Endoscopic Biliary Drainage Group Research Articles

Critically-Ill Patients with Biliary Obstruction and Cholangitis: Bedside Fluoroscopic-Free Endoscopic Drainage versus Percutaneous Drainage.

Severe acute cholangitis is a life-threatening medical emergency. Endoscopic biliary drainage (EBD) or percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD) is usually used for biliary decompression. However, it can be risky to transport a critical patient to the radiology unit. We aimed to compare clinical outcomes between bedside, radiation-free EBD and fluoroscopic-guided PTBD in patients under critical care. Methods: A retrospective study was conducted on critically ill patients admitted to the intensive care unit with biliary obstruction and cholangitis from January 2011 to April 2020. Results: A total of 16 patients receiving EBD and 31 patients receiving PTBD due to severe acute cholangitis were analyzed. In the EBD group, biliary drainage was successfully conducted in 15 (93.8%) patients. Only one patient (6.25%) encountered post-procedure pancreatitis. The 30-day mortality rate was no difference between the 2 groups (32.72% vs. 31.25%, p = 0.96). Based on multivariate analysis, independent prognostic factors for the 30-day mortality were a medical history of malignancy other than pancreatobiliary origin (HR: 5.27, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.01–27.57) and emergent dialysis (HR: 7.30, 95% CI: 2.20–24.24). Conclusions: Bedside EBD is safe and as effective as percutaneous drainage in critically ill patients. It provides lower risks in patient transportation but does require experienced endoscopists to perform the procedure.

Negative prognostic outcomes of percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage in distal cholangiocarcinoma: a retrospective analysis using propensity score matching.

The efficacy of different types of preoperative biliary drainage for cholangiocarcinoma has been debated over the past two decades. Controversy concerning the use of percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD) versus endoscopic biliary drainage (EBD) still exists. This study aimed to compare the long-term outcomes between PTBD and EBD in patients with distal cholangiocarcinoma. Data of patients diagnosed with distal cholangiocarcinoma who underwent preoperative PTBD or EBD from January 1999 to December 2017 were analyzed retrospectively. Post-surgical outcomes, including the incidence of post-operative complications, peritoneal metastasis, disease-free survival, and overall survival, were analyzed. Survival analyses were also performed after propensity score matching in the PTBD and EBD groups. The incidence of post-operative complications was similar in both groups. The 5-year estimated cumulative incidences for peritoneal metastasis were 14.7% and 7.2% in the PTBD and EBD groups, respectively (p = 0.192). The 5-year disease-free survival rates were 23.7% and 47.3% in the PTBD and EBD groups, respectively (p = 0.015). In the multi-variate analysis for overall survival, PTBD was an independent poor prognostic factor. The 5-year overall survival rates were 35.9% and 56.3% in the PTBD and EBD groups, respectively (hazard ratio 1.85, confidence interval 1.05-3.26, p = 0.035). The results after propensity score matching indicated a poorer prognosis in the PTBD group, with a 5-year survival rate of 35.9% in the PTBD group vs 56.0% in the EBD group (p = 0.044). PTBD should be considered as a negative prognostic factor in distal cholangiocarcinoma patients.

Evaluation of the change in liver stiffness after biliary drainage in patients with extrahepatic cholestasis

Increased liver stiffness (LS) due to extrahepatic cholestasis has been reported to reduce after biliary drainage. As far as we know, it has not been evaluated whether the method of drainage makes a difference in the change in liver stiffness until now. The aim of the study was to answer this question. The patients planned for endoscopic biliary drainage (EBD) or percutaneous biliary drainage (PBD) were enrolled for over an 18-months’ time period. In those without chronic liver disease or liver tumor, liver stiffness was measured before and 10 days after the intervention, using acoustic radiation force impulse (ARFI) elastography. A total of 30 patients were included in the study excluding the ones not fulfilling the criteria and were divided into two groups: EBD group (n = 15) and PBD group (n = 15). The measurements were above the cut-off value for severe fibrosis (1.55 m/s) in all patients with a mean of 2.50 ± 0.72 m/s before drainage. The pre-drainage values of the PBD group were significantly higher than of the EBD group (2.79 ± 0.58 m/s vs 2.22 ± 0.74 m/s, p = 0.02). In all patients except 11, a significant reduction was observed in the stiffness values. The reduction with PBD was more significant than with EBD (p = 0.04). Percutaneous biliary drainage provided a more significant reduction in liver stiffness in patients with extrahepatic cholestasis. However, this result appears to be related to the nature of obstruction rather than the method of drainage, making the comparison weaker than expected from the original design.

