GET THE APP

Preoperative Biliary Drainage of Jaundiced Patients with Pancreatic Head Cancer: A Routine or Selective Strategy
Pancreatic Disorders & Therapy

Pancreatic Disorders & Therapy
Open Access

ISSN: 2165-7092

+44 20 3868 9735

Research Article - (2017) Volume 7, Issue 2

Preoperative Biliary Drainage of Jaundiced Patients with Pancreatic Head Cancer: A Routine or Selective Strategy

Tshijanu F*, Toutouzas K, Mubaminyi L, Pidireki A, Alexakis N, Karaliotas C and Zografou
2nd Department of General Surgery and Surgical Oncology Unit, Hellenic Red Cross Hospital of Athens, Greece
*Corresponding Author: Tshijanu F, Department of General Surgery and Surgical Oncology Unit, Hellenic Red Cross Hospital Of Athens, Greece, Tel: 00306996154491 Email:

Abstract

Most patients with pancreatic head cancer (85%) are jaundiced at presentation. Obstructive jaundice is believed to increase postoperative complications. According to some experimental and clinical studies, preoperative biliary drainage (PBD) improves postoperative outcomes. However, numerous randomized studies found that PBD might increase postoperative complications rate. Thus, PBD or not is controversial. Objective: To confirm if PBD can be a routine or selective strategy in these patients. Material and methods: A retrospective study comparing PBD with surgery alone in 200 jaundiced patients with pancreatic head cancer from 2nd Department of Surgery-Hellenic Red Cross Hospital of Athens (1996-2011). Data from patient’s files including: Age, gender, smoking, diabetes history, Laboratory parameters, procedures, post-operative course. Results: The majority of patients (62.5% ) were males, with adenocarcinoma (93.5% ), smokers (65.0% ), and half of them were diabetics. The median age was 70 years, median tumor size was 5 cm ,while PBD was performed in 74 patients ( 37.0%) with higher laboratory parameters (Direct bilirubin 18 mg/dl vs 13 mg/dl. Total bilirubin 24 mg/dl vs 20 mg/dl) and in this group was marked: higher postoperative complications rate, higher ICU admission rate, higher postoperative mortality (17.6% vs 5.6%). Conclusion: We believe that PBD should be a selective strategy in jaundiced patients with pancreatic head cancer in case of fever, non- operability of patients, and in case of more advanced disease as a palliative alternative since, this method increases postoperative complications rate.

Keywords: Obstructive jaundice; Pancreatic head cancer; Preoperative biliary drainage; Post-operative outcomes

Introdution

Pancreatic cancer is an aggressive neoplastic disease, with overall 5-years survival rate from all stages of less than 5%, making it, the 4th cause of cancer related death in the United States of America. Despite the innovation of diagnostic and therapeutic modalities during the year 2013 it was estimated that approximately [45] 2200 people were diagnosed with pancreatic adenocarcinoma and 38,460 died from it. With the majority of patients presenting with unrespectable tumor, locally advanced or metastatic disease and around 80% of patients are jaundiced [1]. For those with respectable tumor without evidence of metastasis, pancreaticoduodenectomy is the only option for cure, whereas radiation therapy, chemotherapy, and other newer experimental therapeutic modalities such as anti-hormonal therapy or systemic use of anti-pancreatic cancer cell monoclonal antibodies have not led to substantial prognostic improvements.

Obstructive jaundice is thought to increase the risk of perioperative and postoperative complications [2]. Experimental studies performed on mice assigned to biliary ligation to induce obstructive jaundice showed significant complications in these animals such as coagulopathy, Cholangitis, hepatic dysfunction, intestinal barrier derangement, immunity dysfunction, wound healing retardation, renal dysfunction, cardio- pulmonary insufficiencies as well as endotoxemia. Understanding well the pathophysiology of obstructive jaundice related complications in 1935 Sir A.O. Whipple first introduced the concept of preoperative biliary drainage in jaundiced patients with pancreatic head cancer in order to improve postoperative outcomes. Subsequently, Carter contributed with a percutaneous trans hepatic-cholangiography (PTC). In the late 1960s, McCune proposed the endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), with stent insertion to explore the biliary tree and to decrease jaundice preoperatively. Numerous randomized controlled trials have addressed the issue of preoperative biliary drainage and its impact on perioperative and postoperative results [3,4]. However, reports on outcomes of pancreatoduodenectomy following PBD have been conflicting. Some studies have underlined increased pre-operative, intra-operative and postoperative complications related to PBD such as bleeding, pancreatitis, duodenal perforation, cholangitis, cholecystitis, cardiopulmonary events and miscellaneous [5-12]. In contrast, others have noted no adverse effect on perioperative and postoperative outcomes and on the other hand, some authors have even noticed amelioration of postoperative outcomes with this strategy‘s application [3].

Based on these considerations, the role of preoperative biliary drainage remains a matter of controversies. To assess its effects on postoperative outcomes, we performed this retrospective study.

