Multicenter study of endoscopic preoperative biliary drainage for malignant distal biliary obstruction

Impact of biliary drainage method before pancreaticoduodenectomy on short- and long-term outcomes in patients with periampullary carcinoma and obstructive jaundice: A multicenter retrospective analysis

BACKGROUND

The optima preoperative biliary drainage before pancreaticoduodenectomy in patients with biliary tract and pancreatic cancer remains controversial.

METHODS

A total of 898 patients who underwent preoperative biliary drainage via endoscopic retrograde biliary drainage, endoscopic transnasal biliary drainage, or percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage before pancreaticoduodenectomy for biliary tract and pancreatic cancer were included. Perioperative and long-term outcomes were analyzed.

RESULTS

The Clavien-Dindo grade ≥3 morbidity rates after pancreaticoduodenectomy were higher in the endoscopic retrograde biliary drainage (21.9%; P = .001) or endoscopic transnasal biliary drainage (20.2%; P = .007) than in the percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (9.7%) groups. In biliary tract cancer, the frequency of dissemination after pancreaticoduodenectomy was higher in the percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (15.3%) than in the endoscopic retrograde biliary drainage (0.7%; P = .001) and endoscopic transnasal biliary drainage (4.1%; P = .037) groups; percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage was an independent factor associated with worse disease-free survival (P = .04), whereas in pancreatic cancer the frequency of dissemination and survival was comparable among the 3 preoperative biliary drainage methods. Albumin <3.9 g/dL was independently associated with worse overall survival in patients with both pancreatic (P = .038) and biliary tract (P = .002) cancers, respectively. During biliary drainage, external drainage (P = .038) was independently associated with albumin <3.9 g/dL; albumin was higher in endoscopic retrograde biliary drainage group than in endoscopic transnasal biliary drainage or percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage groups after 21 days from tube insertion.

CONCLUSION

In biliary tract cancer, percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage may carry the risk of increasing the incidence of disseminative recurrence. In pancreatic cancer, percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage is preferable owing to fewer complications without influencing recurrence. However, if patients cannot undergo surgery immediately, endoscopic retrograde biliary drainage will be applicable to help the preservation of nutritional status, which can have an impact on survival.

Endoscopy Ultrasound-Guided Biliary Drainage Using Lumen Apposing Metal Stent in Malignant Biliary Obstruction

This narrative review provides an overview of the application of endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD), including EUS-guided gallbladder drainage (EUS-GBD), for the treatment of malignant biliary obstruction. EUS-BD has demonstrated excellent technical and clinical success rates, with lower rates of adverse events when compared with percutaneous trans-hepatic biliary drainage (PTBD). EUS-BD is currently the preferred alternative technique for biliary drainage (BD) in patients with distal malignant biliary obstruction (DMBO) after failed endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). Particularly, this review will focus on EUS-BD performed with the use of lumen apposing metal stent (LAMS). The introduction of these innovative devices, followed by the advent of electrocautery-enhanced LAMS (EC-LAMS), gave the procedure a great technical implementation and a widespread application.

Comprehensive multimodal management of borderline resectable pancreatic cancer: Current status and progress

Borderline resectable pancreatic cancer (BRPC) is a complex clinical entity with specific biological features. Criteria for resectability need to be assessed in combination with tumor anatomy and oncology. Neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) for BRPC patients is associated with additional survival benefits. Research is currently focused on exploring the optimal NAT regimen and more reliable ways of assessing response to NAT. More attention to management standards during NAT, including biliary drainage and nutritional support, is needed. Surgery remains the cornerstone of BRPC treatment and multidisciplinary teams can help to evaluate whether patients are suitable for surgery and provide individualized management during the perioperative period, including NAT responsiveness and the selection of surgical timing.

Clinical feasibility of endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage for preoperative management of malignant biliary obstruction (with videos)

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE

EUS-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) has recently been reported to be a useful salvage technique after ERCP fail. However, data on EUS-BD used for preoperative biliary drainage (PBD) are limited. The aim of this study was to verify the clinical feasibility of EUS-BD for PBD.

METHODS

PBD was performed for malignant biliary obstruction in 318 patients at our institution between July 2014 and April 2022. Fifteen (4.7%) of these patients underwent surgical resection after preoperative EUS-BD (HGS 13; HDS 1; AGS with HGS 1) and were retrospectively analyzed.

