4.4 Article

A twenty-year experience with endoscopic therapy for symptomatic primary sclerosing cholangitis

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL GASTROENTEROLOGY
卷 42, 期 9, 页码 1032-1039

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/MCG.0b013e3181646713

关键词

ERCP; PSC; dominant stricture; endoscopic therapy

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Goals: The current study presents 1 tertiary endoscopy center's 20-year experience using endoscopic therapy to treat patients with symptomatic Primary Sclerosing cholangitis (PSC). Background: Endoscopic therapy for patients with PSC and dominant strictures has been used for more than 20 years, but there is concern that instrumenting a sclerotic biliary tree induces risks that outweigh anticipated benefits. Study: In this retrospective chart review. 117 patients with PSC were identified using ICD-9 codes. Patients had a mean age of 47 years (range: 15 to 86y). Mean duration of follow-up was 8 years (range: 2 to 20 y). Of the 117 identified patients. 106 underwent endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography on one or more occasions (for a total of 317 endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatographies), and a subset of 84 patients received endoscopic therapy for treatment of dominant strictures and/or deteriorating clinical status. Actual survival for endoscopically treated patients was compared with predicted survival using the Mayo Clinic natural history model for PSC. Results: Our chart review revealed 23 recognized complications among the 317 procedures performed (7.3%), and no procedure-related deaths. Observed patient survival at years 3 and 4 was significantly higher than that predicted by the Mayo Clinic natural history model for PSC (P = 0.021). Conclusions: Patients with PSC who have a deteriorating clinical course benefited from endoscopic therapy to provide drainage of bile ducts, removal of stones, and/or temporary relief from obstructions, with acceptable procedure-related complications and higher than expected 3-year and 4-year survival.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据