Material and Methods

This is a retrospective study, comparing preoperative biliary drainage with surgery alone in 200 jaundiced patients with pancreatic head cancer treated in the Second Surgical Department at the Hellenic Red Cross Hospital of Athens (Greece), from 1996 to 2011. Data collected from patients files including age, gender, life style, personal history of diabetes mellitus, laboratory parameters, surgical procedure, preoperative ERCP, postoperative course. We selected only jaundiced patients who were shifted to pancreato-duodenectomy by excluding those of palliative procedures. Enrolled patients were divided in two groups whether they were shifted to ERCP preoperatively or not. This comparative retrospective study was done using statistical analysis with R software version 3.3.1 (2016-06-21) Continuous variables were presented by using different measures (mean, standard deviation, interquartile range and range),while normality was tested through Shapiro-Wilk test and histograms, however none was considered to follow the normal distribution. Counts and percentages (N, %) were used for presenting categorical variables. Possible associations among categorical variables were assessed by Fisher’s exact test, while Kruskal- Wallis test was used for testing categorical with continuous variables. For ERCP-patients group, Wilcoxon signed rank’s test 5 was used regarding the comparison of laboratory parameters before and after biliary drainage .Respective bar-charts were created for graphical representation of the results .Univariate and multivariate logistic regression model 6 were used for assessing the odds ratio 7 regarding the number of postoperative outcomes (2+ vs. 0.0 1) comparing the two groups of jaundiced patients the collected parameters were included in multivariate analysis and significance level for all univariate and multivariate tests was set at α=5%.

Result

The majority of jaundiced patients were males (62.5%), and smokers (65.0%) for many years, while almost half of them were diabetics. Most of them had adenocarcinoma (93.5%), The median age of patients was 70 years, the median tumor size was 5 cm at abdominal CT scan, while postoperatively 90 patients (45.0%) were admitted in ICU. Preoperative PBD was performed in 74 patients (37.0%). The ERCP-group patients had larger tumor size, were more smokers and diabetics (Tables 1 and 2), and had higher baseline laboratory parameters as well. Furthermore, 73.0% of PBD-patients were admitted in ICU immediately after surgical procedure, while the respective ICU admission rate for the model group was 28.6% (p-value <0.001).The median postoperative hospitalization length did not differ between the two groups. In patients of PBD-group there was significant decrease of laboratory parameters after ERCP, which in some cases was more than 50.0% especially for serum bilirubin (Table 3, Figures 1 and 2).

    ERCP    Kruskal-Wallis
test p-value
  Total No (N=126) Yes (N=74)  
Age        
Mean (Min-Max) 69.7 (44.0-88.0) 69.8 (44.0- 88.0) 69.5 (49.0-88.0) 0.61
Median (1stQ-3rdQ) 70.0 (65.0- 75.0) 70.0 (65.0- 75.0) 69.5 (65.0- 75.0)  
Tumor size        
Mean (Min-Max) 4.7 (1.5-8.0) 4.4 (1.5-8.0) 5.3 (2.0-8.0) <0.001
Median (1stQ-3rdQ) 5.0 (4.0-5.5) 4.5 (3.1-5.5) 5.0 (4.5-6.0)  
CA19-9        
Mean (Min-Max) 409.0 (120.0- 628.0) 383.2 (120.0-600.0) 453.1 (170.0- 628.0) <0.001
Median (1stQ-3rdQ) 400.0 (350.0- 500.0) 390.0 (302.5-487.5) 450.0 (400.0- 528.8)  
AFP        
Mean (Min-Max) 3.9 (1.2-8.0) 3.7 (1.2-8.0) 4.2 (2.5-7.2) 0.005
    ERCP    Kruskal-Wallis
test p-value
  Total No (N=126) Yes (N=74)  
Median (1stQ-3rdQ) 3.6 (3.1-4.7) 3.5 (3.0-4.5) 3.9 (3.5-5.1)  
CEA        
Mean (Min-Max) 2.8 (1.1-6.5) 2.7 (1.1-6.5) 3.1 (1.2-6.0) 0.002
Median (1stQ-3rdQ) 2.7 (2.0-3.5) 2.5 (1.8-3.2) 3.0 (2.5-3.9)  
INR 1st measurement        
Mean (Min-Max) 1.5 (1.1-0.8) 1.4 (1.1-1.8) 1.5 (1.2-1.8) <0.001
Median (1stQ-3rdQ) 1.4 (1.3-1.6) 1.4 (1.3-1.5) 1.5 (1.4-1.6)  
T-Bil 1st measurement        
Mean (Min-Max) 21.3 (9.0-40.0) 19.5 (9.0-28.9) 24.4 (16.0-40.0) <0.001
Median (1stQ-3rdQ) 22.0 (19.0-24.0) 20.0 (17.6-22.0) 24.0 (22.0-25.1)  
D-Bil 1st measurement        
Mean (Min-Max) 14.2 (2.5-25.0) 12.6 (2.5-20.0) 16.9 (8.5- 25.0) <0.001
Median (1stQ-3rdQ) 15.0 (11.0-18.0) 13.0 (9.0-16.0) 18.0 (15.3-19.0)  
I-Bil 1st measurement        
Mean (Min-Max) 4.2 (1.2-9.0) 3.8 (1.2-8.0) 4.9 (1.7-9.0) <0.001
Median (1stQ-3rdQ) 4.0 (2.8-5.5) 3.5 (2.5-5.1) 5.0 (3.5-6.0)  
SGOT 1st measurement        
Mean (Min-Max) 323.1 (120.0-620.0) 299.3 (120.0- 550.0) 363.7 (180.0- 620.0) <0.001
Median (1stQ-3rdQ) 350.0 (267.5- 391.2) 300.0 (205.8- 377.5) 360.0 (300.0- 400.0)  

Table 1: Univariate analysis – Laboratory parameters and length of hospitalization in the two patients groups (continuous).