RESULTS

The stent was successfully placed in all 15 cases with a median procedure time of 15 min (technical success rate 100%). The median total bilirubin value decreased significantly from 3.7 before drainage to 0.9 after surgery (p < .001) and cholangitis was well managed (clinical success rate 100%). Surgery was performed at a median of 22 days after drainage, and there were no stent-related adverse events or recurrences of biliary obstruction. Severe surgery-related adverse events occurred in three cases, but none were associated with EUS-BD. The stent was removed during surgery in 12 cases.

CONCLUSIONS

EUS-BD can be a feasible and safe alternative method of PBD for malignant biliary obstruction after ERCP fail.

A single-center retrospective study comparing safety and efficacy of endoscopic biliary stenting only vs. EBS plus nasobiliary drain for obstructive jaundice

Purpose

Biliary drainage is an important modality for extrahepatic obstructive jaundice both in patients with palliative and resectable. Currently, endoscopic biliary drainage is preferred in clinical practice, including endoscopic nasobiliary drainage (ENBD) and endoscopic biliary stenting (EBS), both of which have their own advantages and disadvantages. The purpose of our study was to compare the safety and efficacy of endoscopic biliary stenting (EBS) only vs. EBS plus nasobiliary drain for obstructive jaundice.

Methods

We consecutively reviewed patients with endoscopic biliary drainage in our institution from November 2014 to March 2021. Combined (ENBD plus stent) and single approach (EBS only) were defined as combined approach and single modality, respectively, and all eligible patients were divided into a combined approach group and a single modality group. We compared combined vs. single modality approaches to investigate whether there were statistical differences in liver chemistries, postoperative adverse events, and stent patency time.

Results

In 271 patients, a total of 356 times endoscopic biliary drainages were performed. All eligible patients were divided into the combined approach group (n = 74) and the single modality group (n = 271). The combined approach was associated with a lower incidence of postoperative cholangitis and bleeding and greater improvement in liver chemistries, although it was not statistically significant. However, it was superior to the single modality group in terms of hospital stay (12.7 ± 5.2 vs. 14.5 ± 7.9 days, p = 0.020 &lt; 0.05) and stent patency time (8.1 ± 3.9 vs. 4.3±2.7 months, p = 0.001 &lt; 0.05).

Conclusion

Endoscopic combined (ENBD plus stent) drainage is a more advantageous biliary drainage method that is characterized by more adequate biliary drainage, a lower incidence of postoperative adverse events, and longer effective biliary drainage time.

Efficacy of 6‐mm diameter fully covered self‐expandable metallic stents in preoperative biliary drainage for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Plastic or self-expandable metal stent: Which is the most suitable for patients with pancreatic head cancer in the upcoming era of neoadjuvant chemotherapy? A review

Obstructive jaundice is a major symptom of pancreatic head cancer, and although its amelioration is required before scheduling chemotherapy, the decision to perform biliary drainage for resectable pancreatic cancer has remained controversial. In recent years, the effectiveness of neoadjuvant therapy for pancreatic cancer has been reported. Preoperative biliary drainage has become increasingly necessary, making the choice of stent an important one; thus, the longer the waiting period extends through neoadjuvant chemotherapy, the more durable stents - such as self-expandable metallic stents, rather than plastic stents - would be desired as an option. Still, there is insufficient evidence regarding surgical outcomes and long-term prognosis, and further confirmatory studies are needed. Through this review, we aim to provide an update on the characteristics of biliary stents and preoperative biliary drainage for potentially resectable pancreatic cancer.

Current Status of Endoscopic Biliary Drainage in Patients with Distal Malignant Biliary Obstruction

Distal malignant biliary obstruction is caused by various malignant diseases that require biliary drainage. In patients with operable situations, preoperative biliary drainage is required to control jaundice and cholangitis until surgery. In view of tract seeding, endoscopic biliary drainage is the first choice. Since neoadjuvant therapies are being developed, the time to surgery is increasing, especially in pancreatic cancer cases. Therefore, it requires long stent patency. Recently, preoperative biliary drainage using self-expandable metal stents has been reported as a useful modality to secure long stent patency. In patients with unresectable distal malignant biliary obstruction, self-expandable metal stent is the first choice for maintaining long stent patency. Although there are many comparison studies between a covered and an uncovered self-expandable metal stent, their use is still controversial. Recently, endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage has been performed as an alternative treatment. The clinical success and stent patency are favorable. We should take into consideration that both endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography-guided biliary drainage and endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage have advantages and disadvantages and chose the drainage method depending on the patient’s situation or the expertise of the endoscopist. Here, we discuss the current status of endoscopic biliary drainage in patients with distal malignant biliary obstruction.

