Skip to main content
Erschienen in: BMC Gastroenterology 1/2023

Open Access 01.12.2023 | Research

Epidemiology and outcomes of choledocholithiasis and cholangitis in the United States: trends and urban-rural variations

verfasst von: Suqing Li, Leonardo Guizzetti, Christopher Ma, Abdel Aziz Shaheen, Elijah Dixon, Chad Ball, Sachin Wani, Nauzer Forbes

Erschienen in: BMC Gastroenterology | Ausgabe 1/2023

Abstract

Background

Gallstone disease poses a significant health burden in the United States. Choledocholithiasis and cholangitis are common complications of gallstone disease for which data on current epidemiological trends are lacking. We aimed to evaluate temporal changes in hospitalization, management, and outcomes for patients with choledocholithiasis and cholangitis.

Methods

The National Inpatient Sample was used to identify discharges for choledocholithiasis and cholangitis between 2005 and 2014. Temporal trends were evaluated via annual percent changes (APCs). Joinpoint regression was used to assess inflection points. Multivariable regression models were used to evaluate associations of interest.

Results

From 189,362 unweighted discharges for choledocholithiasis and/or cholangitis, there was an increase in discharges for choledocholithiasis (APC 2.3%, 95% confidence intervals, CI, 1.9–2.7%) and cholangitis (APC 1.5%, 95% CI 0.7–2.2%). Procedural interventions were more likely at urban hospitals for choledocholithiasis (adjusted odds ratio, aOR, 2.94, 95% CI 2.72 to 3.17) and cholangitis (aOR 2.97, 95% CI 2.50 to 3.54). In-hospital mortality significantly decreased annually for choledocholithiasis (aOR 0.90, 95% CI 0.88 to 0.93) and cholangitis (aOR 0.93, 95% CI 0.89 to 0.97). In-hospital mortality between rural and urban centers was comparable for choledocholithiasis (aOR 1.16, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.52) and cholangitis (aOR 1.12, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.72).

Conclusions

Hospitalizations for choledocholithiasis and cholangitis have increased between 2005 and 2014, reflecting a growing burden of gallstone disease. Hospital mortality between urban and rural centers is similar, however urban centers have a higher rate of procedural interventions suggesting limitations to accessing procedural interventions at rural centers.
Hinweise

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at https://​doi.​org/​10.​1186/​s12876-023-02868-3.
Suqing Li and Leonardo Guizzetti equal contribution.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Introduction

Choledocholithiasis is a common cause of extrahepatic biliary obstruction and the most frequent cause of cholangitis [1, 2]. Gallstone disease is rising in prevalence, representing the second most common principal admission diagnosis across all gastrointestinal, liver, and pancreatic conditions in United States [3, 4]. Amongst patients with cholelithiasis, 10–20% are found to have concomitant choledocholithiasis [5, 6].
Choledocholithiasis and cholangitis can result in significant morbidity and mortality and there have been significant updates in management approaches over the past decades [2, 7]. Given the less invasive nature and effectiveness of endoscopy compared to traditional open surgical common bile duct exploration (CBDE), endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) has long been considered the first-line modality in the management of choledocholithiasis and cholangitis [7, 8]. However, with the advent of minimally invasive laparoscopic surgical techniques, there is debate as to whether ERCP or laparoscopic common bile duct exploration (L-CBDE) is the optimal first-line intervention, particularly in patients with an intact gallbladder [9, 10]. Coinciding with this, there have also been significant advances in endoscopic techniques and modalities in recent years (i.e. single-operator cholangioscopy with lithotripsy) which have allowed even difficult common bile duct stones to be managed endoscopically [11]. Several updates on the optimal management guidelines for cholangitis have also occurred throughout the past decade including the preferred method of initial biliary decompression and timing of biliary drainage [7, 12]. Given these factors, epidemiological data on incidence trends, admission patterns, management approaches, and outcomes for choledocholithiasis and cholangitis in recent years are needed but currently lacking.
In addition, with changing patient demographics and the use of advanced endoscopic and surgical procedures that require specialized training and resources often available only in tertiary care centers, the impact of residing in rural regions on clinical outcomes of patients with choledocholithiasis and cholangitis is unclear and has not been comprehensively evaluated. Several older studies have demonstrated urban-rural variability in access to ERCP and surgical techniques in the management of choledocholithiasis and cholangitis [1315].
Therefore, we aimed to evaluate national temporal trends in hospitalization, management, post-procedural mortality, and post-procedural adverse events in the US for patients with choledocholithiasis and cholangitis, stratified by rural and urban hospital regions. Secondarily, we aimed to evaluate independent predictors of in-hospital mortality in patients with choledocholithiasis and cholangitis.

Methods

Study design and data source

We performed a retrospective study of data from the National Inpatient Sample (NIS) from 2005 to 2014. Data elements contained within the NIS include diagnoses and procedures coded using the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM), patient demographics, hospital characteristics, and measures of healthcare resource utilization.

Study population

Our targeted study population was adult patients (≥ 18 years old) discharged from the hospital with a primary diagnosis of choledocholithiasis or cholangitis. Classifications of disease were based on ICD-9 CM codes (Supplementary Table 1). Admissions for choledocholithiasis were further subdivided by excluding secondary diagnostic codes for cholangitis in order to perform a sensitivity analysis of cases of choledocholithiasis alone. In the cholangitis cohort, admissions for cholangitis of all causes were included in the analyses. Admissions with any secondary or subsequent diagnosis code(s) indicating the presence of malignancy (Supplementary Table 2) were excluded from the study population.

Outcomes and covariables

Our primary outcome measure was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included the use of surgical, radiologic, and endoscopic interventions and subsequent adverse events (AEs) including post-procedural mortality. Procedures were identified by the presence of one or more ICD-9 procedure code(s) on the discharge record, and were classified as surgical, endoscopic, or radiologic. Among patients undergoing procedural intervention, we evaluated the incidence of all relevant post-procedural AEs, including wound-related, infectious, urinary, pulmonary, cardiovascular, gastrointestinal, and intra/peri-operative events (Supplementary Table 3).
The primary exposure of interest was whether patients were admitted to rural or urban hospitals. The classification of rural or urban hospital location used the Core-Based Statistical Area (CBSA) codes, based on the 2000 US Census data from 2005 to 2013 NIS data or the 2010 US Census data for 2014 NIS data. Hospitals with CBSA codes defined as “Division” or “Metro” were classified as urban, and those with codes of “Rural” or “Micropolitan” were classified as rural.
Other covariables included patient age, sex, race (white, black, Hispanic, Asian, or other), primary method of payment (Medicare, Medicaid, private insurance, and other, which included self-pay, no charge, and worker’s compensation), median household income for the ZIP code of residence (based on quartiles), hospital region (Northeast, Midwest, South, and West), weekend admission status, year of admission, and chronic comorbidities. The Elixhauser comorbidity index was used to measure the overall burden of comorbid conditions. Separate sensitivity analysis was additionally conducted utilizing the Charlson enhanced comorbidity index (Supplementary Tables 4 & 5).

Statistical analysis

All analyses were adjusted for the complex survey design. Revised trend weights accounting for changes in sampling over time were applied to ensure comparable, nationally representative estimates(16). Sampling weights were used to account for the NIS sampling design. Variance estimates were made using the Taylor linearization method to reflect the survey design. Unadjusted comparisons between urban and rural hospitals were made using the survey-adjusted Pearson χ2 test, adjusted Wald test, and univariable logistic regression as appropriate. Temporal trends in choledocholithiasis and cholangitis hospitalizations were evaluated by calculating the annual percent change (APC) using a generalized linear model that assumes a Poisson distribution. Average APCs (AAPC) were considered statistically significant when the 95% confidence interval (CI) did not cross 0. Joinpoint regression was then used to assess statistical inflection points in temporal trends.
Survey-adjusted multivariable logistic regression models were used to evaluate the independent association between urban-rural hospital classification and clinical outcomes of interest. Potential confounders selected a priori included age, sex, race, primary method of payment, comorbidity burden, weekend admission, year of admission, hospital teaching status, median household income, and hospital region. Survey-adjusted Poisson regression analyses were also used to evaluate mean differences (and 95% Cis) in LOS and hospital charges between urban and rural hospitals.
Survey-adjusted analyses were conducted using Stata (version 17/MP, StataCorp LLC, College Station, TX) and joinpoint analyses were conducted using Joinpoint Regression Program 4.9.0.1 (February 2022, Statistical Methodology and Applications Branch, Surveillance Research Program, National Cancer Institute).(17).