Effects of different preoperative biliary drainage methods for resected malignant obstruction jaundice on the incidence rate of implantation metastasis: A meta‑analysis

The aim of the present study was to compare the effects of percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD) and endoscopic biliary drainage (EBD) for resected malignant obstruction jaundice (MOJ) on the incidence rate of implantation metastasis. Databases including PubMed, EMbase, Web of Science and Cochrane Library were utilized. With reference to literature reported until January 2019, controlled clinical trials were designed to compare the effects of PTBD and EBD for MOJ on the incidence rate of implantation metastasis. Subsequently, odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated with Review Manager 5.3.0 software. A total of 10 studies were enrolled in this meta-analysis, including 1,085 cases in the PTBD group and 1,379 cases in the EBD group. The results revealed that there was a significant difference in the incidence rate of implantation metastasis between the PTBD group and EBD group (OR=0.35, 95% CI: 0.23–0.53, P<0.00001). Subgroup analysis revealed that the incidence rates of both catheter-related implantation metastasis and peritoneal metastasis were lower in the EBD group (OR=0.23, 95% CI: 0.12–0.44, P<0.00001; OR=0.47, 95% CI: 0.31–0.74, P=0.0008, respectively), and the advantage of EBD was demonstrated in perihilar cholangiocarcinoma, distal cholangiocarcinoma and pancreatic carcinoma (OR=0.35, 95% CI: 0.17–0.74, P=0.006; OR=0.32, 95% CI: 0.17–0.60, P=0.0005; OR=0.27, 95% CI: 0.19–0.40, P<0.00001, respectively). In conclusion, this meta-analysis revealed the appropriate choice of preoperative biliary drainage for resected MOJ. The application of EBD reduced the incidence rate of implantation metastasis, however more evidence is required from future studies, to confirm the results.

Endoscopic Versus Percutaneous Preoperative Biliary Drainage in Patients With Klatskin Tumor Undergoing Curative Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Short-Term and Long-Term Outcomes.

Aims. To compare short-term and long-term outcomes of preoperative endoscopic biliary drainage (EBD) and percutaneous biliary drainage (PBD) in patients with Klatskin tumor undergoing curative surgery. Methods. We conducted a search of electronic information sources to identify all studies comparing EBD and PBD in patients with Klatskin tumor undergoing curative surgery. We used the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale to assess the risk of bias observational studies. Random-effects or fixed-effects modeling was applied as appropriate to calculate pooled outcome data. Results. We identified 9 observational studies, enrolling a total of 1436 patients. The patients in the PBD group had more advanced disease than those in EBD group in terms of Bismuth-Corlette classification and tumor classification. EBD was associated with higher risks of postprocedural complications (odds ratio [OR] =2.24, P = .001), conversion to another drainage method (OR =11.16, P < .00001), cholangitis (OR = 4.58, P < .0001), and pancreatitis (OR = 8.90, P = .009) than PBD; there was no difference between the 2 methods in terms of technical success (OR = 0.79, P = .50) and tube dislocation (OR = 0.81, P = .54). Regarding the postoperative outcomes, there was no difference in terms of 30-day mortality (OR = 0.61, P = .16) and major postoperative complications (OR = 0.60, P = .06). Regarding the long-term outcomes, EBD was associated with lower risks of seeding metastasis (OR = 0.46, P = .0004) and 5-year recurrence (OR = 0.72, P = .010), and better 5-year survival (OR = 1.62, P = .001). Conclusions. EBD may be associated with higher procedure-related complications compared with PBD as a preoperative biliary drainage method in patients with Klatskin tumor undergoing curative surgery. The available evidence on long-term oncological and survival outcomes are subject to confounding by indication, and high-quality randomized controlled trials are required for definite conclusions.

Impact of preoperative percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage on post-operative survival in patients with distal cholangiocarcinoma.

The aim of this study was to investigate the long-term impact of the type of preoperative biliary drainage used for patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy for distal cholangiocarcinoma (DCC). A total of 84 patients with DCC who underwent preoperative biliary drainage between June 2000 and December 2016 were divided into groups for whom percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD) (n = 24) or endoscopic biliary drainage (EBD) (n = 60) was used. The 5-year overall survival in the PTBD group was significantly worse than that in the EBD group (16.7% versus 52.3%, P = 0.007). After propensity score matching (22 patients in each group), the 5-year overall survival in the PTBD group was still worse than that in the EBD group (13.6% versus 61.2%, P = 0.003). Multivariate analysis revealed that PTBD was independent risk factor for both poor survival (P = 0.028) and peritoneal recurrence (P = 0.018). The incidence of multiple sites at initial recurrence tended to be higher in the PTBD group than in the EBD group (P = 0.080). PTBD should not be performed for patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy for DCC, except when EBD is contraindicated, as PTBD is significantly associated with shorter survival and peritoneal recurrence.

