Retrospective Study
Copyright ©The Author(s) 2019.
World J Gastrointest Endosc. Mar 16, 2019; 11(3): 231-238
Published online Mar 16, 2019. doi: 10.4253/wjge.v11.i3.231
Table 1 Comparison of patient characteristics between the positive group and the negative group
P group (n = 76)N group (n = 19)P value
Age (yr)75 (29-90)68 (43-82)0.012
Males60 (78.9)12 (63.2)0.229
Received antithrombotic drugs14 (18.4)0 (0)0.064
Location of tumor (distal/hilar)45/318/110.205
UICC stage (1/2/3/4)27/29/10/107/7/3/20.91
Cholangitis within the last month10 (13.2)3 (15.8)0.719
Table 2 Comparison of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography -related procedures between the positive group and the negative group
P group (n = 76)N group (n = 19)P value
Number of ERCP sessions (1/2)72/415/40.048
EST74 (97.4)17 (89.5)0.177
Diagnosability of bile or brush or ENBD cytology16/681 (23.5)5/19 (26.3)0.77
Cup diameter of biopsy forceps (1 mm/2 mm)8/682/171.0
Total number of biopsies2 (1 - 6)2 (1 - 7)0.039
Number of biopsies before biliary stenting2 (1 - 4)2 (1 - 3)0.119
Number of biopsies after biliary stenting2 (1 - 4)1 (1 - 6)0.065
PEP4 (5.3)0 (0)0.58
Moderate2
Severe2
Table 3 Univariate analysis of biliary biopsy positivity
P group (n = 76)N group (n = 19)P value
Total number of biopsies ≤ 132 (42.1)4 (21.1)0.116
Total number of biopsies ≤ 262 (81.6)12 (63.1)0.120
Total number of biopsies ≤ 369 (90.8)15 (78.9)0.222
Number of ERCP sessions < 272 (94.7)15 (78.9)0.048
Table 4 Multivariate stepwise analysis of biliary biopsy positivity
OR95%CIP value
Number of ERCP sessions < 24.81.08-21.40.04