Results

Study population

In total, 77,394,755 unweighted discharges were sampled from the NIS between 2005 and 2014 inclusive. After excluding pediatric patients and those with secondary and/or subsequent diagnosis code(s) describing malignancy, 168,838 and 20,524 discharges (unweighted) were identified between 2005 and 2014 by a primary diagnosis code of symptomatic choledocholithiasis and cholangitis, respectively.
Baseline patient demographic and hospital-related characteristics from the NIS 2014 sample are described in Table 1. A total of 16,996 (unweighted) and 1987 (unweighted) patients were identified with a primary discharge diagnosis of choledocholithiasis and cholangitis, respectively. The average age of patients with choledocholithiasis and cholangitis was 57.5 (standard deviation, SD, 20.8) years and 63.0 (SD 17.9) years, respectively. 63.4% of patients with choledocholithiasis were female, while only 48.8% of those with cholangitis were female.
Table 1
Survey-weighted baseline patient demographic and hospital-related characteristics from sampled discharges with a primary diagnosis of choledocholithiasis and cholangitis requiring admission, National Inpatient Sample 2014
Characteristic
Primary
Discharge
Diagnosis
All Hospital Admissions [95% CI]
Admissions to
Rural
Hospitals
[95% CI]
Admissions to
Urban
Hospitals
[95% CI]
p-value
Weighted discharges
Choledocholithiasis
84,980 [82,564–87,396]
6060 [5502–6618]
78,920 [76,569–81,271]
-
Cholangitis
9935 [9202–10,668]
705 [585–825]
9230 [8507–9953]
-
Mean age (SD)
Choledocholithiasis
57.5 [20.8]
59.1 [21.2]
57.4 [20.8]
0.011
Cholangitis
63.0 [17.9]
67.1 [17.0]
62.7 [17.9]
0.0033
Female Sex (%)
Choledocholithiasis
63.4 [62.6–64.2]
60.2 [57.4–63.0]
63.7 [62.8–64.5]
0.018
Cholangitis
48.8 [46.5–51.1]
56.0 [48.0–63.7]
48.3 [45.9–50.7]
0.068
Race (%)
White
Choledocholithiasis
65.7 [64.3–67.1]
83.6 [80.5–86.2]
64.4 [62.9–65.9]
< 0.00001
Black
8.8 [8.2–9.4]
5.4 [4.1–7.2]
9.0 [8.4–9.7]
Hispanic
17.8 [16.5–19.1]
5.4 [4.0–7.3]
18.7 [17.4–20.1]
Asian or Pacific Islander
3.5 [3.1–3.9]
1.8 [0.9–3.5]
3.6 [3.2–4.1]
Other
4.2 [3.8–4.7]
3.7 [2.4–5.8]
4.3 [3.8–4.8]
White
Cholangitis
72.0 [69.4–74.5]
85.4 [77.8–90.6]
71.1 [68.4–73.7]
0.020
Black
9.4 [8.0–11.0]
4.9 [2.2–10.5]
9.7 [8.3–11.4]
Hispanic
10.7 [9.1–12.5]
6.5 [3.3–12.5]
11.0 [9.3–12.9]
Asian or Pacific Islander
5.0 [4.0–6.2]
2.4 [0.8–7.3]
5.2 [4.2–6.5]
Other
2.9 [2.2–3.8]
0.8 [0.1–5.6]
3.0 [2.3–4.0]
Other
4.0 [3.5–4.5]
3.8 [2.8–5.3]
4.0 [3.5–4.6]
Payment
method (%)
Medicare
Choledocholithiasis
42.9 [42.0–43.9]
50.1 [47.0–53.1]
42.4 [41.4–43.3]
< 0.0001
Medicaid
15.9 [15.0–16.7]
14.3 [12.5–16.3]
16.0 [15.1–16.9]
Private Insurance
30.6 [29.8–31.5]
25.5 [22.9–28.3]
31.0 [30.1–31.9]
Other
10.6 [10.0–11.2]
10.1 [8.4–12.1]
10.6 [10.0–11.3]
Medicare
Cholangitis
54.2 [51.8–56.5]
68.8 [60.6–75.9]
53.1 [50.7–55.5]
< 0.001
Medicaid
9.9 [8.5–11.5]
2.1 [0.7–6.4]
10.5 [8.9–12.3]
Private Insurance
30.7 [28.5–32.9]
22.7 [16.5–30.3]
31.3 [29.0–33.6]
Other
5.2 [4.3–6.4]
6.4 [3.3–11.9]
5.2 [4.2–6.3]
Median household income of
ZIP code of residence (%)
<$24,999
Choledocholithiasis
28.0 [26.8–29.3]
44.2 [40.0–48.6]
26.8 [25.5–28.1]
< 0.00001
$25,000–34,999
28.3 [27.3–29.4]
40.6 [36.8–44.5]
27.4 [26.4–28.5]
$35,000–44,999
23.5 [22.6–24.4]
13.0 [10.8–15.4]
24.3 [23.3–25.3]
≥$45,000
20.2 [19.0–21.4]
2.2 [1.3–3.6]
21.5 [20.3–22.8]
<$24,999
Cholangitis
23.6 [21.4–25.9]
42.0 [33.6–50.9]
22.1 [19.9–24.5]
< 0.00001
$25,000–34,999
26.8 [24.6–29.2]
44.2 [35.8–52.9]
25.5 [23.2–27.9]
$35,000–44,999
23.5 [21.6–25.6]
9.4 [5.6–15.5]
24.6 [22.5–26.8]
≥$45,000
26.1 [23.5–28.9]
4.3 [2.0–9.4]
27.8 [25.0–30.7]
Chronic Conditions (%)
None
Choledocholithiasis
51.1 [50.3–52.0]
50.7 [47.9–53.6]
51.2 [50.3–52.0]
0.95
1 chronic comorbidity
23.9 [23.3–24.6]
24.2 [21.8–26.7]
23.9 [23.3–24.6]
2 chronic comorbidities
11.4 [11.0–11.9]
11.9 [10.2–13.8]
11.4 [10.9–11.9]
≥ 3 chronic comorbidities
13.5 [12.9–14.0]
13.2 [11.4–15.2]
13.5 [12.9–14.1]
None
Cholangitis
27.5 [25.5–29.6]
31.2 [24.4–38.9]
27.2 [25.1–29.4]
0.23
1 chronic comorbidity
22.1 [20.4–24.0]
25.5 [19.0–33.4]
21.9 [20.1–23.8]
2 chronic comorbidities
16.4 [14.8–18.1]
17.0 [11.7–24.1]
16.3 [14.7–18.1]
≥ 3 chronic comorbidities
34.0 [31.7–36.5]
26.2 [19.3–34.6]
34.6 [32.1–37.2]
Weekend Admission (%)
Choledocholithiasis
25.0 [24.3–25.7]
22.9 [20.7–25.3]
25.1 [24.5–25.9]
0.076
Cholangitis
23.8 [21.9–25.8]
21.3 [15.3–28.8]
24.0 [22.1–26.0]
0.47
Hospital Region (%)
Northeast
Choledocholithiasis
18.3 [17.3–19.4]
14.0 [11.5–17.0]
18.7 [17.6–19.8]
< 0.00001
Midwest
20.5 [19.3–21.6]
27.6 [23.7–31.9]
19.9 [18.7–21.1]
South
36.1 [34.7–37.5]
45.1 [40.5–49.8]
35.4 [34.0–36.8]
West
25.1 [23.9–26.4]
13.2 [10.7–16.1]
26.0 [24.7–27.4]
Northeast
Cholangitis
21.9 [19.0–25.2]
12.8 [8.6–18.6]
22.6 [19.5–26.1]
< 0.0001
Midwest
22.8 [19.8–26.1]
36.2 [28.4–44.8]
21.8 [18.6–25.3]
South
32.9 [29.6–36.4]
39.7 [31.6–48.4]
32.4 [28.9–36.1]
West
22.3 [19.5–25.5]
11.3 [7.3–17.2]
23.2 [20.1–26.6]
Approximately 92% of discharges for choledocholithiasis and cholangitis occurred in urban hospitals. In urban hospitals, there was a higher proportion of younger, non-white patients with either Medicaid/private insurance, and with higher relative income quartiles for both patients hospitalized with choledocholithiasis and cholangitis (all p-values < 0.05). No differences were observed in weekend admission status or chronic comorbidity burden between urban and rural hospitals for patients with choledocholithiasis or cholangitis.
From 2005 to 2014, the estimated national prevalence rates of choledocholithiasis per 100,000 hospital admissions rose steadily from 234.1 (95% CI: 225.4, 242.8) in 2005 to 286.3 (95% CI: 280.1, 292.5) by 2014. For cholangitis, the estimated national prevalence rates per 100,000 hospital admissions rose slightly from 29.8 (95% CI: 27.0, 32.5) in 2005 to 33.5 (95% CI: 31.1, 35.8) by 2014. Temporal trends for choledocholithiasis and cholangitis discharges between 2005 and 2014 are displayed in Figs. 1 and 2. For choledocholithiasis, the overall rate of hospital admissions rose steadily from 2005 to 2014 (AAPC 2.3%, 95% CI 1.9–2.7%). Subdivided by rural and urban regions, the rate of hospital admissions at rural hospitals was stable during the study period (AAPC 0.3%, 95% CI -1.1–1.7%), however, increased in urban hospitals (AAPC 2.4%, 95% CI 1.9–2.9%).
The overall rate of admissions for cholangitis rose between 2005 and 2014 (AAPC 1.5%, 95% CI 0.7–2.2%). The rate of admissions at rural hospitals were stable during this period (AAPC − 1.3%, 95% CI -3.4–0.9%). Conversely, admissions for cholangitis increased in urban hospitals (AAPC 1.7%, 95% CI 0.9–2.6%) during the same period.

