胆管内支架引流治疗良恶性胆管梗阻

我院于2000年10月对2003年5月对36例胆管梗阻患者采取胆管内支架引流，取得较好效果，报告如下。     

晚期恶性胆管梗阻经内镜胆管支架引流

恶性胆管梗阻发病隐匿,早期无明显症状,患者就诊时大多为中晚期,手术切除率低,故对晚期不能手术切除患者的减黄治疗尤为重要。近年来,以ERCP为代表的内镜技术已在晚期胆胰恶性肿瘤引起的胆管梗阻临床治疗广泛应用,其缓解梗阻性黄疸疗效不逊传统的胆肠旁路手术,经内镜胆管引流术因其痛苦少、创伤小,最符合机体的状态,     

经内镜放置胆管金属支架联合鼻胆管引流治疗恶性胆管梗阻

目的探讨经内镜放置胆管金属支架联合鼻胆管引流对恶性胆管梗阻的治疗效果。方法 115例失去手术机会的恶性胆管梗阻患者行经内镜逆行胰胆管造影下放置胆管支架,其中48例行胆管塑料支架引流术,30例行胆管金属支架引流术,37例行胆管金属支架联合鼻胆管引流术;分析各组引流效果、成功率、早期并发症和胆管再堵塞发生情况。结果塑料支架组、金属支架组及金属支架联合鼻胆管组的谷丙转氨酶(ALT)、总胆红素(TBIL)、直接胆红素(DBIL)和碱性磷酸酶(AKP)在手术后均有明显降低(P0.05);手术后1周金属支架联合鼻胆管组的TBIL和DBIL明显低于塑料支架组、金属支架组(P0.05),塑料支架组和金属支架组相比,差异无统计学意义(P0.05);术后3个月内金属支架组和金属支架联合鼻胆管组再堵塞的发生率明显低于塑料支架组(P0.05),金属支架组和金属支架联合鼻胆管组相比,差异无统计学意义(P0.05);塑料支架组的手术成功率与金属支架组及金属支架联合鼻胆管组相比,差异无统计学意义(P0.05),塑料支架组的早期并发症发生率明显高于金属支架联合鼻胆管组,差异有统计学意义(P0.05)。结论经内镜逆行胰胆管造影下放置胆管金属支架联合鼻胆管对于恶性胆管梗阻有确切的引流效果。     

塑料内支架治疗恶性胆管梗阻的经济效益分析

经十二指肠镜放置内支架是公认的治疗恶性梗阻性黄疸的有效办法,它能在患者存活期内有效地缓解黄疸、全面改善症状和营养状况。虽然已证实金属支架与塑料支架在减黄效果上并无差异[1,2],但由于国内外对2种支架的经济-效益关系分析角度不同,因而对如何选择2种支架仍有争     

经内镜置入胆管内支架引流治疗良恶性胆管梗阻

目的 观察经内镜下胆管内引流术治疗良恶性胆管梗阻病人的效果.方法 经内镜下逆行胆管造影,根据胆管狭窄的情况放置不同的胆管支架.术后观察病人的黄疸、腹痛和发热等症状,并复查肝功能等.结果 36例良恶性胆管梗阻,塑料支架置入成功率为96.4%,金属支架成功率为100%,无支架术相关死亡者.结论 经内镜下逆行胆管内引流手术要求的条件低,创伤小,引流效果好,是治疗胆管梗阻的首选引流方法 ,值得进一步推广.     

内镜下胆管内支架引流治疗胆管梗阻

胆管梗阻的传统治疗方法包括外科手术、PTCD等，存在创伤性大、并发症多、死亡率高、胆汁体外丢失等缺点，内镜下胆管内支架引流术经十二指肠乳头逆行置入内支架，胆汁经支架流入十二指肠，符合生理要求，减少患术后痛苦，提高生活质量。近来我们采用内镜下塑料支架引流术(endoscopic retrograde biliary drainage，ERBD)和内镜下金属支架引流术(endoscopic metal biliary endo-prothesis，EMBE)引流良、恶性胆管梗阻30例，现报道如下。     

恶性胆管梗阻内支架置入后再梗阻的研究现状

通过内镜置入胆道内支架引流是目前治疗恶性胆管梗阻的首选措施,然而内支架再梗阻却是当前困扰临床的主要问题.近年来,国内外在探讨支架阻塞的机制,通过多种方法防治以延长引流时间等方面进行了广泛而深入的研究,此文就此作一综述.     

