Percutaneous Transhepatic Biliary Drainage In Patients Research Articles

Ultrasound-guided percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage for distal biliary malignant obstructive jaundice

The main cause of distal biliary malignant obstructive jaundice (DBMOJ) is the stricture of the extrahepatic biliary tract by malignant tumors, including pancreatic head and uncinate process cancer, low-grade cholangiocarcinoma, duodenal cancer, papillary duodenal cancer and other malignant tumors. The most effective treatment is radical pancreaticoduodenectomy. However, preoperative obstructive jaundice can affect the patient’s liver function and blood coagulation function, increase local inflammation and oedema, and make surgery more difficult. Patients with severe obstructive jaundice require preoperative biliary drainage, which can be achieved by various methods, including ultrasound endoscopic biliary drainage (EUS-EBD) and endoscopic retrograde biliary drainage (ERBD). The latter is mainly divided into endoscopic nasobiliary drainage and endoscopic biliary stent. Some patients underwent percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD) when ERBD and EUS-EBD failed. In this study, we aimed to identify PTBD in DBMOJ and to further investigate the role of the puncture pathway in DBMOJ. The relationship between PTBD and bile duct internal diameter was confirmed by analysing and collating clinical data. In this study, DBMOJ was grouped according to bile duct internal diameter and liver function was used as an indicator to examine the improvement in liver function with PTBD in patients undergoing DBMOJ. Analysis of puncture complications showed that PTBD puncture was safe. DBMOJ with different bile duct internal diameters had different rates of liver function improvement after PTBD. The right-side approaches had significantly lower alanine aminotransferase (ALT) and alanine transaminase (AST) than the left-side approaches. This study showed that PTBD for DBMOJ is associated with a low complication rate and good reduction of jaundice. Liver function recovery was faster in patients with DBMOJ treated with PTBD in the right-sided approach compared with the left-sided approach. PTBD is an effective tool to be used in patients who have failed ERBD and EUS-EBD.

Perceptions of transitional care services among patients with percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage and multicentre health professionals: A qualitative study.

Patients with percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD) need regular drainage tube care after discharge, and transitional care can help solve this problem. However, few studies have focused on the quality of transitional care, the perceptions of patients with drainage tubes after discharge and those of healthcare professionals. This study is aimed at exploring the real experience and perceptions of transitional care services among healthcare professionals and PTBD patients who have been discharged with tubes and at providing references for future transitional care service development. The study uses a qualitative descriptive design. The reporting method followed Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research guidelines. Semistructured interviews were conducted with PTBD patients who had been discharged with tubes and multicentre healthcare professionals using the purpose sampling method. The thematic analysis method was used for analysis. ThirteenPTBD patients from one hospital and 12 healthcare professionals from three hospitals were interviewed. The analysis of the patient interview data revealed three themes, namely, recognition of the value of transitional care services, patients have some unmet needsand perception of transitional care service pathways. Six subthemes were also identified. The analysis of the interview data of healthcare professionals revealed two themes, namely, harvest and challenges in transitional care services work and expectations for future development of transitional care services. Four subthemes were also identified. The transitional care of discharged patients with PTBD tubes deserves the attention of clinical workers, and a series of measures should be taken to improve transitional care services. Patients were involved in the formulation of interview questions for this study, and during the interviews, patients presented their suggestions for transitional care services. Healthcare professionals participated in this study as interviewees, and no members of the public were involved in this study.

Use of gelatin sponge to seal the biliary tract after percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage in patients with liver transplants.

Percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD) is commonly used in the treatment of malign and benign biliary pathologies. Certain complications after PTBD may occur, such as biliary fistula, biliary leakage, bilioma, and hematoma. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of using a sterile gelatin sponge to seal the biliary tract after PTBD in patients with liver transplants to prevent complications. A total of 131 biliary drainages were introduced in 97 patients, and a sterile gelatin sponge was used to seal the biliary tract after removal of the biliary drainage catheter. The patients were immediately examined for complications using ultrasound and then followed up clinically unless imaging was required. Five fluid collections within the liver with a diameter <2 cm, consistent with hematoma or bilioma, were resolved spontaneously. No hematoma or bilioma required treatment, and no biliary leakage or fistula was detected. No compli¬cations related to the use of the sponge were observed. The use of a sterile gelatin sponge is a safe and effec-tive method for sealing the biliary tract to prevent complications after PTBD in patients with liver transplants.

