↓ Skip to main content

Percutaneous transhepatic vs. endoscopic retrograde biliary drainage for suspected malignant hilar obstruction: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Overview of attention for article published in Trials, February 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
45 Mendeley
Title
Percutaneous transhepatic vs. endoscopic retrograde biliary drainage for suspected malignant hilar obstruction: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial
Published in
Trials, February 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13063-018-2473-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Firas Al-Kawas, Harry Aslanian, John Baillie, Filip Banovac, Jonathan M. Buscaglia, James Buxbaum, Amitabh Chak, Bradford Chong, Gregory A. Coté, Peter V. Draganov, Kulwinder Dua, Valerie Durkalski, B. Joseph Elmunzer, Lydia D. Foster, Timothy B. Gardner, Brian S. Geller, Priya Jamidar, Laith H. Jamil, Rajesh N. Keswani, Mouen A. Khashab, Gabriel D. Lang, Ryan Law, David Lichtenstein, Simon K. Lo, Sean McCarthy, Silvio Melo, Daniel Mullady, Jose Nieto, J. Bayne Selby, Vikesh K. Singh, Rebecca L. Spitzer, Brian Strife, Paul Tarnaksy, Jason R. Taylor, Jeffrey Tokar, Andrew Y. Wang, April Williams, Field Willingham, Patrick Yachimski, In alphabetical order for the INTERCPT Study Group and the United States Cooperative for Outcomes Research in Endoscopy (USCORE)

Abstract

The optimal approach to the drainage of malignant obstruction at the liver hilum remains uncertain. We aim to compare percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD) to endoscopic retrograde cholangiography (ERC) as the first intervention in patients with cholestasis due to suspected malignant hilar obstruction (MHO). The INTERCPT trial is a multi-center, comparative effectiveness, randomized, superiority trial of PTBD vs. ERC for decompression of suspected MHO. One hundred and eighty-four eligible patients across medical centers in the United States, who provide informed consent, will be randomly assigned in 1:1 fashion via a web-based electronic randomization system to either ERC or PTBD as the initial drainage and, if indicated, diagnostic procedure. All subsequent clinical interventions, including crossover to the alternative procedure, will be dictated by treating physicians per usual clinical care. Enrolled subjects will be assessed for successful biliary drainage (primary outcome measure), adequate tissue diagnosis, adverse events, the need for additional procedures, hospitalizations, and oncological outcomes over a 6-month follow-up period. Subjects, treating clinicians and outcome assessors will not be blinded. The INTERCPT trial is designed to determine whether PTBD or ERC is the better initial approach when managing a patient with suspected MHO, a common clinical dilemma that has never been investigated in a randomized trial. ClinicalTrials.gov, Identifier: NCT03172832 . Registered on 1 June 2017.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 45 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 45 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Professor > Associate Professor 7 16%
Student > Master 6 13%
Professor 4 9%
Other 4 9%
Librarian 3 7%
Other 6 13%
Unknown 15 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 24 53%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 2%
Unknown 17 38%