Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31130249›Full record

ArticleBiomedical journal2019

A comparison between non-sedation and general endotracheal anesthesia for retrograde endoscopic common bile duct stone removal: A tertiary center experience.

Chih-Ming Liang, Chung-Mou Kuo, Lung-Sheng Lu, Cheng-Kun Wu, Cheng-En Tsai, Ming-Te Kuo, Yi-Chun Chiu, Wen-Chen Tai, Yuan-Hung Kuo, Chung-Huang Kuo and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Biomedical journal, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 27% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Chih-Ming LiangDivision of Hepatogastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, Kaohsiung Chang Gung Memorial Hospital and Chang Gung University College of Medicine, Kaohsiung, Taiwan.
Chung-Mou KuoDivision of Hepatogastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, Kaohsiung Chang Gung Memorial Hospital and Chang Gung University College of Medicine, Kaohsiung, Taiwan. Electronic address: kuo51116@gmail.com.
Lung-Sheng LuDivision of Hepatogastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, Kaohsiung Chang Gung Memorial Hospital and Chang Gung University College of Medicine, Kaohsiung, Taiwan.
Cheng-Kun WuDivision of Hepatogastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, Kaohsiung Chang Gung Memorial Hospital and Chang Gung University College of Medicine, Kaohsiung, Taiwan.
Cheng-En TsaiDivision of Hepatogastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, Kaohsiung Chang Gung Memorial Hospital and Chang Gung University College of Medicine, Kaohsiung, Taiwan.
Ming-Te KuoDivision of Hepatogastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, Kaohsiung Chang Gung Memorial Hospital and Chang Gung University College of Medicine, Kaohsiung, Taiwan.
Yi-Chun ChiuDivision of Hepatogastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, Kaohsiung Chang Gung Memorial Hospital and Chang Gung University College of Medicine, Kaohsiung, Taiwan. Electronic address: chiuku@ms14.hinet.net.
Wen-Chen TaiDivision of Hepatogastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, Kaohsiung Chang Gung Memorial Hospital and Chang Gung University College of Medicine, Kaohsiung, Taiwan.
Yuan-Hung KuoDivision of Hepatogastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, Kaohsiung Chang Gung Memorial Hospital and Chang Gung University College of Medicine, Kaohsiung, Taiwan.
Chung-Huang KuoDivision of Hepatogastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, Kaohsiung Chang Gung Memorial Hospital and Chang Gung University College of Medicine, Kaohsiung, Taiwan.
Seng-Kee ChuahDivision of Hepatogastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, Kaohsiung Chang Gung Memorial Hospital and Chang Gung University College of Medicine, Kaohsiung, Taiwan.
Chi-Sin ChangchienDivision of Hepatogastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, Kaohsiung Chang Gung Memorial Hospital and Chang Gung University College of Medicine, Kaohsiung, Taiwan.
Chang Gung University · TW

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundConscious sedation is not routinely administered for therapeutic endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in many countries. The aim of our retrospective study was to compare the safety and rate of success and complications during common bile duct (CBD) stone extraction using ERCPs performed with no-sedation (NS) or under general endotracheal anesthesia (GET).

methodsThe medical records of all patients who underwent ERCP for biliary stone extraction between January 2010 and September 2013 were reviewed, and patients classified to the NS and GET groups. The primary outcomes were the rate of success of complete stone removal and rate of complications, including post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP), perforation, bleeding, pneumonia, and mortality within 30 days post-ERCP. Operative time was recorded for analysis.

resultsDuring the study period, 630 patients underwent ERCP, 402 with NS and 105 with GET. Among the 402 patients in the NS group, 37 (9.2%) could not complete the procedure due to an inability to tolerate the procedure. The success rate of complete stone extraction was higher among patients in the GET group than the NS group (94.3% versus 75.6%, respectively; p < 0.001). The rate of contrast injection into the pancreatic duct was higher for the NS than GET group (24.9% versus 15.2%, respectively; p = 0.008). Although non-significant, there was a higher incidence of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) in the NS than in the GET group (10.4% versus 5.7%, respectively; p = 0.105), while the incidence of pneumonia was higher for the GET group. Biliary pancreatitis, contrast injection into the pancreatic duct and an operation time ≥30 min were independent risks factors for PEP.

conclusionsERCP under GET is effective for CBD stone removal, but with slightly higher pneumonia rate after the procedure than non-sedated ERCP.

Indexed as

Anesthesia, EndotrachealAgedAged, 80 and overCholangiopancreatography, Endoscopic RetrogradeCommon Bile DuctFemaleGallstonesHumansMaleMiddle AgedPancreatitisRisk FactorsTime FactorsTreatment OutcomeEndoscopic papillary balloon dilationEndoscopic papillotomyEndoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatographyGeneral endotracheal anesthesiaNon sedationPost-ERCP pancreatitis

Identifiers

PMID31130249
PMCPMC6543493
OpenAlexW2944770250

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.