In-hospital mortality

Predictors of in-hospital mortality are summarized in Table 2. There were no significant differences in mortality between rural and urban centers after adjusting for covariables for both choledocholithiasis (aOR 1.16, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.52, p = 0.27) and cholangitis (aOR 1.12, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.72, p = 0.62). Older age was highly associated with mortality in patients with choledocholithiasis, with aOR of 3.56 (95% CI 1.84 to 6.87, p < 0.001) for patients 40–64 years of age and aOR 8.16 (95% CI 4.15 to 16.07, p < 0.001) for patients > 65 years of age compared to those < 40 years of age. Age was not significantly associated with mortality in patients with cholangitis. The presence and number of comorbidities was a strong predictor of mortality for patients with both choledocholithiasis (aOR 15.17, 95% CI 7.98 to 28.82, p < 0.001 for patients with ≥ 3 comorbidities compared to none) and cholangitis (aOR 5.95, 95% CI 2.52 to 14.06, p < 0.001 for patients with ≥ 3 comorbidities compared to none). Lastly, in-hospital mortality had a significant decrease per year over the study period for both patients with choledocholithiasis (aOR 0.90, 95% CI 0.88 to 0.93, p < 0.001) and cholangitis (aOR 0.93, 95% CI 0.89 to 0.97, p < 0.001).
Table 2
Univariate and multivariate analysis for predictors of in-hospital mortality in patients admitted for choledocholithiasis and cholangitis
Characteristic
Unadjusted OR [95% CI]
Unadjusted OR
p-value
Adjusted OR [95% CI]
Adjusted OR
p-value
Female sex
Choledocholithiasis
0.60 [0.53–0.69]
< 0.00001
0.76 [0.66–0.88]
< 0.001
Cholangitis
1.06 [0.86–1.32]
0.56
0.98 [0.78–1.24]
0.89
Weekend Admission
Choledocholithiasis
0.93 [0.79–1.09]
0.37
0.96 [0.80–1.14]
0.63
Cholangitis
0.89 [0.69–1.15]
0.39
0.88 [0.66–1.16]
0.36
Year of Admission
Choledocholithiasis
0.93 [0.91–0.95]
< 0.00001
0.90 [0.88–0.93]
< 0.00001
Cholangitis
0.94 [0.91–0.98]
0.0047
0.93 [0.89–0.97]
< 0.001
Age
< 40 Years
Choledocholithiasis
1
.
1
.
Cholangitis
1
.
1
.
40–64 years
Choledocholithiasis
6.67 [3.82–11.64]
< 0.00001
3.56 [1.84–6.87]
< 0.001
Cholangitis
1.90 [1.07–3.36]
0.027
1.10 [0.59–2.04]
0.45
> 65 Years
Choledocholithiasis
31.91 [18.79–54.20]
< 0.00001
8.16 [4.15–16.07]
< 0.00001
Cholangitis
3.73 [2.16–6.42]
< 0.00001
1.81 [0.93–3.52]
0.082
Race
White
Choledocholithiasis
1
-
1
-
Cholangitis
1
-
1
-
Black
Choledocholithiasis
0.86 [0.65–1.13]
0.28
1.30 [0.98–1.72]
0.068
Cholangitis
1.56 [1.05–2.30]
0.026
1.71 [1.13–2.59]
0.011
Hispanic
Choledocholithiasis
0.56 [0.45–0.71]
< 0.00001
1.15 [0.90–1.47]
0.26
Cholangitis
1.17 [0.79–1.73]
0.43
1.37 [0.92–2.04]
0.12
Asian or Pacific Islander
Choledocholithiasis
0.85 [0.57–1.27]
0.42
0.98 [0.65–1.47]
0.91
Cholangitis
1.47 [0.93–2.34]
0.100
1.51 [0.95–2.40]
0.079
Other
Choledocholithiasis
0.44 [0.27–0.72]
0.0010
0.67 [0.41–1.09]
0.11
Cholangitis
1.24 [0.68–2.28]
0.48
1.44 [0.78–2.66]
0.25
Payment Method
Medicare
Choledocholithiasis
1
-
1
-
Cholangitis
1
-
1
-
Medicaid
Choledocholithiasis
0.19 [0.14–0.26]
< 0.00001
1.05 [0.72–1.53]
0.80
Cholangitis
0.73 [0.48–1.10]
0.13
1.13 [0.69–1.86]
0.63
Private Insurance
Choledocholithiasis
0.16 [0.12–0.19]
< 0.00001
0.54 [0.39–0.75]
< 0.001
Cholangitis
0.51 [0.38–0.67]
< 0.00001
0.83 [0.57–1.21]
0.34
Other
Choledocholithiasis
0.14 [0.10–0.20]
< 0.00001
0.77 [0.50–1.18]
0.23
Cholangitis
0.53 [0.31–0.89]
0.017
0.85 [0.43–1.69]
0.64
Comorbid Conditions
None
Choledocholithiasis
1
-
1
-
Cholangitis
1
-
1
-
1 Comorbidity
Choledocholithiasis
2.72 [2.19–3.38]
< 0.00001
2.99 [1.52–5.86]
0.0015
Cholangitis
1.98 [1.34–2.94]
< 0.001
1.67 [0.66–4.24]
0.28
2 Comorbidities
Choledocholithiasis
6.39 [5.12–7.98]
< 0.00001
4.43 [2.32–8.46]
< 0.00001
Cholangitis
2.25 [1.49–3.41]
< 0.001
2.82 [1.15–6.89]
0.023
≥ 3 Comorbidities
Choledocholithiasis
12.88 [10.67–15.54]
< 0.00001
15.17 [7.98–28.82]
< 0.00001
Cholangitis
4.75 [3.41–6.62]
< 0.00001
5.95 [2.52–14.06]
< 0.00001
Urban Vs. Rural Hospital
Urban Hospital
Choledocholithiasis
0.99 [0.79–1.24]
0.92
1.16 [0.89–1.52]
0.27
Cholangitis
1.01 [0.71–1.45]
0.94
1.12 [0.72–1.72]
0.62