    ERCP   Fisher's exact  test p-value
  Total - N (%) No (N=126) - N (%) Yes (N=74) - N (%)  
Gender        
F 75 (37.5) 47 (37.3) 28 (37.8) >0.99
M 125 (62.5) 79 (62.7) 46 (62.2)  
Smoker        
No 70 (35.0) 54(42.9) 16 (21.6) 0.003
Yes 130 (65.0) 72 (57.1) 58 (78.4)  
Diabetes        
No 97 (48.5) 68 (54.0)  29 (39.2) 0.057
Yes 103 (51.5) 58 (46.0)  45 (60.8)  
Histology        
Adeno. CA. 187 (93.5) 120 (95.2)  67 (90.5) 0.24
Cystadeno. CA. 13 (6.5) 6 (4.8)  7 (9.5)  
ICU (days)        
0 110 (55) 90 (71.4) 20 (27) <0.001
1 87 (43.5) 36 (28.6)  51 (68.9)  
2 3 (1.5) 0 (0) 3 (4.1)  
ICU (days)        
0 110 (55) 90 (71.4) 20 (27) <0.001
1 & 2 90 (45) 36 (28.6) 54 (73)  

Table 2: Univariate analysis–Baseline parameters characteristics in the two groups (categorical).

ERCP Yes (N=74)
    Before After Wilcoxon signed-rank test p-value
INR Mean (Std) 1.5 (0.1) 1.2 -0.1 <0.001
  Median (Range) 1.5 (1.2-1.8) 1.2 (0.9 - 1.3)  
S. BIL        
T-Bil Mean (Std) 24.4 (3.6) 11.5 (2.7) <0.001
  Median (Range) 24 (16-40) 11.1 (6.16-18)  
D-Bil Mean (Std) 16.9 (3) 8.3 <0.001
  Median (Range) 18 (8.5-25) 7.2 (3-100.3)  
         
ERCP Yes (N=74)
    Before After Wilcoxon Signed-rank Test p-value
I-Bil Mean (Std) 4.9 (1.7) 1.6-(0.5) <0.001
  Median (Range) 5 (1.7-9) 1.5 (0.9-3.8)  
H. Enzy        
SGOT Mean (Std) 363.7 (83.2) 206.3 (81.6) <0.001
  Median (Range) 360 (180-620) 180 (40-452)  
SGPT Mean (Std) 369.2 (84.5) 228.8 (80.4) <0.001
  Median (Range) 370 (150-540) 206.5 (50-450)  
LDH Mean (Std) 347.1 (105.4) 206.9 (73.4) <0.001
  Median (Range) 350 (150-670) 190 (40-390)  
ALP Mean (Std) 303.3 (110.5) 175.3 (77.2) <0.001
  Median (Range) 300 (122-570) 154 (38-400)  
γ-GT Mean (Std) 372.1 (129.5) 201.5 (88.6) <0.001
  Median (Range) 350 (102-680) 180 (38-402)  

Table 3: Univariate analysis - Laboratory parameters before and after ERCP.

  ERCP  
  No (N=126) Yes (N=74) Fisher's exact  test t p-value
  N % N %
Abdomen abscess 5 4.00% 7 9.50% 0.13
Anasto leak 0 0.00% 1 1.40% 0.37
Bile leak 16 12.70% 6 8.10% 0.36
Cardiopathy 5 4.00% 0 0.00% 0.16
Ct drainage 1 0.80% 2 2.70% 0.56
Death 7 5.60% 13 17.60% 0.013
DGE 34 27.00% 8 10.80% 0.007
Diarrhea 4 3.20% 3 4.10% 0.71
Pancreatic fistula 8 6.30% 13 17.60% 0.017
Respiratory infection 16 12.70% 29 39.20% <0.001
Urinary infection 8 6.30% 8 10.80% 0.29
Wound infection 44 34.90% 20 27.00% 0.27
  ERCP  
  No (N=126) Yes (N=74) Fisher's exact  test t p-value
  N % N %
Number of POs          
0 7 5.60% 6 8.10% <0.001
1 92 73.00% 33 44.60%  
2 25 19.80% 28 37.80%  
3 2 1.60% 7 9.50%  
Number of POs (0-1 vs. 2+)          
0-1 99 79% 39 53% <0.001
2+ 27 21% 35 47%  

Table 4: Univariate analysis–Associations between procedure groups and postoperative outcomes.

pancreatic-disorders-Laboratory-parameters

Figure 1: Laboratory parameters before and after ERCP.

