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

Survey on the current status of the indication and implementation protocols for bile replacement in patients with external biliary drainage with special reference to infection control

PURPOSE

This survey of bile replacement (BR) was conducted on patients with external biliary drainage to assess the current status of indication and implementation protocol of BR with special reference to infection control.

METHODS

A 12-item questionnaire regarding the performance of perioperative BR was sent to 124 institutions in Japan.

RESULTS

BR was performed in 29 institutions, and the indication protocol was introduced in 19. BR was performed preoperatively in 11 institutions, pre- and postoperatively in 12, and postoperatively in 6. The methods used for BR administration included oral intake (n = 10), nasogastric tube (n = 1), enteral nutrition tube (n = 3), oral intake and enteral nutrition tube (n = 6), oral intake or nasogastric tube (n = 2), nasogastric tube and enteral nutrition tube (n = 2), and oral intake or nasogastric tube and enteral nutrition tube (n = 5). In 10 of 29 institutions, isolation of multidrug-resistant organisms and a high bacterial load were considered contraindications for the use of BR. Seven institutions experienced environmental contamination.

CONCLUSIONS

Given the different implementation of BR among institutions, the appropriate indication and protocols for BR should be established for infection control.

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

Purpose

The 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 Methods

This 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.

Results

From 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).

Conclusion

For 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.