Endoscopic, radiographic, and surgical interventions and adverse events

The use of surgical, radiologic, and endoscopic interventions in patients with choledocholithiasis and cholangitis is summarized in Table 3, stratified by urban and rural divisions. All multivariate models were adjusted for for age category, patient sex, race, insurance status, income quartile, Elixhauser comorbdity burden category/Charlson comorbdity burden category, and weekend hospital admission. The use of any procedural intervention was higher in urban centers for both choledocholithiasis (90.9% vs. 77.5%, aOR = 2.94, 95% CI 2.72 to 3.17; p < 0.001) and cholangitis (55.0% vs. 27.8%, aOR = 2.97, 95% CI: 2.50 to 3.54; p < 0.001) compared to rural hospitals.
Table 3
Unadjusted and adjusted risk of procedural interventions, post-operative adverse events, and in-hospital post-intervention mortality between urban and rural hospitals for patients admitted with choledocholithiasis and cholangitis
Outcome
Unadjusted Risk Rural Hospital
% [95% CI]
Unadjusted Risk Urban Hospital
% [95% CI]
Unadjusted OR
[95% CI]
Unadjusted OR
p-value
Adjusted OR*
[95% CI]
Adjusted OR
p-value
All-cause in-hospital mortality
Choledocholithiasis
0.5 [0.4–0.6]
0.5 [0.5–0.6]
0.99 [0.79–1.24]
0.92
1.24 [0.94–1.64]
0.13
Cholangitis
1.7 [1.1–2.2]
1.7 [1.5–1.9]
1.01 [0.71–1.45]
0.94
1.15 [0.74–1.80]
0.54
Any intervention Δ
Choledocholithiasis
77.5 [76.5–78.5]
90.9 [90.7–91.1]
2.90 [2.72–3.10]
< 0.00001
2.94 [2.72–3.17]
< 0.00001
Cholangitis
27.8 [25.0–30.6]
55.0 [54.1–55.9]
3.17 [2.75–3.66]
< 0.00001
2.97 [2.50–3.54]
< 0.00001
Any surgical intervention
Choledocholithiasis
59.3 [58.2–60.5]
58.4 [57.9–58.8]
0.96 [0.91–1.01]
0.12
0.96 [0.91–1.02]
0.24
Cholangitis
6.7 [5.5–7.8]
7.3 [6.9–7.7]
1.10 [0.91–1.35]
0.32
1.12 [0.89–1.41]
0.34
Any radiologic intervention
Choledocholithiasis
0.7 [0.5–0.8]
1.9 [1.8–2.0]
2.90 [2.35–3.58]
< 0.00001
2.79 [2.20–3.54]
< 0.00001
Cholangitis
1.0 [0.5–1.4]
6.5 [6.1–7.0]
7.26 [4.53–11.63]
< 0.00001
5.78 [3.43–9.74]
< 0.00001
Any endoscopic intervention
Choledocholithiasis
44.8 [43.0–46.7]
75.3 [74.9–75.6]
3.75 [3.47–4.05]
< 0.00001
3.61 [3.33–3.94]
< 0.00001
Cholangitis
23.8 [21.1–26.5]
47.8 [46.8–48.8]
2.93 [2.51–3.43]
< 0.00001
2.79 [2.32–3.36]
< 0.00001
Any post-intervention adverse event
Choledocholithiasis
14.4 [13.8–15.1]
15.3 [15.1–15.5]
1.07 [1.01–1.13]
0.019
1.10 [1.03–1.18]
0.0047
Cholangitis
33.8 [29.5–38.1]
35.4 [34.4–36.4]
1.07 [0.88–1.30]
0.49
1.01 [0.80–1.28]
0.94
Any post-operative complication adverse event
Choledocholithiasis
14.9 [14.1–15.6]
15.9 [15.6–16.1]
1.08 [1.01–1.15]
0.021
1.14 [1.05–1.23]
< 0.001
Cholangitis
40.3 [31.1–49.5]
45.2 [42.6–47.9]
1.22 [0.82–1.82]
0.32
1.10 [0.68–1.77]
0.70
Any post-radiologic complication adverse event
Choledocholithiasis
28.1 [19.3–36.9]
33.1 [31.4–34.9]
1.27 [0.82–1.98]
0.29
1.37 [0.84–2.23]
0.21
Cholangitis
59.7 [39.7–79.7]
47.7 [44.7–50.7]
0.62 [0.27–1.42]
0.26
0.76 [0.28–2.09]
0.60
Any post-endoscopic complication adverse event
Choledocholithiasis
14.1 [13.2–15.0]
15.1 [14.9–15.4]
1.09 [1.01–1.17]
0.028
1.15 [1.05–1.26]
0.0022
Cholangitis
32.5 [27.9–37.1]
33.8 [32.8–34.9]
1.06 [0.86–1.32]
0.57
1.03 [0.80–1.34]
0.79
Any post-intervention mortality
Choledocholithiasis
0.5 [0.4–0.6]
0.5 [0.5–0.5]
1.00 [0.77–1.29]
0.97
1.10 [0.81–1.50]
0.55
Cholangitis
1.5 [0.5–2.5]
1.5 [1.3–1.8]
1.01 [0.51–1.99]
0.98
2.02 [0.71–5.70]
0.19
Post-operative mortality
Choledocholithiasis
0.4 [0.3–0.6]
0.5 [0.4–0.5]
1.05 [0.77–1.45]
0.75
1.19 [0.81–1.74]
0.38
Cholangitis
2.9 [0.1–5.7]
1.9 [1.2–2.6]
0.66 [0.22–1.94]
0.45
4.33 [0.57–32.90]
0.16
Post-radiologic mortality
Choledocholithiasis
4.3 [0.6–8.0]
2.6 [2.0–3.2]
0.60 [0.24–1.52]
0.28
0.65 [0.22–1.86]
0.42
Cholangitis
8.8 [0.0–20.2]*
3.4 [2.4–4.5]
0.37 [0.09–1.62]
0.19
0.92 [0.12–7.20]
0.94
Post-endoscopic mortality
Choledocholithiasis
0.5 [0.3–0.6]
0.4 [0.4–0.5]
0.87 [0.62–1.22]
0.41
0.90 [0.62–1.33]
0.61
Cholangitis
1.4 [0.4–2.4]
1.4 [1.1–1.6]
0.99 [0.46–2.14]
0.98
2.05 [0.61–6.85]
0.24
* Models were adjusted for age category, patient sex, race, insurance status, income quartile, Elixhauser burden category, and weekend hospital admission
Δ Intervention refers to the use of any procedural intervention, including surgery/endoscopy/interventional radiology
Endoscopic interventions were the most common procedural intervention performed overall for both choledocholithiasis and cholangitis in urban hospitals. However, surgical interventions (59.3%, 95% CI 58.2–60.5%) were more commonly performed compared to endoscopy (44.8%, 95% CI 43.0–46.7%) for choledocholithiasis in rural centers. After adjusting for covariables, practitioners at urban hospitals were more likely to perform radiological interventions (aOR 2.79, 95% CI 2.20 to 3.54, p < 0.001) and endoscopic interventions (aOR 3.61, 95% CI 3.33 to 3.94, p < 0.001) for patients with choledocholithiasis. Similarly, amongst those with cholangitis, practitioners at urban centers were more likely to perform radiological (aOR 5.78, 95% CI 3.43 to 9.74, p < 0.001) and endoscopic interventions (aOR 2.79, 95% CI 2.32 to 3.36, p < 0.001). The likelihood of performing surgical interventions did not differ between rural and urban centers for both choledocholithiasis and cholangitis.
Overall, post-intervention AEs were moderately common amongst patients with choledocholithiasis (complication rate 1523 [95% CI 1502 to 1545] per 10,000 discharges associated with an intervention) and cholangitis (complication rate 3534 [95% CI 3437 to 3632] per 10,000) amongst those undergoing procedures. Post-intervention gastrointestinal AEs (497 [95% CI 484–509] per 10,000) were the most common amongst patients with choledocholithiasis, followed by post-intervention infectious complications (431 [95% CI 420 to 443] per 10,000). However, post-intervention infectious AEs (2417 [95% CI 2330 to 2507] per 10,000) the most common among patients with cholangitis, followed by post-intervention gastrointestinal AEs (417 [95% CI 380 to 458] per 10,000). Rates of post-intervention AEs stratified by subtype are summarized in the Supplementary Materials.
Amongst patients undergoing procedural interventions, rates of any post-intervention AEs were slightly more frequent at urban hospitals amongst patients with choledocholithiasis (aOR 1.13, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.18, p = 0.0047), however, were not significantly different for patients with cholangitis (aOR 1.01, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.28, p = 0.94). Subdivided by intervention type, surgical post-intervention AEs (aOR 1.14, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.23, p < 0.001) and post-endoscopic AEs (aOR 1.15, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.26, p = 0.0022) were slightly increased in patients with choledocholithiasis admitted to urban hospitals. There were otherwise no statistically significant differences in AE rates between urban and rural hospitals based on intervention type. There were no differences in post-intervention mortality between rural and urban hospitals for both choledocholithiasis (aOR 1.10, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.50, p = 0.55) and cholangitis (aOR 2.02, 95% CI 0.71 to 5.70, p = 0.19).