Endoscopic Ultrasound-guided Versus Percutaneous Transhepatic Biliary Drainage After Failed ERCP: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) may fail to achieve biliary drainage in 5% to 10% of cases. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) and percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD) are alternative therapeutic options in such cases. The present meta-analysis aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of EUS-BD and PTBD for biliary decompression after failed ERCP. A comprehensive search of literature from inception to September 2022 was done of 3 databases for studies comparing EUS-BD and PTBD for biliary drainage after failed ERCP. Odds ratios (ORs) with 95% CIs were calculated for all the dichotomous outcomes. Continuous variables were analyzed using mean difference (MD). A total of 24 studies were included in the final analysis. Technical success was comparable between EUS-BD and PTBD (OR=1.12, 0.67-1.88). EUS-BD was associated with a higher clinical success rate (OR=2.55, 1.63-4.56) and lower odds of adverse events (OR=0.41, 0.29-0.59) compared with PTBD. The incidence of major adverse events (OR=0.66, 0.31-1.42) and procedure-related mortality (OR=0.43, 0.17-1.11) were similar between the groups. EUS-BD was associated with lower odds of reintervention with an OR of 0.20 (0.10-0.38). The duration of hospitalization (MD: -4.89, -7.73 to -2.05) and total treatment cost (MD: -1355.46, -2029.75 to -681.17) were significantly lower with EUS-BD. EUS-BD may be preferred over PTBD in patients with biliary obstruction after failed ERCP where appropriate expertise is available. Further trials are required to validate the findings of the study.

Impact of cholangitis on survival of patients with malignant biliary obstruction treated with percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage

PurposeTo evaluate the impact of cholangitis on survival of patients with gastrointestinal cancer and malignant biliary obstruction treated with percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD).MethodsA retrospective registry study was performed at a tertiary center from 2000 to 2016 in Northern Finland.ResultsThe study included 588 patients, 258 (43.9%) patients with pancreatic cancer, 222 (37.7%) with biliary tract cancer, and 108 (18.4%) with metastasis from gastrointestinal cancers. Patient mean age was 70 years, range 26 − 93 years. There were 288 [49.0%] women. The 30-day mortality rate was 30.8% for 156 patients with cholangitis before PTBD, 19.5% for 215 patients with cholangitis after PTBD and 25.8% for 217 patients without cholangitis (P = 0.039). The median survival was 1.8 months for patients with cholangitis before PTBD, 3.0 months for patients with cholangitis after PTBD, and 3.2 months for patients without cholangitis (P = 0.002). The hazard ratio (HR) for 1-year mortality for patients with cholangitis before PTBD was 1.3 (95% CI 1.06 − 1.67, P = 0.015) compared to patients with cholangitis after PTBD. After successful PTBD, 54 out of 291 patients received chemotherapy; the median survival was 5.2 months with cholangitis before PTBD, 9.4 months with cholangitis after PTBD and 15.3 months without cholangitis.ConclusionIn gastrointestinal cancers with malignant biliary obstruction, survival is poorer if cholangitis occurs before PTBD compared to cholangitis after PTBD. An oncologist’s consultation is essential for assessing the possibility of chemotherapy in successfully treated PTBD patients, because of the notable survival benefit.

Percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage: a retrospective single-center study of 372 patients.

Complication rates in percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD) are non-uniform and vary considerably. In addition, the impact of peri-procedural risk factors is under-investigated. To compare success and complication rates of PTBD in patients with and without accompanying technical risk factors. A single-center retrospective study was conducted from January 2004 to December 2016. Patients receiving PTBD due to biliary obstruction or biliary leakage were included. Technical risk factors (non-distended bile ducts, ascites, obesity, anasarca, non-compliance) were assessed. Complications were classified according to the Society of Interventional Radiology. In total, 372 patients were included (57.3% men, 42.7% women; mean age = 66 years). Overall, 466 PTBDs were performed. Of the patients, 70.1% presented with malignancy and biliary obstruction; 26.8% had benign biliary obstruction; 3.1% had biliary leakage. Technical risk factors were reported in 57 (15.3%) patients. Overall technical success of initial PTBD was 98.7%, primary technical success was 97.9%. In patients with non-dilatated bile ducts, primary technical success was 68.2%. Overall complication rate was 15.0% (8.1% major complications, 6.9% minor complications). Neither major nor minor complications were more frequent in patients with technical risk factors (P > 0.05). In left-sided PTBD, hemorrhage was more frequent (P = 0.015). Patients with malignancy were significantly more affected by drainage-related complications (P = 0.004; odds ratio = 2.03). The mortality rate was 0.5% (n = 2). PTBD is a safe and effective method for the treatment of biliary obstruction and biliary leaks. Complication rates are low, even in procedures with risk factors.

