{"title":"胆总管结石引起的急性胆管炎的一期内镜治疗与二期内镜治疗:一项回顾性多中心队列研究。","authors":"Akinori Maruta, Takuji Iwashita, Kensaku Yoshida, Yuhei Iwasa, Mitsuru Okuno, Keisuke Iwata, Ryuichi Tezuka, Shinya Uemura, Shogo Shimizu, Masahito Shimizu","doi":"10.1002/jhbp.1431","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>One-stage endoscopic management, where papillary interventions and stone removal are simultaneously performed, has been reported to be an effective treatment for acute cholangitis caused by common bile duct stones (CBDS). However, there have been few reports comparing it with two-stage management, and there is no established strategy for the indication of one-stage management. The aim of the present study was to compare the short- and long-term outcomes between one- and two-stage management for acute cholangitis caused by CBDS.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>We retrospectively studied 577 patients who underwent one- or two-stage endoscopic management for acute cholangitis between May 2010 and December 2020. The patients were divided into one- and two-stage groups by endoscopic management. The clinical outcomes were compared between groups.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>The technical and clinical success were similar in both groups, although the length of hospital stay was significantly shorter in the one-stage group. Although there was no difference in the early adverse event (AE) between two groups, post-ERCP pancreatitis was recognized in 3.4% and 10.0%, which was significantly higher in the two-stage group. The cumulative late AE rate was 22.6% and 14.1%, which was significantly higher in the one-stage group. In the multivariate analyses, intervention (one-stage), number of CBDS ≥2, biliary drainage, the use of ML, and gallbladder stone were identified as significant factors associated with the recurrence of CBDS.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>Although one-stage endoscopic management is useful and safe with reducing hospital stays, diligent postoperative follow-up with consideration to recurrence of CBDS is essential.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":16056,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Hepato‐Biliary‐Pancreatic Sciences","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"One-stage versus two-stage endoscopic management for acute cholangitis caused by common bile duct stones: A retrospective multicenter cohort study\",\"authors\":\"Akinori Maruta, Takuji Iwashita, Kensaku Yoshida, Yuhei Iwasa, Mitsuru Okuno, Keisuke Iwata, Ryuichi Tezuka, Shinya Uemura, Shogo Shimizu, Masahito Shimizu\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/jhbp.1431\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Background</h3>\\n \\n <p>One-stage endoscopic management, where papillary interventions and stone removal are simultaneously performed, has been reported to be an effective treatment for acute cholangitis caused by common bile duct stones (CBDS). However, there have been few reports comparing it with two-stage management, and there is no established strategy for the indication of one-stage management. The aim of the present study was to compare the short- and long-term outcomes between one- and two-stage management for acute cholangitis caused by CBDS.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Methods</h3>\\n \\n <p>We retrospectively studied 577 patients who underwent one- or two-stage endoscopic management for acute cholangitis between May 2010 and December 2020. The patients were divided into one- and two-stage groups by endoscopic management. The clinical outcomes were compared between groups.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Results</h3>\\n \\n <p>The technical and clinical success were similar in both groups, although the length of hospital stay was significantly shorter in the one-stage group. Although there was no difference in the early adverse event (AE) between two groups, post-ERCP pancreatitis was recognized in 3.4% and 10.0%, which was significantly higher in the two-stage group. The cumulative late AE rate was 22.6% and 14.1%, which was significantly higher in the one-stage group. In the multivariate analyses, intervention (one-stage), number of CBDS ≥2, biliary drainage, the use of ML, and gallbladder stone were identified as significant factors associated with the recurrence of CBDS.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\\n \\n <p>Although one-stage endoscopic management is useful and safe with reducing hospital stays, diligent postoperative follow-up with consideration to recurrence of CBDS is essential.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16056,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Hepato‐Biliary‐Pancreatic Sciences\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Hepato‐Biliary‐Pancreatic Sciences\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jhbp.1431\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Hepato‐Biliary‐Pancreatic Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jhbp.1431","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
One-stage versus two-stage endoscopic management for acute cholangitis caused by common bile duct stones: A retrospective multicenter cohort study
Background
One-stage endoscopic management, where papillary interventions and stone removal are simultaneously performed, has been reported to be an effective treatment for acute cholangitis caused by common bile duct stones (CBDS). However, there have been few reports comparing it with two-stage management, and there is no established strategy for the indication of one-stage management. The aim of the present study was to compare the short- and long-term outcomes between one- and two-stage management for acute cholangitis caused by CBDS.
Methods
We retrospectively studied 577 patients who underwent one- or two-stage endoscopic management for acute cholangitis between May 2010 and December 2020. The patients were divided into one- and two-stage groups by endoscopic management. The clinical outcomes were compared between groups.
Results
The technical and clinical success were similar in both groups, although the length of hospital stay was significantly shorter in the one-stage group. Although there was no difference in the early adverse event (AE) between two groups, post-ERCP pancreatitis was recognized in 3.4% and 10.0%, which was significantly higher in the two-stage group. The cumulative late AE rate was 22.6% and 14.1%, which was significantly higher in the one-stage group. In the multivariate analyses, intervention (one-stage), number of CBDS ≥2, biliary drainage, the use of ML, and gallbladder stone were identified as significant factors associated with the recurrence of CBDS.
Conclusion
Although one-stage endoscopic management is useful and safe with reducing hospital stays, diligent postoperative follow-up with consideration to recurrence of CBDS is essential.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Hepato-Biliary-Pancreatic Sciences (JHBPS) is the leading peer-reviewed journal in the field of hepato-biliary-pancreatic sciences. JHBPS publishes articles dealing with clinical research as well as translational research on all aspects of this field. Coverage includes Original Article, Review Article, Images of Interest, Rapid Communication and an announcement section. Letters to the Editor and comments on the journal’s policies or content are also included. JHBPS welcomes submissions from surgeons, physicians, endoscopists, radiologists, oncologists, and pathologists.