Preoperative biliary drainage for perihilar cholangiocarcinoma: A Meta-analysis

Objective To systematically review the effectiveness and safety of percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD) versus endoscopic biliary drainage (EBD) for preoperative biliary drainage in patients with Klatskin Tumors. Methods The Pubmed, Embase, Web of Science, CNKI, VIP and WanFang Data from January 1998 to December 2017 were searched for published studies which compared endoscopic biliary drainage (EBD) with percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD) for preoperative biliary drainage. A Meta-analysis was then performed using the Revman 5.3 software. Results Seven cohort studies were included. There were 366 patients in the PTBD group, and 400 patients in the EBD groups. When compared with EBD, PTBD was associated with a lower risk of cholangitis (OR=0.31, 95% CI 0.20~0.48, P<0.05), a lower risk of pancreatitis (OR=0.11, 95% CI 0.04~0.34, P<0.05), and a lower risk of overall complications (OR=0.48, 95% CI 0.30~0.77, P=0.002). The rate of conversion from one procedure to the other was significantly lower in the PTBD group than the EBD group. The initial technical success rate and postoperative morbidity and mortality rates were similar in the 2 groups. Conclusion In patients with Klatskin tumors who require PBD, PTBD is a better initial biliary drainage method with lower incidences of procedure-related cholangitis, pancreatitis overall complications and conversion to other drainage procedures. Key words: Percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD); Endoscopic biliary drainage (EBD); Preoperative biliary drainage (PBD); Perihilar cholangiocarcinoma; Meta-analysis

Endoscopic versus percutaneous biliary drainage in patients with resectable perihilar cholangiocarcinoma: a multicentre, randomised controlled trial

In patients with resectable perihilar cholangiocarcinoma, biliary drainage is recommended to treat obstructive jaundice and optimise the clinical condition before liver resection. Little evidence exists on the preferred initial method of biliary drainage. We therefore investigated the incidence of severe drainage-related complications of endoscopic biliary drainage or percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage in patients with potentially resectable perihilar cholangiocarcinoma. We did a multicentre, randomised controlled trial at four academic centres in the Netherlands. Patients who were aged at least 18 years with potentially resectable perihilar cholangiocarcinoma requiring major liver resection, and biliary obstruction of the future liver remnant (defined as a bilirubin concentration of >50 μmol/L [2·9 mg/dL]), were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive endoscopic biliary drainage or percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage through the use of computer-generated allocation. Randomisation, done by the trial coordinator, was stratified for previous (attempted) biliary drainage, the extent of bile duct involvement, and enrolling centre. Patients were enrolled by clinicians of the participating centres. The primary outcome was the number of severe complications between randomisation and surgery in the intention-to-treat population. The trial was registered at the Netherlands National Trial Register, number NTR4243. From Sept 26, 2013, to April 29, 2016, 261 patients were screened for participation, and 54 eligible patients were randomly assigned to endoscopic biliary drainage (n=27) or percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (n=27). The study was prematurely closed because of higher mortality in the percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage group (11 [41%] of 27 patients) than in the endoscopic biliary drainage group (three [11%] of 27 patients; relative risk 3·67, 95% CI 1·15-11·69; p=0·03). Three of the 11 deaths among patients in the percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage group occurred before surgery. The proportion of patients with severe preoperative drainage-related complications was similar between the groups (17 [63%] patients in the percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage group vs 18 [67%] in the endoscopic biliary drainage group; relative risk 0·94, 95% CI 0·64-1·40). 16 (59%) patients in the percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage group and ten (37%) patients in the endoscopic biliary drainage group developed preoperative cholangitis (p=0·1). 15 (56%) patients required additional percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage after endoscopic biliary drainage, whereas only one (4%) patient required endoscopic biliary drainage after percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage. The study was prematurely stopped because of higher all-cause mortality in the percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage group. Post-drainage complications were similar between groups, but the data should be interpreted with caution because of the small sample size. The results call for further prospective studies and reconsideration of indications and strategy towards biliary drainage in this complex disease. Dutch Cancer Foundation.