Regarding postoperative outcomes between the two groups, PBDpatients differed from others in terms of occurrence of complications patients from the adverse group. Similarly, within patients of PBD, 17.6% experienced pancreatic fistula vs 6.3% and 39.2% respiratory infection vs 12.7%. In contrary, 27.0% of early surgery patients had DGE vs 10.8% in PBD-group (Figure 2). Considering the number of postoperative complications, the occurrence rate of more than one complications in PBD-patients is 47% vs 21% in patients from the early pancreaticoduodenectomy group (Figure 3).

pancreatic-disorders-Postoperative-events

Figure 2: Statistically significant differences of Postoperative events between the two groups.

pancreatic-disorders-patients-groups

Figure 3: Number of Postoperative complications in the two patients groups.

Considering the total sample, Kruskal-Wallis test showed that the PBD-patients had more than two postoperative complications and increased serum bilirubin values (p=0.045),increased preoperative hospitalization (p-value <0.001),increased ICU- admission rate (p-value=0.014). Regarding the early procedure patients, those with two or more postoperative complications were older in age (p-value=0.021) and had prolonged preoperative hospitalization (p-value=0.001) (Tables 5 and 6).

  Total Sample ERCP No (N=126) ERCP Yes (N=74)
  Number of Pos Number of Pos Number of Pos
  0-1 (N=138) 2+ (N=62) KruskalWallis
test p-value
0-1 (N=99) 2+ (N=27) KruskalWallis test p-value 0-1 (N=39) 2+ (N=35) KruskalWallis test p-value
  Median(Range) Median(Range) Median(Range) Median(Range) Median(Range) Median(Range)
 
AGE 70 (44-88) 71.5 (48-88) 0.088 70 (44-87) 73 (48-88) 0.021 69 (49-88) 70 (56-83) 0.83
Tumor size 5 (1.5-8) 5 (2.5-8) 0.94 4.5 (1.5-8) 4 (2.5-6.5) 0.17 5 (2-8) 5 (3-8) 0.43
CA19-9 400 (120-628) 400 (150-580) 0.48 390 (120-600) 360 (150-560) 0.29 450 (170-628) 450 (340-580) 0.71
AFP 3.6 (1.2-8) 3.6 (2.25-7.2) 0.68 3.5 (1.2-8) 3.5 (2.25-6) 0.17 3.6 (2.5-6.2) 4.2 (2.5-7.2) 0.37
CEA 2.55 (1.1-6.5) 2.9 (1.4-6) 0.3 2.5 (1.1-6.5) 2.5 (1.4-5.1) 0.49 3 (1.2-5.2) 3 (1.5-6) 0.32
INR 1st 1.4 (1.2-1.8) 1.5 (1.1-1.8) 0.42 1.4 (1.2-1.8) 1.3 (1.1-1.8) 0.47 1.5 (1.2-1.8) 1.5 (1.2-1.8) 0.54
T-Bil 1st 21.3 (11-40) 22 (9-39) 0.045 20 (11-27) 19 (9-28.9) 0.46 23.5 (16-40) 24 (21-39) 0.82
D-Bil 1st 14 (2.5-23) 16 (6-25) 0.1 13 (2.5-20) 13 (6-20) 0.74 18 (12-23) 18 (8.5-25) 0.48
I-Bil 1st 3.95 (1.2-9) 5 (1.2-8) 0.51 3.4 (1.2-8) 5 (1.2-8) 0.92 5.28 (1.7-9) 5 (2-8) 0.29
SGOT 1st 345 (130-620) 350 (120-502) 0.57 310 (130-550) 290 (120-502) 0.03 360 (180-620) 360 (180-500) 0.61
SGPT 1st 350 (140-570) 350 (150-560) 0.33 320 (140-570) 330(200-560) 0.69 360 (220-490) 380 (150-540) 0.91
LDH 1st 300 (105-640) 300 (150-670) 0.69 290 (105-640) 250(150-490) 0.24 350 (151-552) 350 (150-670) 0.37
ALP 1st 250 (50-602) 250 (30-600) 0.96 220 (50-602) 190 (30-600) 0.55 300 (122-510) 270 (129-570) 0.18
γ-GT 1st 350 (35-620) 325 (102-680) 0.91 307.5 (35-620) 250 (130-560) 0.32 360 (120-620) 350 (102-680) 0.8
POH (d) 7 (3-15) 8.5 (5-14) <0.001 5 (3-15) 8 (5-12) 0.001 9 (3-15) 9 (5-14) 0.54
PH (d) 13 (7-45) 12 (5-30) 0.021 12 (7-33) 12 (7-30) 0.7 18 (7-45) 11 (5-27) 0.001

Table 5: Univariate analysis– Number of Postoperative complications and patient’s parameters in the two groups (continuous).

