Suppr超能文献

既往接受过减肥手术的患者内镜下与非内镜下胆道介入治疗效果的比较。

A comparison of endoscopic and non-endoscopic biliary intervention outcomes in patients with prior bariatric surgery.

作者信息

Kamboj Amrit K, Pidlaoan Victorio, Shakhatreh Mohammad H, Hinton Alice, Conwell Darwin L, Krishna Somashekar G

机构信息

Department of Internal Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, United States.

Division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, Ohio, United States.

出版信息

Endosc Int Open. 2018 Jan;6(1):E11-E28. doi: 10.1055/s-0043-121878. Epub 2018 Jan 12.

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS

Endoscopic biliary intervention (BI) is often difficult to perform in patients with prior bariatric surgery (BRS). We sought to analyze outcomes of patients with prior BRS undergoing endoscopic and non-endoscopic BI.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The Nationwide Inpatient Sample (2007 - 2011) was reviewed to identify all adult inpatients (≥ 18 years) with a history of BRS undergoing BI. The clinical outcomes of interest were in-patient mortality, length of stay (LOS), and total hospital charges.

RESULTS

There were 7,343 patients with prior BRS who underwent BIs where a majority were endoscopic (4,482 vs. 2,861,  < 0.01). The mean age was 50±30.8 years and the majority were females (80.5 %). Gallstone-related disease was the most common indication for BI and managed more often with primary endoscopic management (2,146 vs. 1,132,  < 0.01). Inpatient mortality was not significantly different between patients undergoing primary endoscopic versus non-endoscopic BI (0.2 % vs. 0.7 %,  = 0.2). Patients with sepsis were significantly more likely to incur failed primary endoscopic BI (OR 2.74, 95 % CI 1.15, 6.53) and were more likely to be managed with non-endoscopic BI (OR 2.13, 95 % CI 1.3, 3.5). Primary non-endoscopic BI and failed endoscopic BI were both associated with longer LOS (by 1.77 days,  < 0.01 and by 2.17 days,  < 0.01, respectively) and higher hospitals charges (by $11,400,  < 0.01 and by $ 14,200,  < 0.01, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Primary endoscopic management may be a safe and cost-effective approach for patients with prior BRS who need BI. While primary endoscopic biliary intervention is more common, primary non-endoscopic intervention may be used more often for sepsis.

摘要

背景与研究目的

对于曾接受过减重手术(BRS)的患者,内镜下胆道介入治疗(BI)往往难以实施。我们试图分析曾接受过BRS的患者接受内镜及非内镜下BI的治疗结果。

患者与方法

回顾全国住院患者样本(2007 - 2011年),以确定所有有BRS病史且接受BI的成年住院患者(≥18岁)。关注的临床结果为住院死亡率、住院时间(LOS)和总住院费用。

结果

共有7343例曾接受过BRS的患者接受了BI,其中大多数为内镜治疗(4482例对2861例,<0.01)。平均年龄为50±30.8岁,大多数为女性(80.5%)。胆石相关疾病是BI最常见的适应证,且更多采用内镜下初始治疗(2146例对1132例,<0.01)。接受内镜下初始治疗与非内镜下BI的患者住院死亡率无显著差异(0.2%对0.7%,P = 0.2)。脓毒症患者内镜下初始BI失败的可能性显著更高(比值比2.74,95%可信区间1.15,6.53),且更可能接受非内镜下BI治疗(比值比2.13,95%可信区间1.3,3.5)。非内镜下初始BI和内镜下BI失败均与更长的住院时间相关(分别延长1.77天,<0.01和2.17天,<0.01)以及更高的住院费用相关(分别增加11400美元,<0.01和14200美元,<0.01)。

结论

对于需要BI的曾接受过BRS的患者,内镜下初始治疗可能是一种安全且具有成本效益的方法。虽然内镜下胆道初始介入治疗更为常见,但非内镜下初始介入治疗可能更多用于脓毒症患者。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验