Preoperative endoscopic retrograde biliary drainage increases postoperative complications after pancreaticoduodenectomy compared to endoscopic nasobiliary drainage

Background

Preoperative biliary drainage prior to pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) by percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD) or endoscopic biliary drainage (EBD) is performed to improve liver functions, including immunity and coagulation that affect postoperative recovery in patients with jaundice. EBD can be performed through endoscopic retrograde biliary drainage (ERBD) or endoscopic nasobiliary drainage (ENBD). There is no clear consensus about which drainage is more suitable for preoperative EBD. The purpose of this study was to compare the postoperative outcomes of ENBD and ERBD performed prior to PD.

Methods

Data were collected retrospectively from the medical records of 3 hospitals: Chuncheon, Kangdong and Kangnam Sacred Heart hospitals. From January 2007 to April 2019, PD was performed in 230 patients, among whom, 88 patients had undergone preoperative EBD. These 88 patients were divided into two groups according to the method of preoperative biliary drainage: ENBD versus ERBD. We compared clinical data and postoperative complications after PD between ENBD and ERBD.

Results

The overall complication rates in the ENBD group were significantly lower than in the ERBD group (26.1% vs. 57.1%, P=0.003). Postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) rates (11.1% vs. 38.1%, P=0.003) and postpancreatectomy hemorrhage (PPH) rates (2.2% vs. 14.3%, P=0.036) in the ENBD group were also lower than in the ERBD group.

Conclusions

Our study provides further evidence that patients undergoing ERBD before PD are more likely to suffer POPFs and PPHs. This suggests that ENBD should be preferred in order to minimize the risk of POPFs and PPHs in patients with biliary obstruction prior to undergoing PD.

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

BACKGROUND

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.

METHODS

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.

RESULTS

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).

CONCLUSION

PTBD should be considered as a negative prognostic factor in distal cholangiocarcinoma patients.

Clinical practice guidelines for the management of biliary tract cancers 2019: The 3rd English edition

BACKGROUND

The Japanese Society of Hepato-Biliary-Pancreatic Surgery launched the clinical practice guidelines for the management of biliary tract cancers (cholangiocarcinoma, gallbladder cancer, and ampullary cancer) in 2007, then published the 2nd version in 2014.

METHODS

In this 3rd version, clinical questions (CQs) were proposed on six topics. The recommendation, grade for recommendation, and statement for each CQ were discussed and finalized by an evidence-based approach. Recommendations were graded as Grade 1 (strong) or Grade 2 (weak) according to the concepts of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system.

RESULTS

The 31 CQs covered the six topics: (a) prophylactic treatment, (b) diagnosis, (c) biliary drainage, (d) surgical treatment, (e) chemotherapy, and (f) radiation therapy. In the 31 CQs, 14 recommendations were rated strong and 14 recommendations weak. The remaining three CQs had no recommendation. Each CQ includes a statement of how the recommendations were graded.

CONCLUSIONS

This latest guideline provides recommendations for important clinical aspects based on evidence. Future collaboration with the cancer registry will be key for assessing the guidelines and establishing new evidence.

[Russian consensus on current issues in the diagnosis and treatment of obstructive jaundice syndrome]

The Russian consensus document on topical issues of the diagnosis and treatment of obstructive jaundice syndrome was prepared by a group of experts in various fields of surgery, endoscopy, interventional radiology, radiological diagnosis and intensive care. The goal of this document is to clarify and consolidate the opinions of national experts on the following issues: timing of diagnosis of obstructive jaundice, features of diagnostic measures, the need and possibility of conservative measures for obstructive jaundice, and strategy of biliary decompression depending on the cause and level of biliary block.

