Large common bile duct stones in high-risk elderly patients: Immediate endoscopic stone removal or elective stone removal? A single-center retrospective study

Abstract

Background and objectiveFor high-risk elderly patients with chronic diseases, endoscopic stone removal for large common bile duct stones is associated with a high risk of adverse events and incomplete stone removal. The aim of this study was to investigate whether the treatment strategy of short-term biliary plastic stent placement followed by elective endoscopic stone removal is more effective and safer than immediate endoscopic stone removal.MethodsThe data of 262 high-risk elderly patients who received endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) for large common bile duct (CBD) stones from 2017 to 2022 were retrospectively analyzed. The patients were divided into group A (immediate stone removal) and group B (stent drainage + elective stone removal). The baseline data of the 2 groups were matched 1:1 by propensity score matching. The stone clearance rate, ERCP procedure time, total hospital stay, and procedure-related adverse events were compared between the matched groups. In group B, stone size before and after stent placement, hospital stay, procedure time and adverse events of two ERCPs were compared.ResultsA total of 57 pairs of patients were successfully matched between the 2 groups. The stone clearance rate in group B was higher than that in group A (89.5% vs. 75.3, P = 0.049). The total hospital stay in group B was longer than that in group A (11.86 ± 3.912 d vs. 19.14 ± 3.176 d, P<0.001). The total adverse event rate in group A was higher than that in group B (29.8% vs. 12.3%, P = 0.005). The incidence of cholangitis/cholecystitis after ERCP was significantly higher in group A than in group B (7.0% vs. 0.9% P = 0.029). There was no significant difference in the incidence of post-ERCP pancreatitis, bleeding, pneumonia, and cardio-cerebrovascular events between the 2 groups. There were no perforation cases in either group. After plastic biliary stent placement in group B, the stone size was significantly smaller than before stent placement (1.59 ± 0.544 cm vs. 1.95 ± 0.543 cm, P < 0.001), and there was no significant difference in the total adverse event incidence between the two ERCP procedures (18.8% vs. 10.9%, P = 0.214).ConclusionFor high-risk elderly patients with large CBD stones, the treatment strategy involving temporary placement of plastic stent and elective endoscopic stone removal is safer and more effective than immediate stone removal.