  Total sample       ERCP No (N=126)     ERCP Yes (N=74)  
  Number of POs       Number of Pos     Number of POs  
  0-1 (N=138) 2+ (N=62)   0-1 (N=99) 2+ (N=27)   0-1 (N=39) 2+ (N=35)  
      Fisher's  exact test p-value     Fisher's  exact test p-value     Fisher's  exact test p-value
  N (%) N (%)   N (%) N (%)   N (%) N (%)  
Gender                  
Female 52 (37.7) 23 (37.1) >0.99 39 (39.4) 8 (29.6) 0.38 13 (33.3) 15 (42.9) 0.47
Male 86 (62.3) 39 (62.9)   60 (60.6) 19 (70.4)   26 (66.7) 20 (57.1)  
Smoker                  
No 48 (34.8) 22 (35.5) >0.99 41 (41.4) 13 (48.1) 0.66 7 (17.9) 9 (25.7) 0.57
Yes 90 (65.2) 40 (64.5)   58 (58.6) 14 (51.9)   32 (82.1) 26 (74.3)  
Diabetes                  
No  69 (50) 28 (45.2) 0.54 54 (54.5) 14 (51.9) 0.83 15 (38.5) 14 (40) >0.99
Yes  69 (50) 34 (54.8)   45 (45.5) 13 (48.1)   24 (61.5) 21 (60)  
Histo                  
Adeno. CA. 130 (94.2) 57 (91.9) 0.55 94 (94.9) 26 (96.3) >0.99 36 (92.3) 31 (88.6) 0.7
Cystadeno. CA. 8 (5.8) 5 (8.1)   5 (5.1) 1 (3.7)   3 (7.7) 4 (11.4)  
ICU                  
0 84 (60.9) 26 (41.9) 0.02 73 (73.7) 17 (63) 0.34 11 (28.2) 9 (25.7) 0.84
1 53 (38.4) 34 (54.8)   26 (26.3) 10 (37)   27 (69.2) 24 (25.7)  
2 1 (0.7) 2 (3.2)   0 0   1 (2.6) 2 (5.7)  
ICU                  
0 84 (60.9) 26 (41.9) 0.014 73 (73.7) 17 (63) 0.34 11 (28.2) 9 (25.7) >0.99
1 & 2 54 (39.1) 36 (58.1)   26 (26.3) 10 (37)   28 (71.8) 26 (74.3)  

Table 6: Univariate analysis–Number of Postoperative complication in relation with clinical parameter in the two groups (categorical).

In addition, to assess the impact of PBD on postoperative outcomes, logistic regression was conducted and odds ratio was calculated. Univariate analysis proved that patients from PBD group had 3,29 (95% Cl 1.77-6.19; p-value <0.001) times increased odds of having 2 or more postoperative complications compared to the rest of patients (Table 7). To control for baseline differences in the two groups of patients and to further support the univariate effect, multivariate logistic regression run, resulting to the same direction. Thus, upon adjustment with baseline characteristics, PBD-Patients had 4,36 (95% Cl 2.14-9.22; p-value <0.001) times higher odds of having more than one complication postoperatively compared to the other patients group (Table 8).

  Odds ratio 95% Confidence Interval p-value
ERCP YES vs. NO 3.29 1.77-6.19 <0.001

Table 7: Univariate analysis of postoperative complications number (>2+ vs. 0-1).

  Odds ratio 95% Confidence Interval p-value
ERCP Yesvs. No 4.36 2.14 - 9.22 <0.001
Age 1.04 0.99-1.09 0.1
Tumor size 0.81 0.56-1.15 0.24
Gender Malevs. Female 1.09 0.56-2.16 0.79
Smoker Yesvs. No 0.73 0.35-1.52 0.4
Diabetes Yesvs.no 1.12 0.58-2.15 0.74
CA19-9 1 0.99-1.00 0.76
AFP 0.96 0.67-1.37 0.84
CEA 1.32 0.87-2.01 0.19

Table 8: Multivariate analysis of postoperative outcomes number (>2+ vs. 0-1).

Discusion

Several retrospective studies and prospective randomized trail have failed to demonstrate the benefit of PBD on postoperative outcomes after pancreaticoduodenectomy in jaundiced patients with pancreatic head cancer [3-6,13-20]. However some meta-analysis and reviews have shown that this strategy was associated with higher rate of postoperative complications [12,13,19-23]. To access these conflicting opinions, the aim of our study is focused on whether PBD should be performed routinely or selectively in jaundiced patients suffering from pancreatic head cáncer [6,16,19,20,22-24,25-28].

We found that patients from PBD group have higher percentage of postoperative respiratory infection (9.09%) and ICU admission (63.64%), this means that PBD did not have a positive impact on postoperative outcomes. However, this procedure did not affect the occurrence of other postoperative events. These corroborate with some retrospective studies results performed by other authors since postoperative hospitalization length did not differ significantly between the two groups. In the same perspective Van de Gaag et al. and other similar studies, have compared PBD versus surgery alone in patients with pancreatic head cancer. The authors found that routine PBD increases the rate of preoperative and postoperative complications [29-35].