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.

Retrospective analysis of the efficacy of percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage in palliation of obstructive jaundice in patients with carcinoma gall bladder: Experience from tertiary care center in Northern India

Background: Percutaneous Transhepatic Biliary Drainage (PTBD) is a minimally invasive procedure to palliate the biliary obstruction caused by unresectable malignancy. Aims and Objective: To analyze the outcome of PTBD in patients of unresectable gall bladder cancer presenting with obstructive jaundice in terms of reduction in serum bilirubin levels, symptomatic improvement, and overall survival (OS) at 4 weeks and 12 weeks following the procedure. Materials and Methods: In this retrospective study, PTBD was attempted on 30 patients diagnosed with inoperable gall bladder cancer. Various patient and procedure-related variables were analyzed and recorded both pre and post-PTBD. Outcome data on OS was collected at 4 weeks and 12 weeks. Results: Technical success was achieved in 29 (99.66%) patients. The mean fall in the serum bilirubin at the 7th post-procedural day was 41.5% after the successful PTBD. The most common complication in our study was cholangitis noted in six (21%) patients. OS at 4 weeks and 12 weeks was 79% and 41%, respectively. Conclusion: Younger age and good performance status favored better survival rate in our study.

Role of Percutaneous Transhepatic Biliary Drainage as an Adjunct to Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography

There is limited literature on the role of percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD) as an adjunct to endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). This study evaluates the role of PTBD in patients with failed ERCP or post-ERCP cholangitis. Retrospective evaluation of clinical and intervention records of patients with biliary obstruction referred for PTBD following failed ERCP or post-ERCP cholangitis was performed. The cause of biliary obstruction, baseline serum bilirubin, white blood cell (WBC) count, serum creatinine, and procalcitonin were recorded. Technical success and clinical success (resolution of cholangitis, reduction in bilirubin levels, WBC count, creatinine, and procalcitonin) were assessed. Sixty-three patients (35 females, mean age 51.4 years) were included. Indications for ERCP included malignant causes in 47 (74.6%) cases and benign causes in 16 (25.4%) cases. Indications for PTBD were failed ERCP in 21 (33.3%) and post-ERCP cholangitis in 42 (66.7%). PTBD was technically successful in all patients. Clinical success rate was 68.2% in the overall group. Mild hemobilia was noted in five (7.9%) patients. There were no major complications or PTBD related mortality. Cholangitis and acute kidney injury resolved following PTBD in 63.1% and 80% of the patients, respectively. Total serum bilirubin reduced by 47.8% and 69.4% after one week and one month of the PTBD, respectively. The average fall in procalcitonin was 5.17ng/mL after one week of the PTBD. PTBD is an important adjunctive drainage procedure in patients with ERCP failure or post-ERCP cholangitis.

An Evidence-Based Approach to Nursing Recognition and Management of Early Sepsis in Percutaneous Transhepatic Biliary Drainage (PTBD)

