BACKGROUND:Endoscopic papillary balloon dilation (EPBD) was associated with a higher rate of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP). AIM: The purpose of this study was to determine whether placement of an endoscopic nasobiliary drainage (ENBD) catheter can also prevent PEP after EPBD. METHODS: A total of 93 patients, who with proven common bile duct (CBD) stones, received EPBD were enrolled this trial. They were randomly divided into ENBD group (n = 45) and no-ENBD group (n = 48) according whether undergone an ENBD procedure after EPBD. Their demographics, laboratory, procedural data were collected, and pancreaticobiliary complications were followed. RESULTS: The number of patients with serum amylase levels above the normal upper limit (>180 U/L) did not differ between groups. However, compared with ENBD group, more patients in No-ENBD group had levels greater than three times the normal limit (>540 U/L) (11/48 vs 3/45, P = 0.0285), and more patients developed to PEP (7/48 vs 0/45, P = 0.0250). During follow-up, the numbers of patients undergone cholecystectomy, cholangitis and recurrence of CBD stones were similar. There was also no significant difference in the cumulative rate of recurrent pancreaticobiliary complications between the two groups (P = 0.452). CONCLUSIONS: EPBD followed by insertion of an ENBD catheter can prevent PEP, and routine ENBD catheter placement is recommended after an EPBD procedure.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Endoscopic papillary balloon dilation (EPBD) was associated with a higher rate of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP). AIM: The purpose of this study was to determine whether placement of an endoscopic nasobiliary drainage (ENBD) catheter can also prevent PEP after EPBD. METHODS: A total of 93 patients, who with proven common bile duct (CBD) stones, received EPBD were enrolled this trial. They were randomly divided into ENBD group (n = 45) and no-ENBD group (n = 48) according whether undergone an ENBD procedure after EPBD. Their demographics, laboratory, procedural data were collected, and pancreaticobiliary complications were followed. RESULTS: The number of patients with serum amylase levels above the normal upper limit (>180 U/L) did not differ between groups. However, compared with ENBD group, more patients in No-ENBD group had levels greater than three times the normal limit (>540 U/L) (11/48 vs 3/45, P = 0.0285), and more patients developed to PEP (7/48 vs 0/45, P = 0.0250). During follow-up, the numbers of patients undergone cholecystectomy, cholangitis and recurrence of CBD stones were similar. There was also no significant difference in the cumulative rate of recurrent pancreaticobiliary complications between the two groups (P = 0.452). CONCLUSIONS: EPBD followed by insertion of an ENBD catheter can prevent PEP, and routine ENBD catheter placement is recommended after an EPBD procedure.
Authors: James A Disario; Martin L Freeman; David J Bjorkman; Padraic Macmathuna; Bret T Petersen; Philip E Jaffe; Thomas G Morales; Lee J Hixson; Stuart Sherman; Glen A Lehman; M Mazen Jamal; Firas H Al-Kawas; Mukul Khandelwal; Joseph P Moore; Gregory A Derfus; Priya A Jamidar; Francisco C Ramirez; Michael E Ryan; Karen L Woods; David L Carr-Locke; Stephen C Alder Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2004-11 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: J J Bergman; A M van Berkel ; M J Bruno; P Fockens; E A Rauws; J G Tijssen; G N Tytgat; K Huibregtse Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2001-01 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Abhishek Choudhary; Matthew L Bechtold; Murtaza Arif; Nicholas M Szary; Srinivas R Puli; Mohamed O Othman; Wilson P Pais; Mainor R Antillon; Praveen K Roy Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2011-02 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: J J Bergman; E A Rauws; P Fockens; A M van Berkel; P M Bossuyt; J G Tijssen; G N Tytgat; K Huibregtse Journal: Lancet Date: 1997-04-19 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Danny W H Lee; Angus C W Chan; Yuk-Hoi Lam; Enders K W Ng; James Y W Lau; Bonita K B Law; Chi-wai Lai; Joseph J Y Sung; S C Sydney Chung Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2002-09 Impact factor: 9.427