RISK OF BLEEDING COMPLICATIONS IN PERCUTANEOUS BILIARY DRAINAGE: THE PARADOX OF THE NORMAL HEMOSTASIS.
Journal
Arquivos brasileiros de cirurgia digestiva : ABCD = Brazilian archives of digestive surgery
ISSN: 2317-6326
Titre abrégé: Arq Bras Cir Dig
Pays: Brazil
ID NLM: 9100283
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2019
2019
Historique:
received:
10
01
2019
accepted:
02
04
2019
entrez:
24
10
2019
pubmed:
24
10
2019
medline:
2
11
2019
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Percutaneous biliary drainage is a safe procedure. The risk of bleeding complications is acceptable. Frequently, patients with biliary obstructions usually have coagulation disorders thus increasing risk of bleeding. For this reason, patients should always fit the parameters of hemostasis. To determine whether the percentage of bleeding complications in percutaneous biliary drainage is greater in adults with corrected hemostasis prior to the procedure regarding those who did not require any. : Prospective, observational, transversal, comparative by independent samples (unpaired comparison). Eighty-two patients with percutaneous biliary drainage were included. The average age was 64±16 years (20-92) being 38 male and 44 female. Patients who presented altered hemostasis were corrected and the presence of bleeding complications was evaluated with laboratory and ultrasound. Of 82 patients, 23 needed correction of hemostasis. The approaches performed were: 41 right, 30 left and 11 bilateral. The amount of punctures on average was 3±2. There were 13 (15.8%) bleeding complications, 12 (20%) in uncorrected and only one (4.34%) in the corrected group with no statistical difference. There were no differences in side, number of punctures and type of drainage, but number of passes and the size of drainage on the right side were different. There was no related mortality. Bleeding complications in patients requiring hemostasis correction for a percutaneous biliary drainage was not greater than in those who did not require any.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Percutaneous biliary drainage is a safe procedure. The risk of bleeding complications is acceptable. Frequently, patients with biliary obstructions usually have coagulation disorders thus increasing risk of bleeding. For this reason, patients should always fit the parameters of hemostasis.
AIM
OBJECTIVE
To determine whether the percentage of bleeding complications in percutaneous biliary drainage is greater in adults with corrected hemostasis prior to the procedure regarding those who did not require any.
METHODS
METHODS
: Prospective, observational, transversal, comparative by independent samples (unpaired comparison). Eighty-two patients with percutaneous biliary drainage were included. The average age was 64±16 years (20-92) being 38 male and 44 female. Patients who presented altered hemostasis were corrected and the presence of bleeding complications was evaluated with laboratory and ultrasound.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Of 82 patients, 23 needed correction of hemostasis. The approaches performed were: 41 right, 30 left and 11 bilateral. The amount of punctures on average was 3±2. There were 13 (15.8%) bleeding complications, 12 (20%) in uncorrected and only one (4.34%) in the corrected group with no statistical difference. There were no differences in side, number of punctures and type of drainage, but number of passes and the size of drainage on the right side were different. There was no related mortality.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Bleeding complications in patients requiring hemostasis correction for a percutaneous biliary drainage was not greater than in those who did not require any.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31644674
pii: S0102-67202019000300304
doi: 10.1590/0102-672020190001e1454
pmc: PMC6812145
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Observational Study
Langues
eng
por
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e1454Références
Semin Intervent Radiol. 2007 Sep;24(3):316-9
pubmed: 21326476
Gut Liver. 2010 Sep;4 Suppl 1:S67-75
pubmed: 21103298
Adv Clin Exp Med. 2012 Sep-Oct;21(5):621-32
pubmed: 23356199
Surg Endosc. 2011 Jun;25(6):1858-65
pubmed: 21136107
Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 1988 Apr;11(2):65-71
pubmed: 2455599
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2010 Oct;195(4):851-7
pubmed: 20858809
Dig Dis Sci. 2015 Feb;60(2):557-65
pubmed: 25081224
Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2004 Mar-Apr;27(2):137-9
pubmed: 15259807
Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2012 Dec;42(12):1161-7
pubmed: 23072841
Tech Vasc Interv Radiol. 2008 Mar;11(1):60-71
pubmed: 18725142
Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 1996 May-Jun;19(3):160-4
pubmed: 8661642
BMC Gastroenterol. 2013 Aug 13;13:127
pubmed: 23941632
Abdom Imaging. 2008 Sep-Oct;33(5):555-9
pubmed: 18253782
Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2001 Jul-Aug;24(4):240-4
pubmed: 11779013
J Clin Gastroenterol. 2015 Oct;49(9):764-70
pubmed: 25518004
Ann Surg Oncol. 2010 Sep;17(9):2303-11
pubmed: 20358300
Surgery. 1973 Feb;73(2):299-306
pubmed: 4684839
J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg. 2007;14(1):35-45
pubmed: 17252295
Eur Radiol. 2011 Sep;21(9):1948-55
pubmed: 21533867
J Clin Epidemiol. 2008 Apr;61(4):344-9
pubmed: 18313558
JAMA. 2001 Apr 18;285(15):2006-7
pubmed: 11308440
World J Radiol. 2010 Sep 28;2(9):358-67
pubmed: 21160698
Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2012 Feb;35(1):127-38
pubmed: 21301847
J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2012 Jun;23(6):727-36
pubmed: 22513394
J Gastrointest Surg. 2009 Apr;13(4):814-20
pubmed: 18726134
J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol. 2010 Apr;54(2):108-10
pubmed: 20518872
Radiology. 2011 Dec;261(3):969-75
pubmed: 21875851
Br J Surg. 2013 Nov;100(12):1589-96
pubmed: 24264780