Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
A comparison of endoscopic and non-endoscopic biliary intervention outcomes in patients with prior bariatric surgery.
Kamboj, Amrit K; Pidlaoan, Victorio; Shakhatreh, Mohammad H; Hinton, Alice; Conwell, Darwin L; Krishna, Somashekar G.
Afiliación
  • Kamboj AK; Department of Internal Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, United States.
  • Pidlaoan V; Division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, Ohio, United States.
  • Shakhatreh MH; Division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, Ohio, United States.
  • Hinton A; Section of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Virginia Tech Carilion School of Medicine and Research Institute, Roanoke, Virginia, United States.
  • Conwell DL; Division of Biostatistics, College of Public Health, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, United States.
  • Krishna SG; Section of Pancreatic Disorders, Division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, Ohio, United States.
Endosc Int Open ; 6(1): E11-E28, 2018 Jan.
Article en En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29340294
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, P  < 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, P  < 0.01). Inpatient mortality was not significantly different between patients undergoing primary endoscopic versus non-endoscopic BI (0.2 % vs. 0.7 %, P  = 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, P  < 0.01 and by 2.17 days, P  < 0.01, respectively) and higher hospitals charges (by $11,400, P  < 0.01 and by $ 14,200, P  < 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.

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Base de datos: MEDLINE Tipo de estudio: Prognostic_studies Idioma: En Revista: Endosc Int Open Año: 2018 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: Estados Unidos Pais de publicación: Alemania

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Base de datos: MEDLINE Tipo de estudio: Prognostic_studies Idioma: En Revista: Endosc Int Open Año: 2018 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: Estados Unidos Pais de publicación: Alemania