Preoperative Biliary Drainage in Patients with Resectable Perihilar Cholangiocarcinoma: Is Percutaneous Transhepatic Biliary Drainage Safer and More Effective than Endoscopic Biliary Drainage? A Meta-Analysis

PurposeTo determine the best initial procedure for performing preoperative biliary drainage in patients with resectable perihilar cholangiocarcinoma (PHCC). Materials and MethodsMEDLINE/PubMed and the Cochrane database were searched for all studies published until June 2016 comparing endoscopic biliary drainage (EBD) and percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD) for preoperative biliary drainage. Meta-analysis was performed by using Review Manager 5.3 software. ResultsFour retrospective studies were identified that met the criteria. The analysis was performed on 433 patients who underwent preoperative biliary drainage for resectable PHCC. Of those, 275 (63.5%) had EBD and 158 (36.5%) had PTBD as the initial procedure. The overall procedure-related morbidity rate was significantly lower in the PTBD group than in the EBD group (39 of 147 [26.5%] vs 82 of 185 [44.3%]; odds ratio [OR], 2.23; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.39–3.57; P = .0009). The rate of conversion from one procedure to the other was significantly lower in the PTBD group than in the EBD group (8 of 158 [5.0%] vs 73 of 275 [26.5%]; odds ratio, 4.76; 95% CI, 2.71–8.36; P < .00001). Pancreatitis occurred only in the EBD group (25 of 275 [9.0%] vs 0 of 158; OR, 7.46; 95% CI, 3.02–18.44; P < .0001). The cholangitis rate was significantly lower in the PTBD group than in the EBD group (12 of 158 [7.6%] vs 93 of 275 [33.8%]; OR, 5.41; 95% CI, 2.75–10.63; P < .00001). ConclusionsThis meta-analysis shows that PTBD has a lower rate of complications than EBD as the initial procedure to perform preoperative biliary drainage in resectable PHCC. PTBD is associated with less conversion and lower rates of pancreatitis and cholangitis.

Prognostic impact of type of preoperative biliary drainage in patients with distal cholangiocarcinoma

BackgroundSurgical results of patients with resected distal cholangiocarcinoma (DCC) were evaluated to elucidate prognostic impact of the type of preoperative biliary drainage (PBD). MethodsEighty-eight patients with resected DCC were stratified into two groups according to the type of PBD: the percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD) group (n = 25) and the endoscopic biliary drainage (EBD) group (n = 63). ResultsOverall 5-year survival rate of the patients in the PTBD group was poorer than in the EBD group (24% vs. 52%, P = 0.020). On univariate analysis, PTBD, pancreatic invasion, perineural invasion, and lymph node involvement were significant prognostic factors for poor overall survival. On multivariate analysis, PTBD was the only significantly independent prognostic factor for poor overall survival. The incidence of liver metastasis was significantly higher in the PTBD group than in the EBD group (32.0% vs. 13.3%, P = 0.034). ConclusionsPTBD should be avoided as much as possible in patients with DCC since the patients who underwent PTBD had poorer overall survival and higher incidence of liver metastasis than those who underwent EBD.

Percutaneous biliary drainage is oncologically inferior to endoscopic drainage: a propensity score matching analysis in resectable distal cholangiocarcinoma.

The aim of this study was to evaluate whether percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD) increases the incidence of seeding metastasis and shortens postoperative survival compared with endoscopic biliary drainage (EBD). A total of 376 patients with distal cholangiocarcinoma who underwent pancreatoduodenectomy following either PTBD (n=189) or EBD (n=187) at 30 hospitals between 2001 and 2010 were retrospectively reviewed. Seeding metastasis was defined as peritoneal/pleural dissemination and PTBD sinus tract recurrence. Univariate and multivariate analyses followed by propensity score matching analysis were performed to adjust the data for the baseline characteristics between the two groups. The overall survival of the PTBD group was significantly shorter than that of the EBD group (34.2% vs 48.8% at 5years; P=0.003); multivariate analysis showed that the type of biliary drainage was an independent predictor of survival (P=0.036) and seeding metastasis (P=0.001). After two new cohorts with 82 patients each has been generated after 1:1 propensity score matching, the overall survival rate in the PTBD group was significantly less than that in the EBD group (34.7% vs 52.5% at 5years, P=0.017). The estimated recurrence rate of seeding metastasis was significantly higher in the PTBD group than in the EBD group (30.7% vs 10.7% at 5years, P=0.006), whereas the recurrence rates at other sites were similar between the two groups (P=0.579). Compared with EBD, PTBD increases the incidence of seeding metastasis after resection for distal cholangiocarcinoma and shortens postoperative survival.