[Mechanisms and prevention of biliary stent occlusion]

One of significant achievements of modern endoscopy is development of retrograde biliary stenting for obstructive jaundice. This method ensured widespread application of endoscopic decompression in the treatment of patients with malignant biliary obstruction as preparation before radical surgery and final palliative care. Endoscopic retrograde transpapillary stenting firmly took its place together with antegrade and percutaneous stenting. There are certain advantages of this technique including minimally invasiveness and favorable quality of life. However, this approach is associated with some drawbacks associated with stent occlusion and difficult correction of this complication. The maximum diameter of the plastic stent (PS) is determined by the width of the working channel of the duodenoscope. In this regard, self-expandable metal stents (SEMS) were developed to increase the diameter of bile drainage channel. SEMS are associated with prolonged function. However, there is another problem. It is a germination of SEMS followed by impossible removal of the stent for its subsequent replacement. A further step in development of endoscopic biliary stents was the use of special SEMS coating to exclude tumor or granulation ingrowth. The problem of biliary stent occlusion remains relevant despite some improvement of stenting results. Mechanisms of occlusion of biliary stents and prevention of these events are discussed in this review.

Comparison of effect between nasobiliary drainage and biliary stenting in malignant biliary obstruction: a systematic review and updated meta-analysis

Background

To compare the efficacy of endoscopic nasobiliary drainage (ENBD) and endoscopic biliary stenting (EBS) in preoperative biliary drainage (PBD).

Methods

ENBD and EBS related literature of patients with malignant biliary obstruction published before September 2019 were collected from PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library for comparison analysis. Revman 5.3 statistical software was used for analysis.

Results

Nine studies were used for our comparative study. A total of 1435 patients were included, which consisted of 813 in the ENBD group and 622 in the EBS group. Meta-analysis showed that patients with malignant biliary obstruction who received ENBD had reductions in the rates of preoperative cholangitis (RR  =  0.46, 95% CI  =  0.34–0.62, P  <  0.00001), preoperative pancreatitis (RR  =  0.69, 95% CI  =  0.50–0.95, P  = 0.02), stent dysfunction (RR  =  0.58, 95% CI  =  0.43–0.80, P  = 0.0008), morbidity (RR  =  0.77, 95% CI  =  0.64–0.93, P  =  0.007), and postoperative pancreatic fistula (RR  =  0.65, 95% CI  =  0.45–0.92, P  =  0.02) compared with patients who received EBS.

Conclusions

The rates of preoperative cholangitis, preoperative pancreatitis, post-operative pancreatic fistula, stent dysfunction, and morbidity of ENBD patients were lower than those of EBS patients. In clinical practice, the physical condition of each patient and their tolerance should be fully considered. ENBD should be given priority. EBS should be replaced if stent dysfunction or intolerance occurs.

Internal drainage versus external drainage in palliation of malignant biliary obstruction: a meta-analysis and systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Preoperative biliary drainage has been widely used to treat patients with malignant biliary obstruction. However, it is still unclear which method is more effective: internal drainage or external drainage. Thus, we carried out a meta-analysis to compare the safety and efficacy of the two drainage methods in treatment of malignant biliary obstruction in terms of preoperative and postoperative complications.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We conducted a literature search of Medline, EMBASE, PubMed, Ovid journals and the Cochrane Library, and compared internal drainage and external drainage in malignant biliary obstruction patients. The pre- and postoperative complications, stent dysfunction rate and mortality were analyzed.

RESULTS

Ten published studies (n = 1464 patients) were included in this meta-analysis. We found that patients with malignant biliary obstruction who received external drainage showed reductions in the preoperative cholangitis rate (OR = 0.33, 95% CI: 0.24-0.44, p < 0.00001), the incidence of stent dysfunction (OR = 0.41, 95% CI: 0.30-0.57, p < 0.00001), and total morbidity (OR = 0.34, 95% CI: 0.23-0.50, p < 0.00001) compared with patients who received internal drainage.

CONCLUSIONS

The current meta-analysis indicates that external drainage is better than internal drainage for malignant biliary obstruction in terms of the preoperative cholangitis rate, the incidence of stent dysfunction and total morbidity, etc. However, the findings need to be confirmed by randomized controlled trials.