<h3>Introduction</h3> Percutaneous Transhepatic Biliary Drainage (PTBD) is an interventional radiology (IR) procedure indicated for relief of biliary obstructive symptoms: pruritus, jaundice ang cholangitis cause by benign or malignant conditions. Gallstones, cholangiocarcinoma and hepatobiliary malignancy are frequently seen to cause sepsis. <h3>Identification of the Problem</h3> Although PTBD is generally a safe procedure, significant complications manifest as systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) that leads to mortality. Early post anesthesia care unit (PACU) nursing recognition is critical in effectively managing these high risk patients. <h3>EBP Question/Purpose: PICO question. Databases utilized</h3> What is the best practice for patients post biliary drain placement presenting symptoms of systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS)? (P) Patients post PTBD; (I) Early recognition of SIRS; (C) Prompt/early management of SIRS compare to standard care in alleviating sepsis (O). The evidence-based practice (EBP) searches were conducted using PUBMED/CINAHL databases. <h3>Methods/Evidence</h3> The evidence reviewed from PUBMED/CINAHL ranged from 2013 to 2019. Mesh terms were: interventional, biliary drainage, PTBD, pathophysiology, cholangitis, symptoms, complications, sepsis and SIRS. The first search yielded eight out of 36 articles that met PICO criteria. The second and final search included eight additional articles with terms of mortality and patient outcomes. <h3>Significance of Findings/Outcomes</h3> EBP appraisal revealed compelling science for recognizing and managing early SIRS in PTBD patients. Team created an EBP algorithm (see poster) that was effective for PACU nurses in early recognition of SIRS and prompt PACU nursing management to mitigate deteriorating symptoms of increased heart rates and rigors followed by fevers to improve quality patient care. <h3>Implications for perianesthesia nurses and future research</h3> Post PTBD SIRS can be challenging for PACU nurses to manage life-threatening complications. Evidence supports the development of an algorithm tool that focuses on recognition, assessment, and appropriate management of SIRS in this population. The science recommends easy accessibility of standing physician order sets, including medications, such as intravenous (IV) fluids, IV antibiotics, and acetaminophen as SIRS management in PACU strategies to facilitate positive patient outcomes.

A Retrospective Study of Biliary Drainage Strategies for Patients with Malignant Hilar Biliary Strictures.

PurposeThe main aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of different biliary drainage strategies, including percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD) versus endoscopic biliary stenting (EBS) and unilateral versus bilateral stenting, in patients with unresectable malignant hilar biliary strictures (MHBSs).Patients and MethodsThis was a retrospective review of patients with inoperable MHBSs who underwent biliary drainage by either EBS or PTBD. Efficacy and safety were compared between the two pathways and between unilateral and bilateral stenting in the EBS group. The survival duration was analyzed with K-M curves and Log rank tests.ResultsFrom January 2015 to December 2019, a total of 206 (126: EBS and 80: PTBD) patients with MHBSs were enrolled in our study and underwent 270 procedures (173: EBS and 97: PTBD). Bilateral stenting was superior to unilateral stenting in terms of clinical success (69.6% vs 50.6%, p=0.039), especially for patients with Bismuth type IV (70.0% vs 30.3%, p=0.002). A higher decrease in bilirubin was seen with PTBD in patients with Bismuth types III–IV (66.9 vs 36.7, p=0.006). A survival advantage was seen in successful drainage (227 days vs 82 days, p<0.001), lower tumor-node-metastasis (TNM) scores (I–II) (195 days vs 139 days, p=0.012), and cholangiocarcinoma (184 days vs 84 days, p=0.001).ConclusionFor patients with advanced MHBSs, bilateral stenting may achieve a better drainage effect than unilateral stenting, and PTBD may have a better performance in relieving cholestasis than EBS. Successful drainage and cholangiocarcinoma may provide greater long-term survival benefits.

Percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD) in patients with dilated vs. nondilated bile ducts: technical considerations and complications

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to compare success, technical complexity, and complication rates of percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD) in patients with dilated vs. nondilated bile ducts.MethodsIn a retrospective analysis, we evaluated all consecutive PTBD performed in our department over a period of 5 years. Technical success, technical data (side, fluoroscopy time, radiation dose, amount of contrast media, use of disposable equipment), procedure-related complications and peri-interventional mortality were compared for patients with dilated vs. non-dilated bile ducts. Independent t test and χ2 test were used to evaluate the statistical significance.ResultsA total of 253 procedures were performed on 187 patients, of whom 101/253 had dilated bile ducts and 152/253 not. In total, 243/253 procedures were successful. PTBD was significantly more often successful in patients with dilated vs. nondilated bile ducts (150/153 vs. 93/101; p 0.02). Overall complication rate (13%) did not differ significantly between patients with dilated vs. nondilated bile ducts. Procedures in patients with normal, nondilated bile ducts were associated with a significantly higher rate of post-interventional bleeding (5/101 vs. 0/152). Mean fluoroscopy time (42:36 ± 35:39 h vs. 30:28 ± 25:10 h; p 0.002) and amount of contrast media (66 ± 40 ml vs. 52 ± 24 ml; p 0.07) or use of disposables were significantly higher in patients with nondilated ducts. A significantly lower fluoroscopy time and amount of contrast medium were used in left hepatic PTBD.ConclusionDespite the higher technical complexity, PTBD with nondilated bile ducts was associated with similar overall complication rates but higher bleeding complications compared with PTBD with dilated bile ducts.Key Points• PTBD was associated with similar overall complication rates in patients with dilated vs. nondilated bile ducts.• Although overall complication rates were low, PTBD in patients with nondilated bile ducts was associated with a higher incidence of post-interventional bleeding.• PTBD in patients with nondilated bile ducts is technically more complex.

Percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage in patients at higher risk for adverse events: experience from a tertiary care referral center.

Despite advances in endoscopic drainage procedures, percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD) remains an essential interventional radiology (IR) procedure. Several factors may adversely affect the success of PTBD. We report the experience of our IR unit with PTBD in patients considered at higher risk for adverse events. Consecutive PTBDs performed between November 2017 and April 2019 were retrospectively reviewed. The patients at increased risk foradverse events from PTBD, defined by one or more of the following factors: non-dilated system, moderate amount of perihepatic fluid, coagulopathy, altered sensorium, and PTBD performed at bedside, were identified. Technical success, complications, and outcome at 3months were recorded. During the study period, PTBDs were performed in 90 patients. PTBDs in 57 (63.3%) patients (mean age 47.6years, 35 females) were identified as predisposing to higher risk foradverse events. Left and right PTBD were performed in 37 (64.9%) and 15 (26.3%) patients, respectively. Bilateral PTBDs were performed in three (5.2%) patients. In two (3.5%) cases, biliary access was obtained via percutaneous cholecystostomy. Overall technical success of 91.2% (n = 52) was achieved. Carcinoma gallbladder was the most common underlying cause. Non-dilated ductal system was the most common condition deemed to predispose to higher risk foradverse events (n = 32, 56.1%), followed by perihepatic fluid (n = 9, 15.8%), and deranged coagulation parameters (n = 9, 15.8%). PTBD was performed at bedside in intensive care unit in 5 (8.8%) patients. Two (3.5%) patients had altered sensorium. Major complications in the form of biliary peritonitis were observed in three (5.2%) patients. No procedure-related mortality was observed. PTBD can be effectively and safely performed even in situations deemed to predispose patients to increased risk for adverse events. Thus, the mere presence of these conditions should not cause a denial of PTBD.

Efficacy of percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage combined with transarterial chemoembolization in treatment of malignant obstructive jaundice

Objective To observe the efficacy of percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD) combined with transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) in treatment of malignant obstructive jaundice, and to evaluate its application value in clinic. Methods A total of 82 patients with malignant obstructive jaundice who received PTBD from January 2017 to January 2019 in Taiyuan Central Hospital were collected. The patients were divided into the experimental group who received TACE (41 cases) and the control group who could not receive TACE (41 cases) after PTBD. Clinical symptoms, liver function, tumor markers, drainage tube patency rate and survival time of the two groups were compared before and after the treatment. T-test and chi-square test were used for statistical analysis, and Kaplan-Meier method was used for survival analysis. Results A total of 93 drainage tubes were placed in 82 patients, and 109 TACE treatments were performed in the experimental group. PTBD and TACE both had successful results. After PTBD, 72 patients felt jaundice and obvious alleviation of other clinical symptoms. There were no serious complications after PTBD and TACE. Postoperative follow-up results showed that compared with the total bilirubin (TBIL) [(269±113) μmol/L], the direct bilirubin (DBIL) [(159±74) μmol/L], alanine transaminase (ALT) [(118±40) U/L] and aspartate aminotransferase (AST) [(111±55) U/L] before the operation, the TBIL [(46±11) μmol/L], DBIL [(28±10) μmol/L], ALT [(35±12) U/L] and AST [(33±12) U/L] in the experimental group were decreased significantly 3 months after the operation, and the differences were statistically significant (all P 0.05). The level of carbohydrate antigen-199 in the experimental group at 6 months after PTBD was lower than that in the control group [(426±136) U/ml vs. (569±204) U/ml; t=19.457, P < 0.05]. There were statistical differences in the patency rate of the both groups at 6, 9 and 12 months after PTBD (all P < 0.05). The median survival time in the experimental group was longer than that in the control group (310.4 d vs. 234.5 d; χ 2=12.678, P < 0.05). Conclusion The effect of PTBD in patients with malignant obstructive jaundice is obvious. The combination with TACE after PTBD can prolong the survival of patients and it is worthy of clinical application. Key words: Jaundice, obstructive; Pancreatic neoplams; Bile duct neoplams; Percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage; Transarterial chemoembolization