In four randomized studies that did not show a benefit of PBD, the mean duration of drainage was 7 to 18 days. However, a long period would be unlikely to yield better results and can increase the risk of stent occlusion and cholangitis, and would result in prolonged postponement of elective surgery for a potentially resectable tumor. Some authors have demonstrated that the risk of infectious complications, intra-abdominal abscess and death were increased with biliary drainage performed preoperatively in another multicenter randomized trial, it was shown that PBD resulted in 2-fold increased rate of serious complications versus patients of surgery alone group [36-42]. However, no significant differences were found in surgery associated complications [43,44], length of hospital stay or mortality. Strom et al. presented the results of their retrospective study regarding the role of PBD in patients with resectable pancreatic head cáncer [45-53]. They conclude that PBD not only has no favorable effect on survival, but percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage was found to be an independent prognostic factor associated with worse overall survival [54-59]. The authors acknowledged that the observed results regarding percutaneous trans-hepatic biliary drainage are likely attributed to multiple factors including more advanced disease stage, delayed surgical intervention, increased number of preoperative biliary procedures and increased rate of hepatic metastasis. It is evident that ERCP performed for therapeutic or diagnostic purposes is associated with a risk of different complications: bleeding, intestinal perforation, cholangitis, acute pancreatitis, cardiopulmonary event, miscellaneous [60-62].

These complications risks can be related either to the patient factors or to the endoscopist skill. Thus, it is imperative to assess ERCP related complications risk factors before shifting the patient to this endoscopic procedure to prevent the occurrence of the sus-mentioned side-effects, by taking in account comorbidities [63]. The American Association of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guideline stratifies patients according to the procedure, and defines biliary sphincterotomy as a high-risk procedure for bleeding, and ERCP without sphincterotomy as low risk procedure for bleeding. Many studies have proposed diverse ways of preventing these complications related to ERCP, the best one seems to be the consideration of patients comorbidity and the improvement of endoscopist skill [6,16,19,20,22-24,25-28]. In our collected data from patients files, there was no mention of preoperative ERCP related complications [64]. In near future, We will do a similar study with prospective data on patients shifted to ERCP for different indications to focus immediate and long term post-procedure complications.

Conclusion

Based on our results, we agree that PBD predispose to intraoperative and postoperative complications occurrence, therefore, We suggest that this strategy can be applied selectively in jaundiced patients with pancreatic head cancer presenting with cholangitis or fever, severe pruritus, or in patients for whom surgery is expected to be delayed because of some inoperability conditions (cardio- respiratory comorbidities), or in those patients in whom neo-adjuvant therapy is considered .PBD can also be reserved for palliative alternative in case of unrespectable diseases. To solve this controversial preoccupation, we will do a prospective study with a large sample in the future.