胆管梗阻性疾病ERCP治疗的临床应用

随着内镜下逆行胰胆管造影(ERCP)技术的发展,治疗性ERCP技术趋于成熟,内镜下治疗胆管梗阻性疾病取得了与外科手术相似的结果。2001年1月至12月一年内我们行ERCP治疗50例胆管梗阻性疾病患者,疗效满意。     

胆管恶性梗阻的内镜治疗

目的研究经内镜下塑料支架和金属支架对胆管恶性梗阻的治疗效果。方法将我院2010年1月至2012年6月经ERCP确诊为胆管恶性梗阻的120例患者,分成金属支架引流术组（EMBE）（n=62）和塑料支架引流术组（ERBD）（n=58）,监测两组患者血清总胆红素、谷丙转氨酶、碱性磷酸酶、谷氨酰胺转肽酶、血清TNF-α等的变化,并统计分析两组患者并发症的发生率以及死亡率。结果两组插管成功率及并发症发生率为均无明显差异（P〉0.05）,无死亡病例。治疗1周后复查两组患者的肝功能各项指标,结果较治疗前有统计学差异（P〈0.05）。两组成功随访89例,随访率为74.16%（89/120）,12例ERBD患者发生支架阻塞,占30.77%（12/39）,该组中位生存期为5个月。6例EMBE患者发生支架阻塞,占12%（6/50）,该组中位生存期为9.3个月,两组比较P均〈0.05。结论从随访看,支架阻塞发生率和中位生存期EMBE组均优于ERBD组,但两组均能有效的建立胆管内引流,改善患者的肝功能,具有创伤小、痛苦少、恢复快、无体外留管、符合生理过程等优点。     

内镜下胆管引流术治疗恶性胆管梗阻

目的 探讨经内镜放置胆管内支架治疗恶性胆管梗阻的效果.方法 采用胆管内支架治疗恶性胆管梗阻.结果 置管成功率91.83%,引流总有效率93.75%,并发症为8.33%.结论 内镜下置入胆管支架是解除胆管恶性梗阻的一种安全、有效、成功率高及并发症少的治疗方法.     

New 14-mm diameter Niti-S biliary uncovered metal stent for unresectable distal biliary malignant obstruction

AIM To investigate whether an uncovered self-expandable metal stent(UCSEMS) with a large diameter could prevent recurrent biliary obstruction(RBO).METHODS Thirty-eight patients with malignant biliary obstruction underwent treatment with an UCSEMS with a 14-mm diameter(Niti-S 14). Retrospectively, we evaluated technical and functional success rate, RBO rate, time to RBO, survival time, and adverse events in these patients.RESULTS Stent placement success and functional success were achieved in all patients. Two patients(5.3%) had RBO due to tumor ingrowth or overgrowth. The median time to RBO was 190(range, 164-215) d. The median survival time was 120(range, 18-502) d. The 6-mo non-RBO rate was 91%. Other adverse events other than RBO occurred as follows: Acute cholecystitis, post-ERCP pancreatitis, hemobilia, and fever without exacerbation of liver injury, and liver abscess in 4(10.3%), 3(7.9%), 2(5.3%), 1(2.6%), and 1(2.6%), respectively. Migration of the stents was not observed.CONCLUSION Niti-S 14 is considered to be a preferable metal stent because of a low rate of RBO with no migration.     

Drug-eluting stent in malignant biliary obstruction

Introduction

In unresectable malignant bile duct obstruction, endoscopic stent insertion is the treatment of choice. However, the current stent allows only mechanical palliation of the obstruction, and has no anti-tumor effect. Currently, in the vascular field, the drug-eluting stent (DES) is very highly favored.

Material and methods

The requirements for a DES in a non-vascular tract, such as the bile duct, are far different from those of a DES to be used in the vascular tract. The non-vascular DES must suppress tumor proliferation as well as mucosal hyperplasia. For example, the non-vascular stent might be covered with a membrane that gradually releases a chemo-agent. We do not have much experience with DES in the bile duct. Nonetheless, we are continuously testing many anti-tumor agents in animal and human studies.

Conclusion

We expect and hope DES will work effectively for tumor cells in diverse ways and, more importantly, will prolong stent patency and the patients’ survival periods. But considerable investigation and a clinical study of DES will be required to achieve these goals.     

Safety and efficacy of metallic stent for unresectable distal malignant biliary obstruction in elderly patients

AIM To study the safety of insertion of metallic stents in elderly patients with unresectable distal malignant biliary obstruction.METHODS Of 272 patients with unresectable distal malignant biliary obstruction, 184 patients under the age of 80 were classified into Group A, and 88 subjects aged 80 years or more were classified into Group B. The safety of metallic stent insertion, metal stent patency period, and the obstruction rate were examined in each group.RESULTS In Group B, patients had a significantly worse per-formance status, high blood pressure, heart disease, cerebrovascular disease, and dementia; besides the rate of patients orally administered antiplatelet drugs or anticoagulants tended to be higher(P 0.05). Metallic stents were successfully inserted in all patients. The median patency period was 265.000 ± 26.779(1-965) d; 252.000 ± 35.998(1-618) d in Group A and 269.000 ± 47.885(1-965) d in Group B, with no significant difference between the two groups. Metallic stent obstruction occurred in 82 of the 272(30.15%) patients; in 53/184(28.80%) patients in Group A and in 29/88(32.95%) of those in Group B, showing no significant difference between the two groups. Procedural accidents due to metal stent insertion occurred in 24/272(8.8%) patients; in 17/184(9.2%) of patients in Group A and in 7/88(8.0%) of those in Group B, with no significant difference between the two groups, either.CONCLUSION These results suggested that metallic stents can be safely inserted to treat unresectable distal malignant biliary obstruction even in elderly patients aged 80 years or more.     

