Comparison between endoscopic retrograde biliary drainage and endoscopic nasobiliary drainage in treatment of acute cholangitis
10.3760/cma.j.issn.1007-5232.2019.03.004
- VernacularTitle:经内镜胆道内支架放置术和鼻胆管引流术治疗各级急性胆管炎的效果比较
- Author:
Jianfeng YU
1
;
Jianyu HAO
;
Dongfang WU
;
Donglei ZHANG
Author Information
1. 首都医科大学附属北京朝阳医院消化内科 100020
- Keywords:
Cholangiopancreatography;
endoscopic retrograde;
Stent;
Nasobiliary drainage;
Acute cholangitis
- From:
Chinese Journal of Digestive Endoscopy
2019;36(3):169-175
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective To compare the safety and effectiveness of endoscopic retrograde biliary drainage ( ERBD ) and endoscopic nasobiliary drainage ( ENBD ) in treatment of acute cholangitis. Methods A retrospective analysis was performed on data of 272 patients with acute cholangitis who underwent emergent endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography ( ERCP ) in Beijing Chaoyang Hospital from January 2009 to June 2017. Patients were divided into ERBD group ( n=143) and ENBD group ( n=129) according to the drainage measures. In the ERBD group, there were 63 cases of gradeⅠ(mild) acute cholangitis, 51 of grade Ⅱ ( moderate) , and 29 of grade Ⅲ ( severe) , and the corresponding cases in the ENBD group were 54, 37 and 38, respectively. The rate of improvement of inflammation, ERCP-related complications and interventions to drainage were compared between the two groups in all patients and each grade. Results The rates of improvement of inflammation in the ERBD group and the ENBD group were 89. 5％ (128/143) and 94. 6％ (122/129), respectively, in overall patients (χ2=2. 399, P=0. 126), 93. 7％ (59/63) and 98. 1％ (53/54), respectively, in grade Ⅰ patients (χ2 =0. 548, P=0. 459), 90. 2％ (46/51) and 94. 6％ (35/37), respectively, in grade Ⅱ patients (χ2=0. 125, P=0. 724), and 79. 3％ (23/29) and 89. 5％ (34/38), respectively, in grade Ⅲ patients (χ2=0. 657, P=0. 418). The incidence of ERCP-related complications in the ERBD group and the ENBD group were 11. 9％ ( 17/143) and 7. 8％ ( 10/129) , respectively, in overall patients (χ2=1. 298, P=0. 225) , 9. 5％ ( 6/63) and 7. 4％( 4/54) , respectively, in grade Ⅰ patients (χ2=0. 006, P=0. 939) , 13. 7％ ( 7/51) and 8. 1％ ( 3/37) , respectively, in grade Ⅱ patients (χ2=0. 230, P=0. 632), and 13. 8％ (4/29) and 7. 9％ (3/38), respectively, in grade Ⅲ patients (χ2=0. 144, P=0. 705) . There were no significant differences in the rate of improvement of inflammation and ERCP-related complications between the two groups. The incidences of interventions to drainage in the ERBD group and the ENBD group were 10. 5％ ( 15/143 ) and 3. 1％(4/129), respectively, in overall patients (χ2=5. 699, P=0. 017), 6. 3％ (4/63) and 1. 9％ (1/54), respectively, in grade Ⅰ patients (χ2 = 0. 548, P = 0. 495 ) , 9. 8％ ( 5/51 ) and 5. 4％ ( 2/37 ) , respectively, in grade Ⅱ patients (χ2=0. 125, P=0. 724), and 20. 7％ (6/29) and 2. 6％ (1/38), respectively, in grade Ⅲ patients (χ2 = 3. 965, P= 0. 046 ) . There were significant differences in the incidence of interventions to drainage between the two groups in overall and gradeⅢpatents. Conclusion ERBD and ENBD are equally safe and effective in treatment of different grades of acute cholangitis, but ENBD can reduce the incidence of interventions to drainage.