Tu1377 EUS-GUIDED VERSUS PERCUTANEOUS BILIARY ACCESS IN PATIENTS WITH OBSTRUCTIVE JAUNDICE DUE TO GASTRIC CANCER

Gastric cancer is sometimes complicated by obstructive jaundice. However, ERCP may be challenging in patients who have advanced gastric cancer, or recurrent gastric cancer after surgical resection that is complicated by obstructive jaundice. In such cases, percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD) is considered. Recently, EUS-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) has been developed. We conducted a retrospective study to compare the efficacy of EUS-BD and PTBD in patients with obstructive jaundice due to gastric cancer.

EUS-guided versus percutaneous biliary access in patients with obstructive jaundice due to gastric cancer

BackgroundGastric cancer is sometimes complicated by obstructive jaundice. However, ERCP may be challenging in patients who have advanced gastric cancer, or recurrent gastric cancer after surgical resection that is complicated by obstructive jaundice. In such cases, percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD) is considered. Recently, EUS-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) has been developed. We conducted a retrospective study to compare the efficacy of EUS-BD and PTBD in patients with obstructive jaundice due to gastric cancer. MethodsPatients with gastric cancer complicated with obstructive jaundice who were contraindicated for standard ERCP were enrolled. ResultsA total of 47 consecutive patients were enrolled during the study period. The technical success rates of PTBD and EUS-BD were 88.9% (16/18) and 96.7% (29/30), respectively (P = 0.64). The stent patency period, including patient death was equivalent between the two groups (EUS-BD vs. PTBD: 188.4 days vs. 200.9 days, P = 0.974). Time to stent dysfunction in the EUS-BD group (391.1 days) was not significantly different as compared to that in the PTBD group (398.1 days) (P = 0.78). Adverse events were relatively severe in the PTBD group. ConclusionsGiven the relative severity of adverse events in the PTBD group, EUS-BD might be the procedure of choice for gastric cancer patients with contraindications by inability to perform ERCP.

Opacification of nondilated bile ducts through the gallbladder as an aid to percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage.

The purpose of this study was to retrospectively assess the potential of percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD) in patients with nondilated bile ducts (NDBD) using a transgallbladder opacification of the bile ducts. Eight patients with NDBD (7 men, 1 women; median age, 65 years; Q1-Q3, 35-69 years; range, 22-77 years) who underwent PTBD after opacification of the bile ducts through the gallbladder were evaluated. Opacification of NDBD was performed using a retrograde injection of contrast material through the gallbladder. The opacified peripheral NDBD was punctured percutaneously and a drainage catheter was introduced under fluoroscopy guidance. The success and safety of the procedure were assessed. PTBD could be achieved in 6/8 patients (75%) and no significant complications were observed. The biliary tree opacification was attempted but could not be achieved due to biliary sludge that obstructed the cystic duct in 2/8 patients (25%). Two minor complications in two different patients were observed consisting of transient hemobilia and chills. Opacification of the bile ducts using a transgallbladder approach appears to be a safe and successful procedure for PTBD in patients with NDBD.

Verification of the oncologic inferiority of percutaneous biliary drainage to endoscopic drainage: A propensity score matching analysis of resectable perihilar cholangiocarcinoma

Percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage is an established biliary drainage method but is associated with a potential risk of seeding metastasis. The aim of this retrospective study was to evaluate whether percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage really increases seeding metastasis and worsens the postoperative survival in patients with resectable perihilar cholangiocarcinoma. Patients who underwent resection for perihilar cholangiocarcinoma after percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage or endoscopic biliary drainage were retrospectively reviewed. Seeding metastasis was defined as peritoneal/pleural dissemination and percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage sinus tract recurrence. Univariate and multivariate analyses followed by propensity score matching were performed to adjust the data for the baseline characteristics of the percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage and endoscopic biliary drainage patients. Of 320 resected patients, 168 underwent percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage and the remaining 152 received endoscopic biliary drainage before operation. The survival of the percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage patients was significantly lower than that of the endoscopic biliary drainage patients (37.0% vs 44.3% at 5years, P=.019). Multivariate analyses showed that percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage was an independent predictor of poor survival (P=.011) and a risk factor for seeding metastasis (P=.005). After propensity score matching (71 patients in each group), the survival of the percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage patients was significantly worse than that of the endoscopic biliary drainage patients (P=.018). The estimated cumulative recurrence rate of seeding metastasis was significantly higher in the percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage patients than in the endoscopic biliary drainage patients (P=.005), while the recurrence rates at other sites were similar between the 2 groups (P=.413). Percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage increases the incidence of seeding metastasis and shortens the postoperative survival in patients with perihilar cholangiocarcinoma. Endoscopic biliary drainage is recommended as the optimal method for preoperative biliary drainage.

Peripheral portal vein-oriented non-dilated bile duct puncture for percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage.

To evaluate the efficacy of peripheral portal vein (PV)-oriented non-dilated bile duct (BD) puncture for percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD). Thirty-five patients with non-dilated BDs underwent PTBD for the management of various biliary disorders, including benign bilioenteric anastomotic stricture (n = 24), BD stricture (n = 5) associated with iatrogenic BD injury, and postoperative biliary leakage (n = 6). Under ultrasonographic guidance, percutaneous transhepatic puncture using a 21-G needle was performed along the running course of the peripheral targeted non-dilated BD (preferably B6 for right-sided approach, and B3 for left-sided approach) or along the accompanying PV when the BD was not well visualized. This technique could provide an appropriate insertion angle of less than 30° between the puncture needle and BD running course. The puncture needle was then advanced slightly beyond the accompanying PV. The needle tip was moved slightly backward while injecting a small amount of contrast agent to obtain the BD image, followed by insertion of a 0.018-inch guide wire (GW). A drainage catheter was then placed using a two-step GW method. PTBD was successful in 33 (94.3%) of the 35 patients with non-dilated intrahepatic BDs. A right-sided approach was performed in 25 cases, while a left-sided approach was performed in 10 cases. In 31 patients, the first PTBD attempt proved successful. Four cases required a second attempt a few days later to place a drainage catheter. PTBD was successful in two cases, but the second attempt also failed in the other two cases, probably due to poor breath-holding ability. Although most patients (n = 26) had been experiencing cholangitis with fever (including septic condition in 8 cases) before PTBD, only 5 (14.3%) patients encountered PTBD procedure-related complications, such as transient hemobilia and cholangitis. No major complications such as bilioarterial fistula or portal thrombosis were observed. There was no mortality in our series. Peripheral PV-oriented BD puncture for PTBD in patients with non-dilated BDs is a safe and effective procedure for BD stricture and postoperative bile leakage.

Oncological benefit of preoperative endoscopic biliary drainage in patients with hilar cholangiocarcinoma

Due to advances in endoscopic equipment and techniques, preoperative endoscopic biliary drainage (EBD) has been developed to serve as an alternative to percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD). This study sought to clarify the benefit of EBD in comparison to PTBD in patients who underwent radical resections of hilar cholangiocarcinoma. One hundred and forty-one patients underwent radical surgery for hilar cholangiocarcinoma between 2000 and 2008 were retrospectively divided into two groups based on the type of preoperative biliary drainage, PTBD (n = 67) or EBD (n = 74). We investigated if the different biliary drainage methods affected postoperative survival and mode of recurrence after median observation period of 82 months. The survival rate for patients who underwent EBD was significantly higher than those who had PTBD (P = 0.004). Multivariate analysis revealed that PTBD was one of the independent factors predictive of poor survival (hazard ratio: 2.075, P = 0.003). Patients with PTBD more frequently developed peritoneal seeding in comparison to those who underwent EBD (P = 0.0003). PTBD was the only independent factor predictive of peritoneal seeding. In conclusion, EBD might confer an improved prognosis over PTBD due to prevention of peritoneal seeding, and is recommended as the initial procedure for preoperative biliary drainage in patients with hilar cholangiocarcinoma.