References

  1. Bottger TC, Junginger T (1999)    Factor’s influencing morbidity and mortalityafter pancreaticoduodenectomy:  critical      analysis of 221 resections. World J Surg 23: 164-171.
  2. Gundry SR, Strodel WE, Knol JA, Eckhauser FE, Thompson NW (1984) Efficacy of preoperative biliary tract decompression in patients with obstructive jaundice. Archives of surgery 119: 703-708.
  3. Hatfield AR, Tobias R, Terblanche J, Girdwood AH, Fataar S, et al. (1982) Preoperative external biliary drainage in obstructive jaundice. A prospective controlled clinical trial. Lancet 2: 896-899.
  4. Heslin MJ, Brooks AD, Hochwald SN, Harrison LE, Blumgart LH, et al. (1998) A preoperative biliary stent is associated with increased complications after pancreatoduodenectomy. Archives of surgery 1998; 133: 149-154.
  5. Lai EC, Mok FP, Fan ST, Lo CM, Chu KM, et al. (1994) Preoperative endoscopic drainage for malignant obstructive jaundice. The British journal of surgery 81: 1195-1198.
  6. Ferreira LE, Baron TH (2007) Post-sphincterotomy bleeding: who, what, when, and how. Am J Gastroenterol 102: 2850-2858.
  7. Freeman ML (2002) Adverse outcomes of ERCP. GastrointestEndosc 56: S273- S382.
  8. Mao Z, Zhu Q, Wu W, Wang M, Li J, et al. (2008) Duodenal perforations after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: experience and management. J LaparoendoscAdvSurg Tech A 18: 691-695.
  9. Crippa S, Partelli S, Falconi M (2012) Rectal indomethacin to prevent post-ERCP pancreatitis. N Engl J Med 367: 278.
  10. Cooper S, Slivka A (2007) Incidence, risk factors, and prevention of post ERCP pancreatitis. GastroenterolClin N Am 36: 259-276.
  11. Ostroff JW, Shapiro HA (1989) Complications of endoscopic sphincterotomy. In: Jacobsen IM, editor. ERCP: diagnostic and therapeutic applications. New York: Elsevier Science Publications 61-73.
  12. Loperfido S, Angelini G, Benedetti G, Chilovi F, Costan F, et al. (1998) Major early complications from diagnostic and therapeutic ERCP: a prospective multicenter study. GastrointestEndosc 48: 1-10.
  13. Thomas JH, Connor CS, Pierce GE (1984) Effect of biliary decompression on morbidity and mortality of pancreatoduodenectomy. American journal of surgery148: 727- 731.
  14. Mallery JS, Baron TH, Dominitz JA (2003) Complications of ERCP. GastrointestEndosc 57: 633-638.
  15. Vandervoort J, Soetikno RM, Tham TC, Wong RC, Ferrari AP Jr, et al. (2002) Risk factors for complications after performance of ERCP. GastrointestEndosc 56: 652-656.
  16. Christensen M, Matzen P, Schulze S, Rosenberg J (2004) Complications of ERCP: a prospective study. GastrointestEndosc 60: 721-731.
  17. Freeman ML, Guda NM (2004) Prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis: a comprehensive review. GastrointestEndosc 59: 845-864.
  18. Masci E, Mariani A, Curioni S, Testoni PA (2003) Risk factors for pancreatitis following endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: a meta-analysis. Endoscopy 35: 830-834.
  19. Zheng M, Bai J, Yuan B, Lin F, You J, et al. (2008) Meta-analysis of prophylactic corticosteroid use in post-ERCP pancreatitis. BMC Gastroenterol 8: 6.
  20. Naitoh I, Ohara H, Nakazawa T, Ando T, Hayashi K, et al. (2009) Unilateral versus bilateral endoscopic metal stenting for malignant hilar biliary obstruction. J GastroenterolHepatol 24: 552-557.
  21. Siegel R, Naishadham D, Jemal A (2013) Cancer statistics, 2013. CA Cancer J Clin 63: 11-30.
  22. Bai Y, Gao F, Gao J, Zou DW, Li ZS (2009) Prophylactic antibiotics cannot prevent endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography-induced cholangitis: a meta-analysis. Pancreas 38: 126-130.
  23. Szary NM, Al-Kawas FH (2013) Complications of Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography: How to Avoid and Manage Them. GastroenterolHepatol (NY) 9: 496-504.
  24. Andriulli A, Loperfido S, Napolitano G, Niro G, Valvano MR, et al. (2007) Incidence rates of post-ERCP complications: a systematic survey of prospective studies. Am J Gastroenterol 102: 1781-1788.
  25. Brand M, Bizos D, O’Farrell P, Jr (2010) Antibiotic prophylaxis for patients undergoing elective endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. Cochrane Database Syst Rev.
  26. Anderson MA, Fisher L, Jain R (2012) ASGE Standards of Practice Committee. Complications of ERCP.GastrointestEndosc 75: 467-473.
  27. Christoforidis E, Goulimaris I, Kanellos I, Tsalis K, Demetriades C, et al. (2002) Post-ERCP pancreatitis and hyperamylasemia: patient-related and operative risk factors. Endoscopy 34: 286-292.
  28. Haber GB (2000) Prevention of post ERCP pancreatitis. GastrointestEndosc 51: 1-5.
  29. Mirjalili SA, Stringer MD (2011) The arterial supply of the major duodenal papilla and its relevance to endoscopic sphincterotomy. Endoscopy 43: 307-311.
  30. Woods KE, Willingham FF (2010) Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography associated pancreatitis: A 15-year review. World J GastrointestEndosc 2:165-178.
  31. Stapfer M, Selby RR, Stain SC, Katkhouda N, Parekh D, et al. (2000) Management of duodenal perforation after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography and sphincterotomy. Ann Surg 232: 191-198.
  32. Knudson K, Raeburn CD, McIntyre RC Jr, Shah RJ, Chen YK, et al. (2008) Management of duodenal and pancreaticobiliary perforations associated with periampullary endoscopic procedures. Am J Surg 196: 975-981.