Percutaneous transhepatic and endoscopic biliary drainage for malignant biliary tract obstruction: a meta-analysis

BackgroundVarious malignant tumors can obstruct the extrahepatic biliary tract. Two major techniques for restoring bile flow in this circumstance are endoscopic biliary drainage (EBD) and percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD).We conducted a meta-analysis to compare the effectiveness and safety of the two techniques.MethodsMedline, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library database were searched for articles published between January 1980 and December 2013. The outcome measures were therapeutic success rate (primary), 30-day mortality rate and overall complications.ResultsOf 264 screened articles, 3 randomized controlled trials comprising an aggregate total of 183 cancer patients were included in the meta-analysis. Our analysis showed no significant difference in restoration of bile flow between patients treated with EBD and those treated with PTBD (odds ratio (OR) = 2.34, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.32 to 17.16, P = 0.401). However, the result of sensitivity analysis indicated that the study conducted by Speer et al. influenced the pooled estimates. After the Speer et al. study was excluded, the therapeutic success rate of patients treated with PTBD was significantly greater than that of those who underwent EBD (OR = 5.48, 95% CI: 2.26 to 13.28, P < 0.001). The 30-day mortality and complication rates were similar in the EBD and PTBD groups.ConclusionsThe results of our meta-analysis indicate that PTBD had a higher therapeutic success rate than EBD in the treatment of malignancy-induced biliary obstruction. The mortality and complication rates of the two techniques were similar.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/1477-7819-12-272) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Endoscopic or Percutaneous Biliary Drainage for Klatskin Tumors?

PurposeControversy exists regarding the preferred biliary drainage technique in patients with Klatskin tumors because few comparative studies exist. This study compared outcomes of endoscopic biliary drainage (EBD) and percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD). Materials and MethodsConsecutive patients (N = 129) with Klatskin tumors treated with initial EBD or PTBD were identified, and their clinical histories were retrospectively reviewed. The primary endpoint was the time to therapeutic success (TTS), defined as the time between the first drainage and a total bilirubin measurement of 40 μmol/L or lower. ResultsEBD was the first biliary decompression procedure performed in 87 patients; PTBD was performed first in 42. Technical success rates (78% with EBD vs 98% with PTBD; P = .004) and therapeutic success rates (49% vs 79%, respectively; P = .002) were significantly lower in the EBD group than in the PTBD group. Forty-four patients in the EBD group (51%) subsequently underwent PTBD before therapeutic success was achieved or antitumoral treatment was started. Median TTSs were 61 days in the EBD group and 44 days in the PTBD group, and multivariate analysis showed a hazard ratio of 0.63 (95% confidence interval, 0.41–0.99; P = .045). In patients treated with surgery or chemotherapy with or without radiation therapy, median times to treatment were 76 and 68 days in the EBD and PTBD groups, respectively (P = .76). Cholangitis occurred in 25% and 21% of patients in the EBD and PTBD groups, respectively (P = .34). ConclusionsPTBD should be seriously considered for biliary decompression when treating patients with Klatskin tumor.

Endoscopic or percutaneous biliary drainage for Klatskin tumors? A large retrospective study.

277 Background: Controversy exists over the preferred technique of biliary drainage in patients with Klatskin tumors as few comparative studies exist. This study compared outcomes of endoscopic biliary drainage (EBD) and percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD). Methods: 129 patients with Klatskin tumors with an initial EBD or PTBD were identified from 01/01/1991 to 31/05/2011 and their clinical histories were retrospectively reviewed. The primary end point was the time to therapeutic success (TTS: time between the first drainage and a total bilirubin&lt;40µmol/L), estimated by Kaplan-Meier analysis. Results: The first biliary decompression procedure was EBD in 87 patients and PTBD in 42 patients. The technical (98% vs 78%, p=0.004) and therapeutic (79% vs 49%, p=0.002) successes were significantly higher in the PTBD group than EBD group, respectively; Forty four patients (51%) in the EBD group subsequently underwent a PTBD before achieving therapeutic success or starting their antitumoral treatment. The median TTS was 55 days in EBD group vs 44 days in the PTBD group (multivariate analysis: HR=0.63, 95% CI=0.41-0.99, p=0.045). In patients treated by surgery or chemotherapy +/− radiotherapy, the median time to treatment was 68 and 76 days in the PTBD group and the EBD group, respectively, p=0.76. 25% and 21% of cholangitis occurred in EBD and PTBD group, respectively (p=0.34). Conclusions: In the era where chemotherapy prolongs life even in advanced disease, shortening time to success matters. Our results suggest relying on PTB for biliary decompression would be an improved treatment strategy when treating patients with Klatskin tumor.

