Background: No studies have compared balloon-assisted endoscope-guided endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (BAE-ERCP) and endoscopic ultrasonography-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) for emergent treatment of acute cholangitis (AC) in patients with upper gastrointestinal surgically altered anatomy (SAA). Methods: This study retrospectively evaluated consecutive patients who underwent emergent BAE-ERCP or EUS-BD for AC with SAA between January 2020 and March 2024. Technical success, clinical success, procedure time, and adverse events (AEs) were compared between the two groups. Results: This study included 23 patients in the BAE-ERCP group and 14 patients in the EUS-BD group. Technical success and clinical success rates did not significantly differ between the two groups (88% vs. 100%, P = 0.51 and 95% vs. 93%, P = 0.66). Similarly, the rate of AEs was comparable between the two groups (4% vs. 14%, P = 0.54). The median procedure time was significantly shorter in the EUS-BD group than in the BAE-ERCP group (32.5 [interquartile range; IQR, 28.8–52.5] minutes vs. 70.0 [IQR, 60.0–90.0] minutes, P < 0.01). In cases with grade 2 or 3 cholangitis, the rates of technical success, clinical success, and AEs did not significantly differ between the two groups. However, the median procedure time was significantly shorter in the EUS-BD group than in the BAE-ERCP group (32.5 [IQR, 28.8–52.5] minutes vs. 70 [IQR, 56.3–90.0] minutes, P < 0.01). Conclusion While both BAE-ERCP and EUS-BD can be performed safely and effectively in patients with AC and SAA, the procedure time is significantly shorter with EUS-BD than with BAE-ERCP.

Background: No studies have compared balloon-assisted endoscope-guided endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (BAE-ERCP) and endoscopic ultrasonography-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) for emergent treatment of acute cholangitis (AC) in patients with upper gastrointestinal surgically altered anatomy (SAA). Methods: This study retrospectively evaluated consecutive patients who underwent emergent BAE-ERCP or EUS-BD for AC with SAA between January 2020 and March 2024. Technical success, clinical success, procedure time, and adverse events (AEs) were compared between the two groups. Results: This study included 23 patients in the BAE-ERCP group and 14 patients in the EUS-BD group. Technical success and clinical success rates did not significantly differ between the two groups (88% vs. 100%, P = 0.51 and 95% vs. 93%, P = 0.66). Similarly, the rate of AEs was comparable between the two groups (4% vs. 14%, P = 0.54). The median procedure time was significantly shorter in the EUS-BD group than in the BAE-ERCP group (32.5 [interquartile range; IQR, 28.8–52.5] minutes vs. 70.0 [IQR, 60.0–90.0] minutes, P < 0.01). In cases with grade 2 or 3 cholangitis, the rates of technical success, clinical success, and AEs did not significantly differ between the two groups. However, the median procedure time was significantly shorter in the EUS-BD group than in the BAE-ERCP group (32.5 [IQR, 28.8–52.5] minutes vs. 70 [IQR, 56.3–90.0] minutes, P < 0.01). Conclusion While both BAE-ERCP and EUS-BD can be performed safely and effectively in patients with AC and SAA, the procedure time is significantly shorter with EUS-BD than with BAE-ERCP.

Background: No studies have compared balloon-assisted endoscope-guided endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (BAE-ERCP) and endoscopic ultrasonography-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) for emergent treatment of acute cholangitis (AC) in patients with upper gastrointestinal surgically altered anatomy (SAA). Methods: This study retrospectively evaluated consecutive patients who underwent emergent BAE-ERCP or EUS-BD for AC with SAA between January 2020 and March 2024. Technical success, clinical success, procedure time, and adverse events (AEs) were compared between the two groups. Results: This study included 23 patients in the BAE-ERCP group and 14 patients in the EUS-BD group. Technical success and clinical success rates did not significantly differ between the two groups (88% vs. 100%, P = 0.51 and 95% vs. 93%, P = 0.66). Similarly, the rate of AEs was comparable between the two groups (4% vs. 14%, P = 0.54). The median procedure time was significantly shorter in the EUS-BD group than in the BAE-ERCP group (32.5 [interquartile range; IQR, 28.8–52.5] minutes vs. 70.0 [IQR, 60.0–90.0] minutes, P < 0.01). In cases with grade 2 or 3 cholangitis, the rates of technical success, clinical success, and AEs did not significantly differ between the two groups. However, the median procedure time was significantly shorter in the EUS-BD group than in the BAE-ERCP group (32.5 [IQR, 28.8–52.5] minutes vs. 70 [IQR, 56.3–90.0] minutes, P < 0.01). Conclusion While both BAE-ERCP and EUS-BD can be performed safely and effectively in patients with AC and SAA, the procedure time is significantly shorter with EUS-BD than with BAE-ERCP.

Context: Delirium in cancer is often difficult to control and refractory when haloperidol is invalid which is considered standard therapy. We need second and subsequent-line therapy to reduce hyperactivity and not to over-sedation for refractory delirium. Objectives: To investigate the efficacy and safety of continuous subcutaneous infusion chlorpromazine on delirium refractory to first-line antipsychiatric medications in advanced cancer palliative care setting. Method: The study population consisted of patients who received continuous subcutaneous infusion chlorpromazine for delirium at two certified PCU. Primary endpoint was the proportion of patients who showed improvements in delirium severity by Delirium Rating Scale Revised 98 score of less than 13 or decrease from baseline and maintained the ability to communicate coherently by Communication Capacity Scale Item-4 score of 2 or less. Secondary outcome were the Nursing Delirium Screening Scale subscale score, and injection site reactions evaluated according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events. These outcome measures were assessed at baseline, 48 hours and 7 days after the start of the study. Result: Among eighty-four patients, sixty were positive responders (71.4%, 95% CI [61–80]). The mean CCS Item-4 scores significantly decreased from the baseline value of 1.48 (range 0–3) to 1.03 (range 0–3) at post-treatment (p<0.001). Grade 2 or higher injection site reactions were observed in 1 patient (1.2%, 95% CI [0–7]). Conclusion: Our study suggested that continuous subcutaneous infusion chlorpromazine could improve refractory delirium symptoms and patients’ communication capabilities. Although most of the skin disorders observed in association with chlorpromazine were mild, their incidence rates were relatively high, suggesting the need for careful monitoring.