经内镜逆行胰胆管造影胆道金属支架置入治疗不可切除肝外胆道恶性梗阻的效果观察

目的探讨经内镜逆行胰胆管造影(ERCP)胆道金属支架置入对于肝外胆道恶性梗阻的临床疗效及安全性。方法收集2010年1月-2015年12月郑州大学第二附属医院收治的不可切除性肝外胆道恶性梗阻患者40例。根据手术方法不同分为经皮经肝胆管穿刺引流术(PTCD)组和ERCP组各20例。观察2组患者支架通畅期和生存期、术后临床疗效、术后并发症发生情况、术后住院时间等指标。计量资料组间比较采用t检验;计数资料组间比较采用χ2检验或校正的χ2检验。2组支架通畅期和生存期的比较采用Kaplan-Meier法对数秩检验。结果 ERCP组患者的支架通畅期[(225.6±52.5)d vs(156.3±44.5)d]、生存期[(335.6±42.5)d vs(225.5±42.5)d]较PTCD组均明显延长(t值分别为11.45、10.46,P值均<0.05)。ERCP组患者术后发生腹痛(7例)少于PTCD组(10例),差异有统计学意义(35.0%vs 50.0%,χ2=9.45,P<0.05)。ERCP组患者术后严重并发症发生率显著低于PTCD组(10.0%vs 30.0%,χ2=7.49,P<0.05)。与PTCD组相比,ERCP组患者的住院时间更短[(12.4±2.5)d vs(19.8±4.0)d,t=10.67,P<0.05]。结论 ERCP支架置入与PTCD解除胆道恶性梗阻疗效相近,但ERCP术后胆道通畅时间、生存期长,并发症少,住院时间短。因此对于肝外胆道恶性梗阻患者,采用ERCP临床疗效更好,安全性更高。     

经皮肝穿刺胆道内支架植入治疗恶性胆道梗阻64例

目的：总结经皮肝穿刺胆道内支架植入治疗恶性梗阻性黄疸的经验，探讨其临床疗效及价值。方法：64例患者均采用X线透视下经皮肝穿刺胆道内支架植入术治疗恶性梗阻性黄疽。根据梗阻部位的不同解剖决定放置支架的方式。结果：64例患者中，50例植入单支支架于肝总管或(和)胆总管，14例植入2支以上支架于总管和分支胆管，其中2例肝内胆管支架的桥接通过肝实质。58例患者2周内血清胆红素降低75％以上。结论：经皮肝穿刺刺内支架植入是治疗恶性胆道梗阻性的有效方法。     

Folfirinox chemotherapy prolongs stent patency in patients with malignant biliary obstruction due to unresectable pancreatic cancer

Background: Stent insertion for biliary decompression to relieve jaundice and subsequent biliary infection is necessary for patients with biliary obstruction caused by pancreatic cancer, and it is important to keep the stent patent as long as possible. However, few studies have compared stent patency in terms of chemotherapy in patients with pancreatic cancer. This study aimed to evaluate the differences in stent patency in terms of recently evolving chemotherapy.Methods: Between January 2015 and May 2017, 161 patients with pancreatic cancer who had undergone biliary stent insertion with a metal stent were retrospectively analyzed. The relationship between chemotherapy and stent patency was assessed. Additionally, overall survival according to the treatment, risk factors for stent patency, and long-term adverse events were evaluated.Results: Median stent patency was 42 days for patients with the best supportive care and 217 days for patients with chemotherapy (conventional gemcitabine-based chemotherapy and folfirinox) (P < 0.001). Furthermore, the folfirinox group showed the longest median stent patency and overall survival, with 283 days and 466 days, respectively (P < 0.001) despite higher adverse events rate. Patients who underwent folfirinox chemotherapy after stent insertion had better stent patency in multivariate analysis (HR = 0.26; 95% CI: 0.12–0.60; P = 0.001).Conclusions: Compared with patients who received best supportive care only, patients who underwent chemotherapy after stent insertion had better stent patency. More prolonged stent patency can be expected for patients with folfirinox than conventional gemcitabine-based chemotherapy.