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

Author:

Kamboj Amrit1,Pidlaoan Victorio2,Shakhatreh Mohammad23,Hinton Alice4,Conwell Darwin5,Krishna Somashekar56

Affiliation:

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

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

3. Section of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Virginia Tech Carilion School of Medicine and Research Institute, Roanoke, Virginia, United States

4. Division of Biostatistics, College of Public Health, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, United States

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

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

Abstract

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, 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.

Publisher

Georg Thieme Verlag KG

Subject

Gastroenterology,Medicine (miscellaneous)

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3