Safety Of Endoscopic Papillary Balloon Dilation Research Articles

Comprehensive review on small common bile duct stones.

Common bile duct stones are among the most common conditions encountered by endoscopists. Therefore, it is well researched; however, some items, such as indications for endoscopic papillary balloon dilatation (EPBD), safety of EPBD and endoscopic sphincterotomy in patients receiving dual antiplatelet therapy or direct oral anticoagulant, selection strategy for retrieval balloons and baskets, lack adequate evidence. Therefore, the guidelines have been updated with new research, while others remain unchanged due to weak evidence. In this review, we comprehensively summarize the standard methods in guidelines and new findings from recent studies on papillary dilation, stone retrieval devices, difficult-to-treat cases, troubleshooting during the procedure, and complicated cases of cholangitis, cholecystolithiasis, or distal biliary stricture.

A cumulative meta-analysis of endoscopic papillary balloon dilation versus endoscopic sphincterotomy for removal of common bile duct stones

Endoscopic papillary balloon dilation (EPBD) was introduced to overcome the risk of adverse events associated with endoscopic sphincterotomy in the removal of common bile duct (CBD) stones. We performed a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing efficacy and safety of EPBD vs. endoscopic sphincterotomy, focusing on stone size, balloon diameter, and balloon dilation time. A multiple database search was performed, including MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Library, from their inception date until October 2017. RCTs comparing the efficacy and safety of EPBD vs. endoscopic sphincterotomy in the removal of CBD stones were included. Cumulative meta-analyses over time, and subgroup analyses according to stone size, and balloon diameter and dilation time were carried out. 25 RCTs met the inclusion criteria. Despite the cumulative meta-analysis showing a trend over time in favor of endoscopic sphincterotomy in studies published up to 2004, the conventional meta-analysis revealed that EPBD was equally efficacious compared with endoscopic sphincterotomy in stone removal at first attempt (odds ratio [OR] 0.95, 95 % confidence interval [CI] 0.65 - 1.38). Endoscopic sphincterotomy was superior to EPBD in terms of overall stone clearance (OR 0.65, 95 %CI 0.43 - 0.99) in studies published since 2002, but no differences emerged in studies using large ( ≥ 10 mm) balloons (OR 1.37, 95 %CI 0.72 - 2.62). No statistically significant difference in pancreatitis occurrence emerged between EPBD and endoscopic sphincterotomy (OR 1.35, 95 %CI 0.90 - 2.03). Pancreatitis was more common with EPBD than with endoscopic sphincterotomy in studies using balloons < 10 mm (OR 1.78, 95 %CI 1.07 - 2.97), whereas no difference emerged in studies using large balloons (OR 0.84, 95 %CI 0.46 - 1.53). EPBD had lower rates of bleeding and cholecystitis. Our latest data confirm that EPBD is currently inferior to endoscopic sphincterotomy in terms of overall stone clearance. However, EPBD using large balloons (≥ 10 mm) was as effective as endoscopic sphincterotomy, both in stone clearance and the need for endoscopic mechanical lithotripsy, without carrying an increased risk of pancreatitis.

Endoscopic papillary balloon dilatation in comparison with endoscopic sphincterotomy for the treatment of large common bile duct stone

Background:There are concerns on the efficacy and safety of endoscopic papillary balloon dilatation (EPBD) as an alternative to endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) in the treatment of choledocholithiasis. We compared the efficacy and safety of EPBD and EST for removing large common bile duct (CBD) stones.Materials and Methods:One hundred sixty patients with CBD stones of 10-20 mm were randomized to undergo EPBD or EST. A 15-mm dilatation balloon was used for EPBD. Cotton's criteria were used to determine the incidence of post-EPBD or post-EST complications. CBD stone removal and complications were compared between the two methods.Results:CBD stones were completely removed in 97.5% of the EPBD and 96.2% of the EST group (P = 0.5). The incidence of postoperative pancreatitis (11.2% vs 8.7%) and bleeding (1.2% vs 1.2%) were similar between the EPBD and EST groups (P > 0.05). Perforation did not occur in any patient.Conclusions:EPBD with 15-mm dilator balloon appears to be equally safe and effective compared with EST for removal of large CBD stones. So because of low complication and high success rate we recommend EPBD as the preferred method for removal of large (10-20 mm) CBD stones.