Discussion

In our analysis of over 180,000 unweighted discharges for patients with choledocholithiasis and cholangitis in the NIS between 2005 and 2014, we found a rising incidence for both choledocholithiasis and cholangitis, particularly in urban regions. We also demonstrated that age and presence of comorbidities were strong predictors of in-hospital mortality, however, residing in a rural location was not significantly associated with mortality. There were, however, significant differences between urban and rural regions in terms of use of procedural interventions and post-intervention AEs. Notably, urban centers had an overall higher rate of use of procedural interventions and an increased risk of post-intervention AEs for patients with choledocholithiasis.
The steady increase in the prevalence of choledocholithiasis and cholangitis during our study period is expected as other studies have shown an overall rising prevalence of cholelithiasis in the United States for which we would expect choledocholithiasis and cholangitis to parallel [18, 19]. This rise may be related to increasing rates of established risk factors in developed western nations, including obesity, metabolic syndrome, older age, and rapid weight loss [20]. Although studies have shown an overall increasing prevalence trend of cholelithiasis, it should be noted that this is driven primarily by ambulatory and emergency department visits [18]. The rates of cholelithiasis and cholecystitis requiring hospitalization in contrast are decreasing in the U.S, with multiple studies demonstrating between a 5 and 13% decrease in hospitalizations between 2005 and 2014(18, 21). This is likely related to the increasing use and availability of ambulatory laparoscopic cholecystectomy in the U.S [19]. Interestingly, our trends for hospital discharges for choledocholithiasis and cholangitis do not mimic that for cholelithiasis and cholecystitis as would have been expected, and instead showed a steady increase during this period. In addition, our estimates of total discharges for choledocholithiasis and cholangitis are likely an underestimate as we maximized specificity in our selected patient population by only including those with a primary ICD-9 code of choledocholithiasis and/or cholangitis, thus potentially excluding individuals with secondary diagnoses of the same.
There are likely several reasons for this trend. First, the clinical presentation of gallstone disease can vary significantly. Patients with biliary colic generally appear well and do not have biochemical abnormalities or systemic findings such as fever or jaundice, unlike those with choledocholithiasis or cholangitis [22]. Additionally, patients with choledocholithiasis may have more severe presentations due to associated conditions such as gallstone pancreatitis and cholangitis [23]. As such, it may be hypothesized that differences in severity of presentation may result in patients with symptomatic cholelithiasis to be more likely managed in the outpatient setting, while patients presenting with symptomatic choledocholithiasis are more likely to be hospitalized. Secondly, although cholecystectomy in general eliminates the future recurrence of symptomatic cholelithiasis or cholecystitis, this is not always the case for choledocholithiasis or cholangitis [24]. The majority of choledocholithiasis is related to secondary choledocholithiasis, due to gallstones migrating from the gallbladder into the common bile duct for which total cholecystectomy should prevent [25, 26]. However, there have been higher rates of subtotal cholecystectomies in the past decade [27, 28]. Patients might therefore experience recurrent gallbladder stones forming in a gallbladder or long cystic duct remnant that may result in choledocholithiasis and/or cholangitis in the future [27]. Recurrent symptomatic gallstone disease after incomplete cholecystectomy can be common and may require completion cholecystectomy and/or cystic duct revision to prevent future recurrence [27].
In addition, although up to 12% of patients may have associated common bile duct stones (CBDS) at the time of laparoscopic cholecystectomy, the use of routine intraoperative cholangiograms (IOC) has been controversial, and in past decades has significantly decreased in use [29, 30]. A recent meta-analysis reported that routine use of IOC can detect over 3 times the number of CBDS compared to selective IOC [29]. Notably, several studies have shown increased rates of future biliary complications if asymptomatic or incidental CBDS were left in place [31, 32]. Lastly, a significant proportion of patients may have primary choledocholithiasis, related to stones forming directly within the intra or extrahepatic bile ducts [26]. Primary stones have been identified as a major cause of choledocholithiasis and/or cholangitis even after cholecystectomy and ERCP [26, 33]. Identified risk factors include anatomic abnormalities (strictures, peri-ampullar diverticulum), advanced age, and bacterial infections. A 2% rate of recurrent choledocholithiasis with the use of surgical CBDE has been demonstrated compared to 8.9% for ERCP, presumably due to preservation of the sphincter of Oddi via CBDE thus preventing reflux of intestinal microbial contents into the biliary system [34]. With ERCP having supplanted surgical CBDE as the preferred procedure for choledocholithiasis in most institutions over the past decades, this may have increased the incidence of primary recurrent choledocholithiasis.
Comparing urban and rural centers, we observed major differences in patient demographics and use of procedural interventions; however, in-hospital and post-intervention mortality were similar between groups. There was a significantly higher rate of all procedural interventions in urban hospitals for both choledocholithiasis and cholangitis, likely reflecting an increased availability of resources compared to rural hospitals. This is in line with the 2010 report by the National Center for Health Statistics where 64% of rural inpatients did not receive procedural interventions, versus 38% of urban inpatients [35]. Interestingly, endoscopic interventions were the most common procedural intervention for patients with choledocholithiasis (75.3% endoscopic vs. 58.4% surgical vs. 1.9% radiologic) at urban hospitals, however, surgical interventions were most common (59.3% surgical vs. 44.8% endoscopic vs. 0.7% radiologic) at rural hospitals. This is likely related to the limited availability of ERCP in rural areas, which ultimately may require patients to be transferred to urban hospitals to receive ERCP followed by subsequent cholecystectomy at their rural hospital [14, 36]. Absolute rates of surgical intervention were similar between urban and rural sites, supporting that general access to cholecystectomy in rural centers is comparable to urban centers. Notably, our analysis did not account for transfers between urban and rural centers, thus the differences in intervention rates may in part reflect inter-facility transfers from rural to urban centers to have procedures performed due to lack of local resources or expertise. Lastly. in line with recommendations that radiologic percutaneous biliary drainage is not preferred compared to endoscopic/surgical management, we found that radiologic interventions were the least common intervention in both urban and rural areas [2, 7].
Interestingly, Poulose et al. had also shown that rural centers had a higher proportion of patients undergoing surgical CBDE compared to urban centers, although the absolute number was small [14]. Wandling et al. have found however with the NIS, that ERCP with subsequent laparoscopic cholecystectomy has overwhelmingly become the preferred management option over the recent decade, with sharp declines in the use of CBDE [37]. However, as the wide-spread implementation of ERCP is challenging due to the need for high-volumes to maintain ERCP skills and quality, the use of L-CBDE may be an alternative option in rural areas [14]. L-CBDE has shown comparable efficacy and advantages compared to ERCP, such as decreased length of stay and only requiring a single-stage procedure [38, 39]. Despite this, modern surgical training programs have seen a significant decline in exposure to CBDE in recent decades, and many surgeons may not be comfortable in performing this directly out of surgical training [40]. However, Campagna et al. had recently demonstrated that experienced rural general surgeons could gain and maintain procedural confidence in L-CBDE after a dedicated short-term training course [41]. But even with adequate experience, availability of required equipment for L-CBDE and knowledgeable OR staff may still limit practice in rural areas [41]. Thus, it is key that the preferred management pathway for choledocholithiasis be tailored to what local resources and expertise allows in rural areas.
We also found a higher rate of post-intervention AEs in patients at urban hospitals that was driven by post-surgical and post-endoscopic AEs. This is most likely related to increased patient complexity and acuity at urban centers and reflects inter-facility transfers for more ill patients from rural to urban referral centers which we were unable to separate in our analysis. Prior data has suggested that although the overall rate of adverse events such as post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) appears to be lowest in rural hospitals, urban hospitals ultimately had lower odds of PEP after adjusting for the level of ERCP intervention [42, 43]. Additionally, Carbonell et al. had found higher risks of AEs for patients undergoing inpatient cholecystectomy at urban hospitals, in line with our results [44]. Overall rates of post-intervention AEs was noted to be moderately common across urban-rural hospitals for both choledocholithiasis and cholangitis. Recent epidemiological data has observed this trend, with increasing rates of PEP and post-ERCP bleeding over the past decade [45, 46]. This may reflect more aggressive and complex procedures as well as changing patient demographics of established risk factors for AEs such as PEP. Despite this, we have found a decreasing mortality trend for both choledocholithiasis and cholangitis year over year, suggesting that there have been overall improvements in procedural techniques and pre/post procedural care.
Our study has several strengths. To our knowledge, it represents the most comprehensive analysis of patients with choledocholithiasis and cholangitis in the US, comprising over 180,000 unweighted discharges over ten years within a geographically diverse, all-payer, nationally representative dataset. Thus, our results are generalizable across all care regions within the US. However, there are limitations of our study that require acknowledgement. Firstly, as with any administrative database study, ICD-9-CM coding errors are possible, and no studies have formally evaluated the validity of these codes in choledocholithiasis and cholangitis. As our study population was limited to those with primary diagnostic codes for choledocholithiasis and cholangitis, it is possible some patients with these listed as secondary codes were not captured. However, we provided a comprehensive inclusion of ICD-9 variations for appropriate primary diagnostic codes (Supplementary tables) and we felt utilizing primary codes would allow for less coding errors and confounders, which is in line with practices from similar studies on this topic(37). To minimize risks of coding errors, we limited our analysis to 2005–2014 to avoid potential errors with overlapping ICD-10-CM codes, given that the NIS transitioned to the ICD-10-CM in 2015. When comparing rural and urban hospitals, we acknowledge that significant potential variations exist in defining and distinguishing between these categories. Our results were not separately adjusted based on other covariables such as hospital size and teaching status, although rurality has clear associations with both these factors. Finally, although we categorized interventions as surgical, endoscopic, or radiologic, we did not evaluate more granular data on the specific type of procedures being performed which may have been of interest to analyze trends of CBDE and ERCP across urban-rural divisions.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the rate of hospitalizations for choledocholithiasis and cholangitis have increased between 2005 and 2014. This finding may reflect both the overall increasing prevalence of gallstone disease in the U.S, and the increased requirement of inpatient management for those with choledocholithiasis and cholangitis, among other factors. Patients treated at urban hospitals have higher rates of procedural interventions and post-intervention AEs, likely reflecting increased case complexity in urban centers. Overall, there have been significant improvements in mortality associated with choledocholithiasis and cholangitis over the study period, suggesting potentially improved clinical care pathways. Future studies are needed to evaluate disparities in access to procedural care at rural centers and to assess possible measures to address care gaps such as the increased training and use of L-CBDE.