Multicenter study of endoscopic preoperative biliary drainage for malignant hilar biliary obstruction: E-POD hilar study

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Endoscopic nasobiliary drainage (ENBD) is often recommended in preoperative biliary drainage (PBD) for hilar malignant biliary obstruction (MBO), but endoscopic biliary stent (EBS) is also used in the clinical practice. We conducted this large-scale multicenter study to compare ENBD and EBS in this setting.

METHODS

A total of 374 cases undergoing PBD including 281 ENBD and 76 EBS for hilar MBO in 29 centers were retrospectively studied.

RESULTS

Extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ECC) accounted for 69.8% and Bismuth-Corlette classification was III or more in 58.8% of the study population. Endoscopic PBD was technically successful in 94.6%, and adverse event rate was 21.9%. The rate of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis was 16.0%, and non-endoscopic sphincterotomy was the only risk factor (odds ratio [OR] 2.51). Preoperative re-intervention was performed in 61.5%: planned re-interventions in 48.4% and unplanned re-interventions in 31.0%. Percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage was placed in 6.4% at the time of surgery. The risk factors for unplanned procedures were ECC (OR 2.64) and total bilirubin ≥ 10 mg/dL (OR 2.18). In surgically resected cases, prognostic factors were ECC (hazard ratio [HR] 0.57), predraiange magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (HR 1.62) and unplanned re-interventions (HR 1.81). EBS was not associated with increased adverse events, unplanned re-interventions, or a poor prognosis.

CONCLUSIONS

Our retrospective analysis did not demonstrate the advantage of ENBD over EBS as the initial PBD for resectable hilar MBO. Although the technical success rate of endoscopic PBD was high, its re-intervention rate was not negligible, and unplanned re-intervention was associated with a poor prognosis in resected hilar MBO.

Preoperative biliary drainage using a fully covered self-expandable metallic stent for pancreatic head cancer: A prospective feasibility study

Background/Aims

The role of endoscopic preoperative biliary drainage (PBD) for pancreatic head cancer is controversial because of the high incidence of stent occlusion before surgery. This study was performed to evaluate the feasibility and safety of PBD using a fully covered self-expandable metallic stent (FCSEMS).

Patients and Methods

This multicenter prospective study involved 26 patients treated for pancreatic head cancer with distal bile duct obstruction from April 2011 to March 2013. An FCSEMS was endoscopically placed in 24 patients. Among these, 7 patients were diagnosed with unresectable cancer, and 17 underwent surgery at a median of 18 days after FCSEMS placement. The main outcome measure was preoperative and postoperative adverse events.

Results

Two adverse events (cholecystitis and insufficient resolution of jaundice) occurred between FCSEMS placement and surgery (12%). Postoperative adverse events occurred in eight patients (47%). The cumulative incidence of stent-related adverse events 4 and 8 weeks after FCSEMS placement among the 24 patients who underwent this procedure were 19%.

Conclusions

PBD using an FCSEMS is feasible in patients with resectable pancreatic head cancer. Placement of an FCSEMS can be an alternative PBD technique when surgery without delay is impossible. A larger randomized controlled trial is warranted.

Outcomes of preoperative endoscopic nasobiliary drainage and endoscopic retrograde biliary drainage for malignant distal biliary obstruction prior to pancreaticoduodenectomy

AIM

To compare the outcomes of preoperative endoscopic nasobiliary drainage (ENBD) and endoscopic retrograde biliary drainage (ERBD) in patients with malignant distal biliary obstruction prior to pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD).

METHODS

Data from 153 consecutive patients who underwent preoperative endoscopic biliary drainage prior to PD between January 2009 and July 2016 were analyzed. We compared the clinical data, procedure-related complications of endoscopic biliary drainage (EBD) and postoperative complications of PD between the ENBD and ERBD groups. Univariate and multivariate analyses with odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (95%CIs) were used to identify the risk factors for deep abdominal infection after PD.