  33. Katsinelos P, Lazaraki G, Chatzimavroudis G, Gkagkalis S, Vasiliadis I, et al. (2014) Risk factors for therapeutic ERCP-related complications: an analysis of 2,715 cases performed by a single endoscopist. Ann Gastroenterol 27:65-72.
  34. ASGE Standards of Practice Committee (2012) Complications of ERCP. GastrointestEndosc 75: 467-473.
  35. Sarr MG, Banks PA, Bollen TL, Dervenis C, Gooszen HG, et al. (2013) The new revised classification of acute pancreatitis 2012. SurgClin North Am 93: 549-562.
  36. Chi - Liang C, Foliente RL, Santoro MJ, Walter MH, Collen MJ, et al. (2006) Risk factors of post ERCP pancreatitis: a prospective multicenter study. Am J Gastroenterol 101: 139-147.
  37. Dumonceau J, Andriulli A, Deviere J, Mariani A, Rigaux J, et al. (2010) European society of gastrointestinal endoscopy guideline: prophylaxis of post ERCP pancreatitis. Endoscopy 42: 503-515.
  38. Peñaloza A, Leal C, Rodriguez A (2009) Adverse events of ERCP at San Jose Hospital Bogota Colombia. Rev EspEnferm Dig 101: 837-849.
  39. Cotton PB, Lehman G, Vennes JA, Geenen JE, Russell RCG, et al. (1991) Endoscopic sphincterotomy complications and their management: an attempt at consensus. GastrointestEndosc 37: 383-391.
  40. Dickinson RJ, Davies S (1998) Post-ERCP pancreatitis and hyperamylasaemia: the role of operative and patient. Eur J GastroenterolHepatol 10: 423-428.
  41. Leese T, Neoptolemos JP, Carr-Locke DL (1985) Successes, failures, early complications and their management following endoscopic sphincterotomy: results in 394 consecutive patients from a single centre. Br J Surg 72: 215-219.
  42. Freeman ML, DiSario JA, Nelson DB, Fennerty MB, Lee JG, et al. (2001) Risk factors for post-ERCP pancreatitis: a prospective, multicenter study. GastrointestEndosc 54: 425-434.
  43. Maldonado ME, Brady PG, Mamel JJ, Robinson B (1999) Incidence of pancreatitis in patients undergoing sphincter of Oddimanometry (SOM). Am J Gastroenterol 94: 387-390.
  44. Mehta SN, Pavone E, Barkun JS, Bouchard S, Barkun AN (1998) Predictors of post-ERCP complications in patients with suspected choledocholithiasis. Endoscopy 30: 457-463.
  45. Rabenstein T, Schneider HT, Bulling D, Nicklas M, Katalinic A, et al. (2000) Analysis of the risk factors associated with endoscopic sphincterotomy techniques: preliminary results of a prospective study, with emphasis on the reduced risk of acute pancreatitis with low-dose anticoagulation treatment. Endoscopy 32: 10-19.
  46. Tzovaras G, Shukla P, Kow L, Mounkley D, Wilson T, et al. (2000) What are the risks of diagnostic and therapeutic endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography? Aust N Z J Surg 70: 778-782.
  47. Freeman ML, Nelson DB, Sherman S, Haber GB, Herman ME, et al. (1996) Complications of endoscopic biliary sphincterotomy. N Engl J Med 335: 909-918.
  48. Freeman ML, Nelson DB, Sherman S, Haber GB, Fennerty MB, et al. (1999) Same-day discharge after endoscopic biliary sphincterotomy: observations from a prospective multicenter complications study. GastrointestEndosc 49: 580-586.
  49. Mellinger JD, Ponsky JL (1991) Bleeding after endoscopic sphincterotomy as an underestimated entity. SurgGynecolObstet 172: 465-469.
  50. Masci E, Toti G, Mariani A, Curioni S, Lomazzi A, et al. (2001) Complications of diagnostic and therapeutic ERCP: a prospective multicenter study. Am J Gastroenterol 96: 417-423.
  51. Nelson DB, Freeman ML (1994) Major hemorrhage from endoscopic sphincterotomy: risk factor analysis. J ClinGastroenterol 19: 283-287.
  52. Harris A, Chan AC, Torres-Viera C, Hammett R, Carr-Locke D (1999) Meta-analysis of antibiotic prophylaxis in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). Endoscopy 31: 718-724.
  53. Silvis SE (1991) Endoscopic sphincterotomy with an intact gallbladder. GastrointestEndoscClin N Am 1: 65-77.
  54. Hill J, Martin DF, Tweedle DE (1991) Risks of leaving the gallbladder in situ after endoscopic sphincterotomy for bile duct stones. Br J Surg 78: 554-557.
  55. Barreto S, Shukla P, Shrikhande S (2007) Periampullary Carcinoma: Surgery of Pancreatic Tumors, Edition New Delhi.
  56. Van der Gaag NA, Rauws EA, van Eijck CH, Gerritsen JJGM, de Hingh IJT, et al.  (2010) Preoperative biliary drainage for cancer of the head of the pancreas. The New England journal of medicine 362: 129-137.
  57. Velanovich V, Kheibek T, Khan M (2009) Relationship of postoperative complications from preoperative biliary stents. A new cohort analysis and meta-analysis of modern studies. JOP 10: 24-29.
  58. Garcea G, Chee W, Ong SL, Maddern GJ (2010) Preoperative biliary drainage for distal obstruction: the case against revisited. Pancreas 39: 119-126.
  59. Wilcoxon F (1945) Individual comparisons by ranking methods. Biometrics Bulletin 1: 80-83.
  60. HosmerJr DW, Lemeshow S, Sturdivant RX (2013) Applied logistic regression. John Wiley & Sons.
  61. Szumilas M (2010) Explaining odds ratios. J Can Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry 19: 227-229.
  62. Povoski SP, Karpeh MS Jr, Conlon KC, Blumgart LH, Brennan MF (1999) Association of preoperative biliary drainage with postoperative outcome following pancreaticoduodenectomy. Annals of surgery 230: 131-142.
Citation: Tshijanu F, Toutouzas K, Mubaminyi L, Pidireki A, Alexakis N, et al. (2017) Preoperative Biliary Drainage of Jaundiced Patients with Pancreatic Head Cancer: A Routine or Selective Strategy. Pancreat Disord Ther 7:185.

Copyright: © 2017 Tshijanu F, et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Top