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Declarations

Institutional review board ethics approval was not required for our study as all data in this analysis are de-identified and publicly available via the National Inpatient Sample (NIS).
Not applicable.

Conflict of interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests. S. Li, L. Guizzetti, C. Ma, A. Shaheen, E. Dixon, C. Ball, S. Wani, N. Forbes: None Declared.
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://​creativecommons.​org/​licenses/​by/​4.​0/​. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://​creativecommons.​org/​publicdomain/​zero/​1.​0/​) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Anhänge

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Literatur
2.
Zurück zum Zitat Buxbaum JL, Abbas Fehmi SM, Sultan S, Fishman DS, Qumseya BJ, Cortessis VK, et al. ASGE guideline on the role of endoscopy in the evaluation and management of choledocholithiasis. Gastrointest Endosc. 2019;89(6):1075–105e15.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Buxbaum JL, Abbas Fehmi SM, Sultan S, Fishman DS, Qumseya BJ, Cortessis VK, et al. ASGE guideline on the role of endoscopy in the evaluation and management of choledocholithiasis. Gastrointest Endosc. 2019;89(6):1075–105e15.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
3.
Zurück zum Zitat Peery AF, Crockett SD, Murphy CC, Jensen ET, Kim HP, Egberg MD, et al. Burden and cost of gastrointestinal, liver, and pancreatic Diseases in the United States: Update 2021. Gastroenterology. 2022;162(2):621–44.PubMedCrossRef Peery AF, Crockett SD, Murphy CC, Jensen ET, Kim HP, Egberg MD, et al. Burden and cost of gastrointestinal, liver, and pancreatic Diseases in the United States: Update 2021. Gastroenterology. 2022;162(2):621–44.PubMedCrossRef
4.
Zurück zum Zitat Frossard JL, Morel PM. Detection and management of bile duct stones. Gastrointest Endosc. 2010;72(4):808–16.PubMedCrossRef Frossard JL, Morel PM. Detection and management of bile duct stones. Gastrointest Endosc. 2010;72(4):808–16.PubMedCrossRef
5.
Zurück zum Zitat Neuhaus H, Feussner H, Ungeheuer A, Hoffmann W, Siewert JR, Classen M. Prospective evaluation of the Use of Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiography prior to laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Endoscopy. 1992;24(09):745–9.PubMedCrossRef Neuhaus H, Feussner H, Ungeheuer A, Hoffmann W, Siewert JR, Classen M. Prospective evaluation of the Use of Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiography prior to laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Endoscopy. 1992;24(09):745–9.PubMedCrossRef
6.
Zurück zum Zitat Lacaine F, Corlette MB, Bismuth H. Preoperative evaluation of the risk of common bile Duct Stones. Arch Surg. 1980;115(9):1114–6.PubMedCrossRef Lacaine F, Corlette MB, Bismuth H. Preoperative evaluation of the risk of common bile Duct Stones. Arch Surg. 1980;115(9):1114–6.PubMedCrossRef
7.
Zurück zum Zitat Buxbaum JL, Buitrago C, Lee A, Elmunzer BJ, Riaz A, Ceppa EP, et al. ASGE guideline on the management of cholangitis. Gastrointest Endosc. 2021;94(2):207–21e14.PubMedCrossRef Buxbaum JL, Buitrago C, Lee A, Elmunzer BJ, Riaz A, Ceppa EP, et al. ASGE guideline on the management of cholangitis. Gastrointest Endosc. 2021;94(2):207–21e14.PubMedCrossRef
8.
Zurück zum Zitat Lai EC, Mok FP, Tan ES, Lo CM, Fan ST, You KT, et al. Endoscopic biliary drainage for severe acute cholangitis. N Engl J Med. 1992;326(24):1582–6.PubMedCrossRef Lai EC, Mok FP, Tan ES, Lo CM, Fan ST, You KT, et al. Endoscopic biliary drainage for severe acute cholangitis. N Engl J Med. 1992;326(24):1582–6.PubMedCrossRef
9.
Zurück zum Zitat Boni L, Huo B, Alberici L, Ricci C, Tsokani S, Mavridis D, et al. EAES rapid guideline: updated systematic review, network meta-analysis, CINeMA and GRADE assessment, and evidence-informed european recommendations on the management of common bile duct stones. Surg Endosc. 2022;36(11):7863–76.PubMedCrossRef Boni L, Huo B, Alberici L, Ricci C, Tsokani S, Mavridis D, et al. EAES rapid guideline: updated systematic review, network meta-analysis, CINeMA and GRADE assessment, and evidence-informed european recommendations on the management of common bile duct stones. Surg Endosc. 2022;36(11):7863–76.PubMedCrossRef
10.
Zurück zum Zitat Rogers SJ, Cello JP, Horn JK, Siperstein AE, Schecter WP, Campbell AR, et al. Prospective randomized trial of LC + LCBDE vs ERCP/S + LC for common bile duct stone disease. Arch Surg. 2010;145(1):28–33.PubMedCrossRef Rogers SJ, Cello JP, Horn JK, Siperstein AE, Schecter WP, Campbell AR, et al. Prospective randomized trial of LC + LCBDE vs ERCP/S + LC for common bile duct stone disease. Arch Surg. 2010;145(1):28–33.PubMedCrossRef
11.
Zurück zum Zitat Oh CH, Dong SH. Recent advances in the management of difficult bile-duct stones: a focus on single-operator cholangioscopy-guided lithotripsy. Korean J Intern Med. 2021;36(2):235–46.PubMedCrossRef Oh CH, Dong SH. Recent advances in the management of difficult bile-duct stones: a focus on single-operator cholangioscopy-guided lithotripsy. Korean J Intern Med. 2021;36(2):235–46.PubMedCrossRef
12.
Zurück zum Zitat Miura F, Okamoto K, Takada T, Strasberg SM, Asbun HJ, Pitt HA, et al. Tokyo Guidelines 2018: initial management of acute biliary infection and flowchart for acute cholangitis. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci. 2018;25(1):31–40.PubMedCrossRef Miura F, Okamoto K, Takada T, Strasberg SM, Asbun HJ, Pitt HA, et al. Tokyo Guidelines 2018: initial management of acute biliary infection and flowchart for acute cholangitis. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci. 2018;25(1):31–40.PubMedCrossRef
13.
Zurück zum Zitat Shelton J, Kummerow K, Phillips S, Griffin M, Holzman MD, Nealon W, et al. An urban-rural blight? Choledocholithiasis presentation and treatment. J Surg Res. 2012;173(2):193–7.PubMedCrossRef Shelton J, Kummerow K, Phillips S, Griffin M, Holzman MD, Nealon W, et al. An urban-rural blight? Choledocholithiasis presentation and treatment. J Surg Res. 2012;173(2):193–7.PubMedCrossRef
14.
Zurück zum Zitat Poulose BK, Phillips S, Nealon W, Shelton J, Kummerow K, Penson D, et al. Choledocholithiasis management in rural America: health disparity or health opportunity? J Surg Res. 2011;170(2):214–9.PubMedCrossRef Poulose BK, Phillips S, Nealon W, Shelton J, Kummerow K, Penson D, et al. Choledocholithiasis management in rural America: health disparity or health opportunity? J Surg Res. 2011;170(2):214–9.PubMedCrossRef
15.
Zurück zum Zitat Baucom RB, Feurer ID, Shelton JS, Kummerow K, Holzman MD, Poulose BK. Surgeons, ERCP, and laparoscopic common bile duct exploration: do we need a standard approach for common bile duct stones? Surg Endosc. 2016;30(2):414–23.PubMedCrossRef Baucom RB, Feurer ID, Shelton JS, Kummerow K, Holzman MD, Poulose BK. Surgeons, ERCP, and laparoscopic common bile duct exploration: do we need a standard approach for common bile duct stones? Surg Endosc. 2016;30(2):414–23.PubMedCrossRef
16.
Zurück zum Zitat Using AHRRDE, the HCUP National Inpatient Sample to Estimate Trends. 2015. In: HCUP Methods Series Report #2006-05 [Internet]. U.S. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Using AHRRDE, the HCUP National Inpatient Sample to Estimate Trends. 2015. In: HCUP Methods Series Report #2006-05 [Internet]. U.S. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.
17.
Zurück zum Zitat Kim HJ, Fay MP, Feuer EJ, Midthune DN. Permutation tests for joinpoint regression with applications to cancer rates. Stat Med. 2000;19(3):335–51.PubMedCrossRef Kim HJ, Fay MP, Feuer EJ, Midthune DN. Permutation tests for joinpoint regression with applications to cancer rates. Stat Med. 2000;19(3):335–51.PubMedCrossRef
18.
Zurück zum Zitat Peery AF, Crockett SD, Murphy CC, Lund JL, Dellon ES, Williams JL, et al. Burden and cost of gastrointestinal, liver, and pancreatic Diseases in the United States: Update 2018. Gastroenterology. 2019;156(1):254–72e11.PubMedCrossRef Peery AF, Crockett SD, Murphy CC, Lund JL, Dellon ES, Williams JL, et al. Burden and cost of gastrointestinal, liver, and pancreatic Diseases in the United States: Update 2018. Gastroenterology. 2019;156(1):254–72e11.PubMedCrossRef
19.
Zurück zum Zitat Unalp-Arida A, Ruhl C. The Burden of Gallstone Disease in the United States Population. medRxiv. 2022. 2022.07.08.22277386. Unalp-Arida A, Ruhl C. The Burden of Gallstone Disease in the United States Population. medRxiv. 2022. 2022.07.08.22277386.
21.
Zurück zum Zitat Li S, Guizzetti L, Ma C, Shaheen AA, Dixon E, Ball C et al. Epidemiology and outcomes of symptomatic cholelithiasis and cholecystitis in the USA: Trends and Urban-Rural Variations. J Gastrointest Surg. 2023. Li S, Guizzetti L, Ma C, Shaheen AA, Dixon E, Ball C et al. Epidemiology and outcomes of symptomatic cholelithiasis and cholecystitis in the USA: Trends and Urban-Rural Variations. J Gastrointest Surg. 2023.
22.
Zurück zum Zitat Ahmed A, Cheung RC, Keeffe EB. Management of gallstones and their complications. Am Family Phys. 2000;61(6):1673–80. 87 – 8. Ahmed A, Cheung RC, Keeffe EB. Management of gallstones and their complications. Am Family Phys. 2000;61(6):1673–80. 87 – 8.
23.
Zurück zum Zitat Copelan A, Kapoor BS, Choledocholithiasis. Diagnosis and management. Tech Vasc Interv Radiol. 2015;18(4):244–55.PubMedCrossRef Copelan A, Kapoor BS, Choledocholithiasis. Diagnosis and management. Tech Vasc Interv Radiol. 2015;18(4):244–55.PubMedCrossRef
24.
Zurück zum Zitat Oak JH, Paik CN, Chung WC, Lee K-M, Yang JM. Risk factors for recurrence of symptomatic common bile Duct Stones after Cholecystectomy. Gastroenterol Res Pract. 2012;2012:417821.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Oak JH, Paik CN, Chung WC, Lee K-M, Yang JM. Risk factors for recurrence of symptomatic common bile Duct Stones after Cholecystectomy. Gastroenterol Res Pract. 2012;2012:417821.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
25.
Zurück zum Zitat Chung EJ, Kim MH, Lee SS, Lee SK. Primary vs. secondary common bile duct stones: apples and oranges. Endoscopy. 2003;35(1):92. author reply 3.PubMedCrossRef Chung EJ, Kim MH, Lee SS, Lee SK. Primary vs. secondary common bile duct stones: apples and oranges. Endoscopy. 2003;35(1):92. author reply 3.PubMedCrossRef
26.
