BACKGROUND:Endoscopic retrograde biliary drainage (ERBD) using a plastic stent is suggested to be as effective as endoscopic nasobiliary drainage (ENBD) with a nasobiliary catheter for temporary biliary drainage in acute obstructive cholangitis. However, there are few studies that have compared the two methods. We therefore compared the safety and effectiveness of endoscopic biliary decompression by nasobiliary catheter versus plastic stent placement in these patients. METHODS: A total of 94 screened patients with acute obstructive cholangitis were randomised to undergo emergency endoscopic biliary drainage with ENBD (n = 47) or ERBD (n = 47). Clinical outcomes and adverse events were compared. RESULTS: Patient backgrounds were similar in the two groups. Endoscopic biliary drainage was successfully achieved in all patients. Eleven patients underwentunscheduled endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) to replace the nasobiliary catheter, 10 due to a catheter (1 in the ENBD group) or stent (9 in the ERBD group) blockage and 1 due to catheter migration. Clinical manifestations were similar, however, there was a significantly lower patient discomfort score in the ERBD group (p <0.05). The mean serum gamma-glutamyltransferase and total bilirubin concentrations after ERCP were significantly higher in the ERBD than ENBD group (p <0.001). Complication rates were similar in the ENBD and ERBD groups. However, the incidence rate of blockage in ERBD was statistically higher than ENBD (p = 0.015). CONCLUSIONS:Endoscopic biliary decompression is an effective treatment for patients with acute obstructive cholangitis. In contrast to other studies, we found an increased rate of blockage in the ERBD group and a greater decrease in liver enzyme levels in the ENBD group.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Endoscopic retrograde biliary drainage (ERBD) using a plastic stent is suggested to be as effective as endoscopic nasobiliary drainage (ENBD) with a nasobiliary catheter for temporary biliary drainage in acute obstructive cholangitis. However, there are few studies that have compared the two methods. We therefore compared the safety and effectiveness of endoscopic biliary decompression by nasobiliary catheter versus plastic stent placement in these patients. METHODS: A total of 94 screened patients with acute obstructive cholangitis were randomised to undergo emergency endoscopic biliary drainage with ENBD (n = 47) or ERBD (n = 47). Clinical outcomes and adverse events were compared. RESULTS:Patient backgrounds were similar in the two groups. Endoscopic biliary drainage was successfully achieved in all patients. Eleven patients underwent unscheduled endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) to replace the nasobiliary catheter, 10 due to a catheter (1 in the ENBD group) or stent (9 in the ERBD group) blockage and 1 due to catheter migration. Clinical manifestations were similar, however, there was a significantly lower patient discomfort score in the ERBD group (p <0.05). The mean serum gamma-glutamyltransferase and total bilirubin concentrations after ERCP were significantly higher in the ERBD than ENBD group (p <0.001). Complication rates were similar in the ENBD and ERBD groups. However, the incidence rate of blockage in ERBD was statistically higher than ENBD (p = 0.015). CONCLUSIONS: Endoscopic biliary decompression is an effective treatment for patients with acute obstructive cholangitis. In contrast to other studies, we found an increased rate of blockage in the ERBD group and a greater decrease in liver enzyme levels in the ENBD group.
Authors: Seong Ji Choi; Jae Min Lee; Hyuk Soon Choi; Eun Sun Kim; Bora Keum; Yeon Seok Seo; Yoon Tae Jeen; Hong Sik Lee; Hoon Jai Chun; Soon Ho Um; Chang Duck Kim; Chi Hyuk Oh Journal: BMC Gastroenterol Date: 2019-12-21 Impact factor: 3.067