EUS-guided cholecystostomy versus endoscopic transpapillary cholecystostomy for acute cholecystitis in high-risk surgical patients
EUS-guided cholecystostomy versus endoscopic transpapillary cholecystostomy for acute cholecystitis in high-risk surgical patients
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.gie.2018.08.052
复制
发表时间：
2019-02-01
影响因子：
7.7
通讯作者：
Lee, Sang Soo
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Oh, Dongwook;Song, Tae Jun;Lee, Sang Soo
背景和目的：内镜下胆囊引流（GBD）是急性胆囊炎经皮引流的替代方法。迄今为止，还没有EUS引导下胆囊造口术（EUSC）和内镜下经乳头胆囊造口术（ETC）之间的比较研究。本研究的目的是比较EUSC和ETC.Methods的结果：前瞻性收集在牙山医疗中心（2010年7月至2014年12月）的内镜GBD数据库的回顾性审查，以确定连续急性胆囊炎患者进行尝试内镜GBD。手术和长期的结果进行了评价，使用治疗加权（IPTW）的逆概率。结果：共172例患者（76在EUSC组和96在ETC组）被纳入本研究。7例未能接受ETC的患者交叉进入EUSC组。经IPTW方法调整后，技术成功率（99.3% vs 86.6%，P
Background and Aims: Endoscopic gallbladder drainage (GBD) has been performed as an alternative to percutaneous drainage for acute cholecystitis. To date, there has been no comparative study between EUS-guided cholecystostomy (EUSC) and endoscopic transpapillary cholecystostomy (ETC). The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of EUSC and ETC.Methods: A retrospective review of an endoscopic GBD database prospectively collected at the Asan Medical Center (between July 2010 and December 2014) was performed to identify consecutive patients with acute cholecystitis who underwent attempted endoscopic GBD. Procedural and long-term outcomes were evaluated using inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW).Results: A total of 172 patients (76 in the EUSC group and 96 in the ETC group) were included in this study. Seven patients who failed to undergo ETC crossed over to the EUSC group. After adjustment with the IPTW method, technical success (99.3% vs 86.6%, P