Zurück zum Zitat Feng R, Zhang T, Kayani MuR, Wang Z, Shen Y, Su KL et al. Patients with primary and secondary bile Duct Stones Harbor distinct biliary microbial composition and metabolic potential. Front Cell Infect Microbiol. 2022;12. Feng R, Zhang T, Kayani MuR, Wang Z, Shen Y, Su KL et al. Patients with primary and secondary bile Duct Stones Harbor distinct biliary microbial composition and metabolic potential. Front Cell Infect Microbiol. 2022;12.
27.
Zurück zum Zitat Chowbey P, Sharma A, Goswami A, Afaque Y, Najma K, Baijal M, et al. Residual gallbladder stones after cholecystectomy: a literature review. J Minim Access Surg. 2015;11(4):223–30.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Chowbey P, Sharma A, Goswami A, Afaque Y, Najma K, Baijal M, et al. Residual gallbladder stones after cholecystectomy: a literature review. J Minim Access Surg. 2015;11(4):223–30.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
28.
Zurück zum Zitat Sabour AF, Matsushima K, Love BE, Alicuben ET, Schellenberg MA, Inaba K, et al. Nationwide trends in the use of subtotal cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis. Surgery. 2020;167(3):569–74.PubMedCrossRef Sabour AF, Matsushima K, Love BE, Alicuben ET, Schellenberg MA, Inaba K, et al. Nationwide trends in the use of subtotal cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis. Surgery. 2020;167(3):569–74.PubMedCrossRef
29.
Zurück zum Zitat Donnellan E, Coulter J, Mathew C, Choynowski M, Flanagan L, Bucholc M, et al. A meta-analysis of the use of intraoperative cholangiography; time to revisit our approach to cholecystectomy? Surg Open Sci. 2021;3:8–15.PubMedCrossRef Donnellan E, Coulter J, Mathew C, Choynowski M, Flanagan L, Bucholc M, et al. A meta-analysis of the use of intraoperative cholangiography; time to revisit our approach to cholecystectomy? Surg Open Sci. 2021;3:8–15.PubMedCrossRef
30.
Zurück zum Zitat Altieri MS, Yang J, Obeid N, Zhu C, Talamini M, Pryor A. Increasing bile duct injury and decreasing utilization of intraoperative cholangiogram and common bile duct exploration over 14 years: an analysis of outcomes in New York State. Surg Endosc. 2018;32(2):667–74.PubMedCrossRef Altieri MS, Yang J, Obeid N, Zhu C, Talamini M, Pryor A. Increasing bile duct injury and decreasing utilization of intraoperative cholangiogram and common bile duct exploration over 14 years: an analysis of outcomes in New York State. Surg Endosc. 2018;32(2):667–74.PubMedCrossRef
31.
Zurück zum Zitat Möller M, Gustafsson U, Rasmussen F, Persson G, Thorell A. Natural course vs interventions to clear common bile Duct Stones: data from the Swedish Registry for Gallstone surgery and endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography (GallRiks). JAMA Surg. 2014;149(10):1008–13.PubMedCrossRef Möller M, Gustafsson U, Rasmussen F, Persson G, Thorell A. Natural course vs interventions to clear common bile Duct Stones: data from the Swedish Registry for Gallstone surgery and endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography (GallRiks). JAMA Surg. 2014;149(10):1008–13.PubMedCrossRef
32.
Zurück zum Zitat Hakuta R, Hamada T, Nakai Y, Oyama H, Kanai S, Suzuki T, et al. Natural history of asymptomatic bile duct stones and association of endoscopic treatment with clinical outcomes. J Gastroenterol. 2020;55(1):78–85.PubMedCrossRef Hakuta R, Hamada T, Nakai Y, Oyama H, Kanai S, Suzuki T, et al. Natural history of asymptomatic bile duct stones and association of endoscopic treatment with clinical outcomes. J Gastroenterol. 2020;55(1):78–85.PubMedCrossRef
33.
Zurück zum Zitat Cai JS, Qiang S, Bao-Bing Y. Advances of recurrent risk factors and management of choledocholithiasis. Scand J Gastroenterol. 2017;52(1):34–43.PubMedCrossRef Cai JS, Qiang S, Bao-Bing Y. Advances of recurrent risk factors and management of choledocholithiasis. Scand J Gastroenterol. 2017;52(1):34–43.PubMedCrossRef
34.
Zurück zum Zitat Al-Habbal Y, Reid I, Tiang T, Houli N, Lai B, McQuillan T, et al. Retrospective comparative analysis of choledochoscopic bile duct exploration versus ERCP for bile duct stones. Sci Rep. 2020;10(1):14736.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Al-Habbal Y, Reid I, Tiang T, Houli N, Lai B, McQuillan T, et al. Retrospective comparative analysis of choledochoscopic bile duct exploration versus ERCP for bile duct stones. Sci Rep. 2020;10(1):14736.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
35.
Zurück zum Zitat Hall MJ, Owings M. Rural and urban hospitals’ role in providing inpatient care, 2010. NCHS Data Brief. 2014(147):1–8. Hall MJ, Owings M. Rural and urban hospitals’ role in providing inpatient care, 2010. NCHS Data Brief. 2014(147):1–8.
36.
Zurück zum Zitat Touzin E, Decker C, Kelly L, Minty B. Gallbladder disease in northwestern Ontario: the case for Canada’s first rural ERCP program. Can J Rural Med. 2011;16(2):55–60.PubMed Touzin E, Decker C, Kelly L, Minty B. Gallbladder disease in northwestern Ontario: the case for Canada’s first rural ERCP program. Can J Rural Med. 2011;16(2):55–60.PubMed
37.
Zurück zum Zitat Wandling MW, Hungness ES, Pavey ES, Stulberg JJ, Schwab B, Yang AD, et al. Nationwide Assessment of Trends in Choledocholithiasis Management in the United States from 1998 to 2013. JAMA Surg. 2016;151(12):1125–30.PubMedCrossRef Wandling MW, Hungness ES, Pavey ES, Stulberg JJ, Schwab B, Yang AD, et al. Nationwide Assessment of Trends in Choledocholithiasis Management in the United States from 1998 to 2013. JAMA Surg. 2016;151(12):1125–30.PubMedCrossRef
38.
Zurück zum Zitat Rogers SJ, Cello JP, Horn JK, Siperstein AE, Schecter WP, Campbell AR, et al. Prospective randomized trial of LC + LCBDE vs ERCP/S + LC for common bile Duct Stone Disease. Arch Surg. 2010;145(1):28–33.PubMedCrossRef Rogers SJ, Cello JP, Horn JK, Siperstein AE, Schecter WP, Campbell AR, et al. Prospective randomized trial of LC + LCBDE vs ERCP/S + LC for common bile Duct Stone Disease. Arch Surg. 2010;145(1):28–33.PubMedCrossRef
39.
Zurück zum Zitat Berci G, Hunter J, Morgenstern L, Arregui M, Brunt M, Carroll B, et al. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy: first, do no harm; second, take care of bile duct stones. Surg Endosc. 2013;27(4):1051–4.PubMedCrossRef Berci G, Hunter J, Morgenstern L, Arregui M, Brunt M, Carroll B, et al. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy: first, do no harm; second, take care of bile duct stones. Surg Endosc. 2013;27(4):1051–4.PubMedCrossRef
40.
Zurück zum Zitat Warner RL, Coleman KC, Musgrove KA, Bardes JM, Borgstrom DC, Grabo DJ. A review of general surgery resident experience in common bile duct exploration in the ERCP era. Am J Surg. 2020;220(4):899–904.PubMedCrossRef Warner RL, Coleman KC, Musgrove KA, Bardes JM, Borgstrom DC, Grabo DJ. A review of general surgery resident experience in common bile duct exploration in the ERCP era. Am J Surg. 2020;220(4):899–904.PubMedCrossRef
41.
Zurück zum Zitat Campagna RAJ, Belette AM, Holmstrom AL, Halverson AL, Santos BF, Hungness ES, et al. Addressing the gap in laparoscopic common bile duct exploration training for rural surgeons: imparting procedural ability is not enough. Surg Endosc. 2021;35(9):5140–6.PubMedCrossRef Campagna RAJ, Belette AM, Holmstrom AL, Halverson AL, Santos BF, Hungness ES, et al. Addressing the gap in laparoscopic common bile duct exploration training for rural surgeons: imparting procedural ability is not enough. Surg Endosc. 2021;35(9):5140–6.PubMedCrossRef
42.
Zurück zum Zitat Abbas A, Sethi S, Vidyarthi G, Taunk P. Predictors of Post ERCP Pancreatitis: analysis of more than half a million ERCPs performed Nationwide over the last 15 years: 57. Official J Am Coll Gastroenterol | ACG. 2018;113:35. Abbas A, Sethi S, Vidyarthi G, Taunk P. Predictors of Post ERCP Pancreatitis: analysis of more than half a million ERCPs performed Nationwide over the last 15 years: 57. Official J Am Coll Gastroenterol | ACG. 2018;113:35.
43.
Zurück zum Zitat Abbas A, Sethi S, Vidyarthi G, Taunk P. Training level (July Effect) and the risk of Post-ERCP pancreatitis: a nationwide analysis of more than half a million ERCP procedures: 56. Official J Am Coll Gastroenterol | ACG. 2018;113:34.CrossRef Abbas A, Sethi S, Vidyarthi G, Taunk P. Training level (July Effect) and the risk of Post-ERCP pancreatitis: a nationwide analysis of more than half a million ERCP procedures: 56. Official J Am Coll Gastroenterol | ACG. 2018;113:34.CrossRef
44.
Zurück zum Zitat Carbonell AM, Lincourt AE, Kercher KW, Matthews BD, Cobb WS, Sing RF, et al. Do patient or hospital demographics predict cholecystectomy outcomes? A nationwide study of 93,578 patients. Surg Endoscopy Other Interventional Techniques. 2005;19(6):767–73.CrossRef Carbonell AM, Lincourt AE, Kercher KW, Matthews BD, Cobb WS, Sing RF, et al. Do patient or hospital demographics predict cholecystectomy outcomes? A nationwide study of 93,578 patients. Surg Endoscopy Other Interventional Techniques. 2005;19(6):767–73.CrossRef
45.
Zurück zum Zitat Mutneja HR, Vohra I, Go A, Bhurwal A, Katiyar V, Palomera Tejeda E, et al. Temporal trends and mortality of post-ERCP pancreatitis in the United States: a nationwide analysis. Endoscopy. 2020;53(04):357–66.PubMed Mutneja HR, Vohra I, Go A, Bhurwal A, Katiyar V, Palomera Tejeda E, et al. Temporal trends and mortality of post-ERCP pancreatitis in the United States: a nationwide analysis. Endoscopy. 2020;53(04):357–66.PubMed
46.
Zurück zum Zitat Afridi F, Rotundo L, Feurdean M, Ahlawat S. Trends in Post-Therapeutic Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography gastrointestinal hemorrhage, perforation and mortality from 2000 to 2012: a Nationwide Study. Digestion. 2019;100(2):100–8.PubMedCrossRef Afridi F, Rotundo L, Feurdean M, Ahlawat S. Trends in Post-Therapeutic Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography gastrointestinal hemorrhage, perforation and mortality from 2000 to 2012: a Nationwide Study. Digestion. 2019;100(2):100–8.PubMedCrossRef
Metadaten
Titel
Epidemiology and outcomes of choledocholithiasis and cholangitis in the United States: trends and urban-rural variations
verfasst von
Suqing Li
Leonardo Guizzetti
Christopher Ma
Abdel Aziz Shaheen
Elijah Dixon
Chad Ball
Sachin Wani
Nauzer Forbes
Publikationsdatum
01.12.2023
Verlag
BioMed Central
Erschienen in
BMC Gastroenterology / Ausgabe 1/2023
Elektronische ISSN: 1471-230X
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12876-023-02868-3

