Premium
Long‐term prognosis after biliary stenting for common bile duct stones in high‐risk elderly patients
Author(s) -
Akazawa Yu,
Ohtani Masahiro,
Nosaka Takuto,
Saito Yasushi,
Takahashi Kazuto,
Naito Tatsushi,
Ofuji Kazuya,
Matsuda Hidetaka,
Hiramatsu Katsushi,
Nemoto Tomoyuki,
Nakamoto Yasunari
Publication year - 2018
Publication title -
journal of digestive diseases
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.684
H-Index - 51
eISSN - 1751-2980
pISSN - 1751-2972
DOI - 10.1111/1751-2980.12656
Subject(s) - medicine , propensity score matching , hazard ratio , univariate analysis , gastroenterology , confidence interval , proportional hazards model , multivariate analysis , biliary stent , survival analysis , retrospective cohort study , surgery , stent
OBJECTIVE To evaluate the long‐term outcomes of complete common bile duct (CBD) stone removal and biliary stenting in elderly patients (≥85 years) with CBD stones. METHODS We retrospectively examined 65 patients who underwent complete CBD stone removal (the duct clearance group) and 40 patients who underwent biliary stenting (the biliary stenting group) between July 2006 and March 2016. To reduce selection bias, we also conducted a propensity score matching analysis and generated 30 pairs of patients. Cholangitis recurrence‐free survival and overall survival were compared between the two groups and independent prognostic factors of survival were identified by univariate and multivariate analyses. RESULTS Cholangitis recurrence‐free survival was significantly better in the duct clearance group than in the biliary stenting group ( P < 0.001). Their overall survival did not significantly differ after propensity score matching ( P = 0.388). In all cohorts, univariate analysis demonstrated that poor performance status and biliary stenting were factors of poor prognosis, and in multivariate analysis only performance status remained associated with poor prognosis for survival. Similarly, in the propensity score‐matched cohort, only performance status independently predicted poorer survival (hazard ratio [HR] 2.726, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.105–6.675, P = 0.029). The choice of endoscopic treatment was not a significant factor associated with prognosis (HR 1.354, 95% CI 0.678–2.701, P = 0.391). CONCLUSIONS Biliary stenting was similar to complete stone removal in terms of prognosis for long‐term survival. Biliary stenting for CBD stones could be an effective therapeutic tool in high‐risk elderly patients.