RESULTS

One hundred and two (66.7%) patients underwent ENBD, and 51 (33.3%) patients underwent ERBD. Endoscopic sphincterotomy was less frequently performed in the ENBD group than in the ERBD group (P = 0.039); the EBD duration in the ENBD group was shorter than that in the ERBD group (P = 0.036). After EBD, the levels of total bilirubin (TB) and alanine aminotransferase (ALT) were obviously decreased in both groups, and the decreases of TB and ALT in the ERBD group were greater than those in the ENBD group (P = 0.004 and P = 0.000, respectively). However, the rate of EBD procedure-related cholangitis was significantly higher in the ERBD group than in the ENBD group (P = 0.007). The postoperative complications of PD as graded by the Clavien-Dindo classification system were not significantly different between the two groups (P = 0.864). However, the incidence of deep abdominal infection after PD was significantly lower in the ENBD group than in the ERBD group (P = 0.019). Male gender (OR = 3.92; 95%CI: 1.63-9.47; P = 0.002), soft pancreas texture (OR = 3.60; 95%CI: 1.37-9.49; P = 0.009), length of biliary stricture (≥ 1.5 cm) (OR = 5.20; 95%CI: 2.23-12.16; P = 0.000) and ERBD method (OR = 4.08; 95%CI: 1.69-9.87; P = 0.002) were independent risk factors for deep abdominal infection after PD.

CONCLUSION

ENBD is an optimal method for patients with malignant distal biliary obstruction prior to PD. ERBD is superior to ENBD in terms of patient tolerance and the effect of biliary drainage but is associated with an increased risk of EBD procedure-related cholangitis and deep abdominal infection after PD.

Preoperative Cholangitis Affects Survival Outcome in Patients with Extrahepatic Bile Duct Cancer

BACKGROUND

It remains controversial whether preoperative cholangitis affects long-term outcomes after resection in patients with extrahepatic bile duct cancer.

METHODS

A total of 107 patients with extrahepatic bile duct cancer who underwent resection with curative intent from 2008 to 2014 were retrospectively reviewed. Patients were categorized into two groups according to the presence or absence of preoperative cholangitis. Clinicopathological variables and long-term outcomes were compared in the two groups.

RESULTS

In the preoperative cholangitis group, the rate of preoperative biliary drainage, the number of tube changes and/or additions, and the rate of lymph node metastasis were higher compared to the no-cholangitis group. Overall survival and disease-free survival were significantly worse in the cholangitis group compared to the no-cholangitis group (p = 0.022, p = 0.007). A poorer prognosis was not observed with an increasing grade of cholangitis in Tokyo Guidelines 2013 (p = 0.09). A multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that the preoperative cholangitis was an independent prognostic factor for extrahepatic bile duct cancer.

CONCLUSION

Preoperative cholangitis is an independent prognostic factor in patients with extrahepatic bile duct cancer regardless of the severity of the cholangitis.

The safety and efficacy of nasobiliary drainage versus biliary stenting in malignant biliary obstruction: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Preoperative biliary drainage (PBD) has been widely used to treat patients with malignant biliary obstruction. However, it is still unclear which method of PBD (endoscopic nasobiliary drainage or endoscopic biliary stenting) is more effective. Thus, we carried out a meta-analysis to compare the safety and efficacy of endoscopic nasobiliary drainage (ENBD) and endoscopic biliary stenting (EBS) in malignant biliary obstruction in terms of preoperative and postoperative complications.

METHODS

We conducted a literature search of EMBASE databases, PubMed, and the Cochrane Library to identify relevant available articles that were published in English, and we then compared ENBD and EBS in malignant biliary obstruction patients. The preoperative cholangitis rate, the preoperative pancreatitis rate, the incidence of stent dysfunction, the postoperative pancreatic fistula rate, and morbidity were analyzed. Odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were used to express the pooled effect on dichotomous variables, and the pooled analyses were performed using RevMan 5.3.

RESULTS

Seven published studies (n = 925 patients) were included in this meta-analysis. We determined that patients with malignant biliary obstruction who received ENBD had reductions in the preoperative cholangitis rate (OR = 0.35, 95% CI = 0.25-0.51, P < 0.0001), the postoperative pancreatic fistula rate (OR = 0.38, 95% CI = 0.18-0.82, P = 0.01), the incidence of stent dysfunction (OR = 0.39, 95% CI = 0.28-0.56, P < 0.0001), and morbidity (OR = 0.47, 95% CI = 0.27-0.82, P = 0.008) compared with patients who received EBS.

CONCLUSIONS

The current meta-analysis suggests that ENBD is better than EBS for malignant biliary obstruction in terms of the preoperative cholangitis rate, the postoperative pancreatic fistula rate, the incidence of stent dysfunction, and morbidity. However, a limitation is that there are no data from randomized controlled trials.