| Literature DB >> 32454259 |
B Joseph Elmunzer1, Zachary L Smith2, Paul Tarnasky3, Andrew Y Wang4, Patrick Yachimski5, Filip Banovac6, Jonathan M Buscaglia7, James Buxbaum8, Amitabh Chak2, Bradford Chong8, Gregory A Coté9, Peter V Draganov10, Kulwinder Dua11, Valerie Durkalski12, Brian S Geller13, Laith H Jamil14, Rajesh N Keswani15, Mouen A Khashab16, Ryan Law17, Simon K Lo14, Sean McCarthy18, J Bayne Selby19, Vikesh K Singh16, Jason R Taylor20, Field F Willingham21, Rebecca L Spitzer9, Lydia D Foster12.
Abstract
Percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD) and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) are widely accepted but competing approaches for the management of malignant obstruction at the hilum of the liver. ERCP is favored in the United States on the basis of high success rates for non-hilar indications, the perceived safety and superior tissue sampling capability of ERCP relative to PTBD, and the avoidance of external drains that are undesirable to patients. A recent randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing the 2 modalities in patients with resectable hilar cholangiocarcinoma was terminated prematurely because of higher mortality in the PTBD group.1 In contrast, most observational data suggest that PTBD is superior for achieving complete drainage.2-6 Because the preferred procedure remains uncertain, we aimed to compare PTBD and ERCP as the primary intervention in patients with cholestasis due to malignant hilar obstruction (MHO).Entities:
Mesh：
Year: 2020 PMID： 32454259 PMCID： PMC8776356 DOI： 10.1016/j.cgh.2020.05.035
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol ISSN： 1542-3565 Impact factor: 11.382