Comparison of Clinical Outcome and Cost-Effectiveness after Various Preoperative Biliary Drainage Methods in Periampullary Cancer with Obstructive Jaundice

The aim of this study was to compare the clinical outcome and cost-effectiveness of preoperative biliary drainage (BD) methods in periampullary cancer, and to suggest guidelines for selecting the appropriate preoperative BD method. Between October 2004 and August 2010, 211 patients underwent pancreatoduodenectomy after preoperative BD. Clinical outcome and cost-effectiveness of the preoperative BD methods were compared based on the final drainage method used and on intention-to-treat analysis. There was no significant difference in drainage duration between percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD) and endoscopic BD groups (14.2 vs 16.6 days, respectively; P = 0.121) but daily diminution of serum bilirubin level was higher in the PTBD group (0.7 vs 0.6 mg/dL/day, respectively; P = 0.041). Based on intention-to-treat analysis, drainage duration was shorter (13.2 vs 16.5 days, respectively; P = 0.049), daily diminution of serum bilirubin level was higher (0.7 vs 0.6 mg/dL/day, respectively; P = 0.041). Medical care cost was lower (14.2 vs 15.7 × 103 USD, respectively; P = 0.040) in the PTBD group than in the endoscopic BD group. When selecting the preoperative BD method, practitioners should consider that PTBD is more cost-effective and safer than endoscopic BD.

Endoscopic and Percutaneous Preoperative Biliary Drainage in Patients with Suspected Hilar Cholangiocarcinoma

IntroductionControversy exists over the preferred technique of preoperative biliary drainage (PBD) in patients with hilar cholangiocarcinoma (HCCA) requiring major liver resection. The current study compared outcomes of endoscopic biliary drainage (EBD) and percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD) in patients with resectable HCCA. MethodsOne hundred fifteen consecutive patients were explored for HCCA between 2001 and July 2008 and assigned by initial PBD procedure to either EBD or PTBD. ResultsOf these patients, 101 (88%) underwent PBD; 90 patients underwent EBD as primary procedure, and 11 PTBD. The technical success rate of initial drainage was 81% in the EBD versus 100% in the PTBD group (P = 0.20). Stent dislocation was similar in the EBD and PTBD groups (23% vs. 20%, P = 0.70). Infectious complications were significantly more common in the endoscopic group (48% vs. 9%, P < 0.05). Patients in the EBD group underwent more drainage procedures (2.8 vs. 1.4, P < 0.01) and had a significantly longer drainage period until laparotomy (mean 15 weeks vs. 11 weeks in the PTBD group; P < 0.05). In 30 patients, EBD was converted to PTBD due to failure of the endoscopic approach. ConclusionsPreoperative percutaneous drainage could outperform endoscopic stent placement in patients with resectable HCCA, showing fewer infectious complications, using less procedures.

Microbiological analysis of sepsis complicating non-surgical biliary drainage in malignant obstruction

Cholangitis with sepsis is a common complication of non-surgical biliary drainage and represents a difficult management problem. Microbiological data for 18 septic episodes in 15 patients following endoscopic biliary drainage (EBD) and 14 septic episodes in 14 patients following percutaneous transhepatic drainage (PTD) were reviewed. In the EBD group, all 18 patient episodes of sepsis had blood cultures and 10 had bile cultures obtained. In total, 17 gram-negative isolates and 5 gram-positive isolates were grown in the EBD sepsis group. All of the 14 PTD patients had bile cultures and 13 had blood cultures. In total, 23 gram-negative isolates and 26 gram-positive isolates were grown in the PTD sepsis group. When PTD cultures were compared with EBD cultures, there were significantly more gram-positive cultures (26 vs. 5) associated with PTD sepsis than EBD sepsis (p less than 0.0005). Analysis of the antibiotic sensitivities revealed that a combination of ticarcillin clavulanate with gentamicin covered 20 of the 22 (91%) EBD organisms and 38 of the 49 (78%) PTD organisms. Based on this data, ticarcillin clavulanate with gentamicin is the therapy of choice for EBD and PTD sepsis at our institution.