Comparison of radiation exposure between endoscopic ultrasound‐guided drainage and transpapillary drainage by endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography for pancreatobiliary diseases

• Published in: Digestive endoscopy Vol. 34; no. 3; pp. 579 - 586
• Main Authors: Takenaka, Mamoru, Hosono, Makoto, Rehani, Madan M., Chiba, Yasutaka, Ishikawa, Rei, Okamoto, Ayana, Yamazaki, Tomohiro, Nakai, Atsushi, Omoto, Shunsuke, Minaga, Kosuke, Kamata, Ken, Yamao, Kentaro, Hayashi, Shiro, Nishida, Tsutomu, Kudo, Masatoshi
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Australia John Wiley and Sons Inc 01.03.2022
• Subjects: Cholangiopancreatography, Endoscopic Retrograde - adverse effects; Cholangiopancreatography, Endoscopic Retrograde - methods; Cholestasis; Cohort Studies; Drainage - methods; endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography; Endosonography - methods; fluoroscopy; Humans; interventional ultrasonography; Original; ORIGINAL ARTICLES; radiation exposure; Radiation Exposure - prevention & control; Retrospective Studies; Ultrasonography, Interventional; endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography; interventional ultrasonography; fluoroscopy; radiation exposure
• DOI: 10.1111/den.14060
• ISSN: 0915-5635

Objectives The transpapillary drainage by endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP‐D) cannot be performed without fluoroscopy, and there are many situations in which fluoroscopy is required even in endoscopic ultrasound‐guided drainage (EUS‐D). Previous studies have compared the efficacy, but not the radiation exposure of EUS‐D and ERCP‐D. While radiation exposure in ERCP‐D has been previously evaluated, there is a paucity of information regarding radiation doses in EUS‐D. This study aimed to assess radiation exposure in EUS‐D compared with that in ERCP‐D. Methods This retrospective single‐center cohort study included consecutive patients who underwent EUS‐D and ERCP‐D between October 2017 and March 2019. The air kerma (AK, mGy), kerma‐area product (KAP, Gycm2), fluoroscopy time (FT, min), and procedure time (PT, min) were assessed. The invasive probability weighting method was used to qualify the comparisons. Results We enrolled 372 and 105 patients who underwent ERCP‐D and EUS‐D, respectively. The mean AK, KAP, and FT in the EUS‐D group were higher by 53%, 28%, and 27%, respectively, than those in the ERCP‐D group, whereas PT was shorter by approximately 11% (AK, 135.0 vs. 88.4; KAP, 28.1 vs. 21.9; FT, 20.4 vs. 16.0; PT, 38.7 vs. 43.5). The sub‐analysis limited to biliary drainage cases showed the same trend (AK, 128.3 vs. 90.9; KAP, 27.0 vs. 22.2; FT, 16.4 vs. 16.1; PT, 32.5 vs. 44.4). Conclusions This is the first study to assess radiation exposure in EUS‐D compared with that in ERCP‐D. Radiation exposure was significantly higher in EUS‐D than in ERCP‐D, despite the shorter procedure time.