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 1/2023

BMC Gastroenterology 1/2023 Zur Ausgabe

Leitlinien kompakt für die Innere Medizin

Mit medbee Pocketcards sicher entscheiden.

Seit 2022 gehört die medbee GmbH zum Springer Medizin Verlag

Blutdrucksenkung könnte Uterusmyome verhindern

Frauen mit unbehandelter oder neu auftretender Hypertonie haben ein deutlich erhöhtes Risiko für Uterusmyome. Eine Therapie mit Antihypertensiva geht hingegen mit einer verringerten Inzidenz der gutartigen Tumoren einher.

„Jeder Fall von plötzlichem Tod muss obduziert werden!“

17.05.2024 Plötzlicher Herztod Nachrichten

Ein signifikanter Anteil der Fälle von plötzlichem Herztod ist genetisch bedingt. Um ihre Verwandten vor diesem Schicksal zu bewahren, sollten jüngere Personen, die plötzlich unerwartet versterben, ausnahmslos einer Autopsie unterzogen werden.

Hirnblutung unter DOAK und VKA ähnlich bedrohlich

17.05.2024 Direkte orale Antikoagulanzien Nachrichten

Kommt es zu einer nichttraumatischen Hirnblutung, spielt es keine große Rolle, ob die Betroffenen zuvor direkt wirksame orale Antikoagulanzien oder Marcumar bekommen haben: Die Prognose ist ähnlich schlecht.

Schlechtere Vorhofflimmern-Prognose bei kleinem linken Ventrikel

17.05.2024 Vorhofflimmern Nachrichten

Nicht nur ein vergrößerter, sondern auch ein kleiner linker Ventrikel ist bei Vorhofflimmern mit einer erhöhten Komplikationsrate assoziiert. Der Zusammenhang besteht nach Daten aus China unabhängig von anderen Risikofaktoren.

Update Innere Medizin

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.