Endoscopic papillary balloon dilatation versus endoscopic sphincterotomy in the treatment for choledocholithiasis: A meta‐analysis

Endoscopic papillary balloon dilatation (EPBD) and endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) are two common nonsurgical treatments endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) for choledocholithiasis. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of EPBD and EST in the treatment for choledocholithiasis, confining the analysis to work reported in the last decade. The rate of overall postoperative complications was chosen as the primary outcome, and 10 other outcomes were secondary outcomes. Relative risk (RR) or Peto odds ratio (OR) were computed as the measures of pooled effects. We planned sensitivity analyses a priori for examining the change in robustness of the sensitivity to excluding studies with some inappropriate objects, technique defects or without full-text acquisition. For complete stone removal, EPBD was similar to EST (95% vs. 96%, P = 0.36) and overall postoperative complications (14.0% vs. 11.7%, P = 0.53). The incidence of post-ERCP cholangitis (2.5% vs. 1.8%, P = 0.40), basket impaction (0.9% vs. 0%, P = 0.16) and perforation (0.0% vs. 0.4%, P = 0.17) were equivalent between EPBD and EST. On the other hand, EPBD caused more post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) (9.4% vs. 3.3%, P < 0.00001), but less hemorrhage (0.1% vs. 4.2%, P < 0.00001). People undergoing EPBD required more use of endoscopic mechanical lithotripsy (35.0% vs. 26.2%, P = 0.0004). The results of sensitivity analyses showed no substantial change. EPBD is comparable to EST for stone extraction, though it requires more endoscopic mechanical lithotripsy (EML). EPBD may outweigh EST for patients with coagulopathy; however, it may cause more PEP.

Endoscopic papillary balloon dilation for the management of bile duct stones in patients 85 years of age and older

Endoscopic papillary balloon dilation (EPBD) is a possible alternative to endoscopic sphincterotomy for the treatment of bile duct stones. However, little information is available in the elderly. Our purpose was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of EPBD for bile duct stones in patients of 85 years of age and older. Retrospective study from a single center. Tertiary care facility with experience in bile duct stone removal with EPBD. A total of 406 patients (74 patients >/=85 years old, group A; 332 patients <85 years old, group B) with bile duct stones underwent EPBD. Efficacy and safety of EPBD between the 2 groups. Baseline patient characteristics were also evaluated. The mean American Society of Anesthesiologists score in group A was significantly higher compared with that in group B (2.4 [0.5] vs 1.9 [0.7], P < .0001). Patients received anticoagulants more frequently and had larger and more numerous stones in group A than in group B with significant differences. Overall, bile duct clearance rates were similar in the 2 groups (91% vs 95%), but the mean number of sessions required for complete stone removal was significantly higher in group A (1.6 vs 1.4, P = .0081). The incidence of overall early complications after EPBD was lower in group A than in group B (2.7% vs 8.4%) but was not statistically different. None of the patients in group A had post-EPBD pancreatitis, whereas pancreatitis occurred in 5.7% in group B (P = .036). Bleeding was not observed after EPBD in 406 patients, including 7 patients in group A who received anticoagulation therapy at the time of EPBD. There was no significant difference in the cumulative stone nonrecurrence rate between group A and group B (log-rank test, P = .6225). EPBD is a safe and effective technique for the treatment of bile duct stones even in high-risk elderly patients without an increased risk of pancreatitis and bleeding. Because the evaluation of outcomes might be biased by our study design (an open study), further studies are needed.