7MkDYeFti9ldKnQ1_nsx1UZNjO_CA2aGeQxCRwSfElJVZxRzLBgWRIhqzEm1hfY_jkrBCNve9FjsocOUnnAuKRmlbBftUcllrvE-epyEbtl601soXv1qUcCLd5B3ZW0SuKIb2pV3PlmfUb2Jb8V8yIDcQypCXywh-oVvTSzsIrSmn_tgTbS-D505QDuNaRMcfq4jNLuaPkxuyrv769vJxV1pmWSitNaBk9w2FFNVV0QprpyTtG5ILXlDx9QIy03jLFOqqZgTQA2XwBUzkhA8HqHzte5yqDtwFvpVNK1eRt9lwzoYr3_e9H6h5-FFc8YEYSoLnHwKxPA8QFrpLk8MbZ4HwpA0UbjCWGRrGYrXUBtDShGazTME649Y9O9YMuX4u70N4SuEDFBrwKtv4e1fQT2bXtPLK4wrIjK3XHOTmYN-CkPs81f_beYdb9Gnsw</recordid><startdate>201706</startdate><enddate>201706</enddate><creator>Coelen, Robert JS</creator><creator>Huiskens, Joost</creator><creator>Olthof, Pim B</creator><creator>Roos, Eva</creator><creator>Wiggers, Jimme K</creator><creator>Schoorlemmer, Annuska</creator><creator>van Delden, Otto M</creator><creator>Klümpen, Heinz-Josef</creator><creator>Rauws, Erik AJ</creator><creator>van Gulik, Thomas M</creator><general>SAGE Publications</general><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201706</creationdate><title>Compliance with evidence-based multidisciplinary guidelines on perihilar cholangiocarcinoma</title><author>Coelen, Robert JS ; Huiskens, Joost ; Olthof, Pim B ; Roos, Eva ; Wiggers, Jimme K ; Schoorlemmer, Annuska ; van Delden, Otto M ; Klümpen, Heinz-Josef ; Rauws, Erik AJ ; van Gulik, Thomas M</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4846-ccded85cf2029b719959dd82bf1b85f232a6c5afdc499f74d6e2a58e594a81103</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2017</creationdate><topic>biliary drainage</topic><topic>compliance</topic><topic>guidelines</topic><topic>management</topic><topic>Original</topic><topic>Perihilar cholangiocarcinoma</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Coelen, Robert JS</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Huiskens, Joost</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Olthof, Pim B</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Roos, Eva</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wiggers, Jimme K</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Schoorlemmer, Annuska</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>van Delden, Otto M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Klümpen, Heinz-Josef</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rauws, Erik AJ</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>van Gulik, Thomas M</creatorcontrib><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>United European gastroenterology journal</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext_linktorsrc</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Coelen, Robert JS</au><au>Huiskens, Joost</au><au>Olthof, Pim B</au><au>Roos, Eva</au><au>Wiggers, Jimme K</au><au>Schoorlemmer, Annuska</au><au>van Delden, Otto M</au><au>Klümpen, Heinz-Josef</au><au>Rauws, Erik AJ</au><au>van Gulik, Thomas M</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Compliance with evidence-based multidisciplinary guidelines on perihilar cholangiocarcinoma</atitle><jtitle>United European gastroenterology journal</jtitle><addtitle>United European Gastroenterol J</addtitle><date>2017-06</date><risdate>2017</risdate><volume>5</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>519</spage><epage>526</epage><pages>519-526</pages><issn>2050-6406</issn><eissn>2050-6414</eissn><abstract>Background
Discrepancies are often noted between management of perihilar cholangiocarcinoma (PHC) in regional hospitals and the eventual treatment plan in specialized centers.
Objective
The objective of this article is to evaluate whether regional centers adhere to guideline recommendations following implementation in 2013.
Methods
Data were analyzed from all consecutive patients with suspected PHC referred to our academic center between June 2013 and December 2015. Frequency and quality of biliary drainage and imaging at referring centers were assessed as well as the impact of inadequate initial drainage.
Results
Biliary drainage was attempted at regional centers in 83 of 158 patients (52.5%), with a technical and therapeutic success rate of 79.5% and 50%, respectively, and a complication rate of 45.8%. The computed tomography protocol was not in accordance with guidelines in 52.8% of referrals. In 45 patients (54.2%) who underwent drainage in regional centers, additional drainage procedures were required after referral. Initial inadequate biliary drainage at a regional center was significantly associated with more procedures and a prolonged waiting time until surgery. A trend toward more drainage-related complications was observed among patients with inadequate initial drainage (54.7% vs. 39.0%, p = 0.061).
Conclusion
Despite available guidelines, suboptimal management of PHC persists in many regional centers and affects eventual treatment strategies.</abstract><cop>London, England</cop><pub>SAGE Publications</pub><pmid>28588883</pmid><doi>10.1177/2050640616673517</doi><tpages>8</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext_linktorsrc |
identifier | ISSN: 2050-6406 |
ispartof | United European gastroenterology journal, 2017-06, Vol.5 (4), p.519-526 |
issn | 2050-6406 2050-6414 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_5446149 |
source | Wiley Online Library (Open Access Collection) |
subjects | biliary drainage compliance guidelines management Original Perihilar cholangiocarcinoma |
title | Compliance with evidence-based multidisciplinary guidelines on perihilar cholangiocarcinoma |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-21T08%3A23%3A09IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_24P&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Compliance%20with%20evidence-based%20multidisciplinary%20guidelines%20on%20perihilar%20cholangiocarcinoma&rft.jtitle=United%20European%20gastroenterology%20journal&rft.au=Coelen,%20Robert%20JS&rft.date=2017-06&rft.volume=5&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=519&rft.epage=526&rft.pages=519-526&rft.issn=2050-6406&rft.eissn=2050-6414&rft_id=info:doi/10.1177/2050640616673517&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_24P%3E1907006719%3C/proquest_24P%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1907006719&rft_id=info:pmid/28588883&rft_sage_id=10.1177_2050640616673517&rfr_iscdi=true |