3
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Multicenter randomized trial of endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation without sphincterotomy versus endoscopic sphincterotomy for removal of bile duct stones: MARVELOUS trial

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background Endoscopic papillary large balloon dilation (EPLBD) has been increasingly used for the management of large common bile duct (CBD) stones. Although EPLBD is often preceded by endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST), EPLBD alone without EST has been increasingly reported as an alternative to EST for large CBD stones.

          Methods This multicenter randomized trial was conducted at 19 Japanese institutions to compare the efficacy and safety of EPLBD alone versus EST for the removal of large (≥ 10 mm) CBD stones. The primary end point was complete stone removal in a single session. The secondary end points included: overall complete stone removal, lithotripsy use, procedure time, adverse events, and cost.

          Results 171 patients with large CBD stones were included in the analysis. The rate of single-session complete stone removal was significantly higher in the EPLBD-alone group than in the EST group (90.7 % vs. 78.8 %; P = 0.04). Lithotripsy use was significantly less frequent in the EPLBD group than in the EST group (30.2 % vs. 48.2 %; P = 0.02). The rates of early adverse events were comparable between the two groups: rates of overall adverse events were 9.3 % vs. 9.4 % and of pancreatitis were 4.7 % vs. 5.9 % in the EPLBD and EST groups, respectively. The procedure costs were $1442 vs. $1661 in the EPLBD and EST groups, respectively (P = 0.12).

          Conclusion EPLBD without EST for the endoscopic treatment of large CBD stones achieved a significantly higher rate of complete stone removal in a single session compared with EST, without increasing adverse events.

          Related collections

          Most cited references36

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          A lexicon for endoscopic adverse events: report of an ASGE workshop.

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Endoscopic balloon dilation compared with sphincterotomy for extraction of bile duct stones.

            Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography is commonly performed to remove bile duct stones. The aim of this study was to determine short-term outcomes of endoscopic balloon dilation of the sphincter of Oddi compared with sphincterotomy for stone extraction. A randomized, controlled multicenter study of 117 patients assigned to dilation and 120 to sphincterotomy was performed in a spectrum of clinical and academic practices. Characteristics of the patients, procedures, and endoscopists were similar except that dilation patients were younger. Procedures were successful in 97.4% and 92.5% of the dilation and sphincterotomy patients, respectively. Overall morbidity occurred in 17.9% and 3.3% ( P < .001; difference, 14.6; 95% confidence interval, 7-22.3) and severe morbidity, including 2 deaths, in 6.8% and 0%( P < .004; difference, 6.8; 95% confidence interval, 2.3-11.4) for dilation and sphincterotomy, respectively. Complications for dilation and sphincterotomy, respectively, included: pancreatitis, 15.4% and .8% ( P < .001; difference, 14.6; 95% confidence interval, 7.8-21.3); cystic duct fistula, 1.7% and 0%; cholangitis, .9% and .8%; perforation, 0% and .8%; and cholecystitis, 0% and .8%. There were 2 deaths (1.7%) due to pancreatitis following dilation and none with sphincterotomy. The study was terminated at the first interim analysis. Dilation patients required significantly more invasive procedures, longer hospital stays, and longer time off from normal activities. In a broad spectrum of patients and practices, endoscopic balloon dilation compared with sphincterotomy for biliary stone extraction is associated with increased short-term morbidity rates and death due to pancreatitis. Balloon dilation of the sphincter of Oddi for stone extraction should be avoided in routine practice.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Endoscopic sphincterotomy plus large-balloon dilation versus endoscopic sphincterotomy for removal of bile-duct stones.

              Endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) to remove bile-duct stones is the most frequently used endoscopic technique. Few reports exist regarding application of large-balloon dilation (LBD) after EST for treatment of patients with bile-duct stones. To compare the effect of EST plus LBD with that of EST alone. A prospective randomized controlled trial. A large tertiary-referral center. Two hundred consecutive patients with bile-duct stones were randomized in equal numbers to EST plus LBD (12- to 20-mm balloon diameter) or EST alone. Successful stone removal and complications such as pancreatitis and bleeding. EST plus LBD compared with EST alone resulted in similar outcomes in terms of overall successful stone removal (97.0% vs 98.0%), large size (>15 mm) stone removal (94.4% vs 96.7%), and the use of mechanical lithotripsy (8.0% vs 9.0%). Complications were similar between the 2 groups (5.0% vs 7.0%, P = .767). Complications were as follows for the EST plus LBD group and the EST group: pancreatitis, 4.0% and 4.0%; cholecystitis, 1.0% and 1.0%; and bleeding (delayed), 0% and 2.0%, respectively. Based on the similar rates of successful stone removal and complications, EST plus LBD should be an effective alternative to EST. EST plus LBD is a safe and effective treatment for endoscopic removal of common bile duct stones.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Endoscopy
                Endoscopy
                Georg Thieme Verlag KG
                0013-726X
                1438-8812
                August 26 2020
                September 2020
                April 16 2020
                September 2020
                : 52
                : 09
                : 736-744
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Gastroenterology, Graduate School of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan
                [2 ]Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Hokkaido University Graduate School of Medicine, Sapporo, Japan
                [3 ]Department of Gastroenterology, Gifu Municipal Hospital, Gifu, Japan
                [4 ]First Department of Internal Medicine, Gifu University Hospital, Gifu, Japan
                [5 ]Department of Gastroenterology, Teikyo University Mizonokuchi Hospital, Kanagawa, Japan
                [6 ]Department of Gastroenterology, Nagoya Daini Red Cross Hospital, Nagoya, Japan
                [7 ]Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Miyazaki, Miyazaki, Japan
                [8 ]Department of Gastroenterology, Japanese Red Cross Medical Center, Tokyo, Japan
                [9 ]Department of Medical Oncology and Hematology, Sapporo Medical University School of Medicine, Sapporo, Japan
                [10 ]Department of Gastroenterology, Tokyo Takanawa Hospital of Japan Community Health-care Organization, Tokyo, Japan
                [11 ]Division of Gastroenterology, Yokohama City University, Graduate School of Medicine, Yokohama, Japan
                [12 ]Department of Gastroenterology, Kanto Central Hospital, Tokyo, Japan
                [13 ]Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Okayama University Graduate School of Medicine, Dentistry and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Okayama, Japan
                [14 ]Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Medicine, Kurume University of Medicine, Kurume, Japan
                [15 ]Department of Gastroenterology, Tokyo Metropolitan Police Hospital, Tokyo, Japan
                [16 ]Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Saitama Medical Center, Saitama Medical University, Saitama, Japan
                [17 ]Department of Gastroenterology, JR Tokyo General Hospital, Tokyo, Japan
                [18 ]Department of Gastroenterology, Graduate School of Medicine, Juntendo University, Tokyo, Japan
                Article
                10.1055/a-1145-3377
                32299114
                d35b157b-480b-4cc4-bf14-75a526a2899b
                © 2020
                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_

                Similar content84

                Cited by9

                Most referenced authors544