Efficacy and safety of endoscopic sphincterotomy with balloon dilation versus endoscopic sphincterotomy alone for extraction of common bile duct stones with a maximum diameter of 10 to15 millimeters

Background: Various factors, most notably the stone's features, determine the selection of an appropriate method to extract common bile duct (CBD) stones during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. In this study, the efficacy and safety of endoscopic sphincterotomy with balloon dilation (ESBD) versus endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) for CBD stone extraction with a diameter of 10 to 15 millimeters were compared. Methods: This retrospective cross-sectional study included 154 patients referred to the Rouhani Hospital in Babol, Iran, with CBD stones. Consensus sampling was used. Each individual's demographic information and findings from the procedure were entered into the SPSS software (v. 26). A level of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: A total of 154 patients were included in the study, of which 81 (52.6) were in the EST, and 73 (47.4) were in the ESBD group. Complete stones removal rate was higher in the ESBD versus the EST group (79.5 versus 46.9, P<0.001). No significant differences were observed between the two methods' overall side effects rate (P = 0.469). Conclusion: For the complete extraction of CBD stones larger than 10 millimeters, the ESBD method outperforms the EST method

Clinical results of everolimus-eluting stents and sirolimus-eluting stents in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention

Background: It has been pronounced that everolimus-eluting stent (EES) had lower charge of goal-lesion revascularization and stent thrombosis as compared with sirolimus-eluting stents (SES).The goal of this observation was to compare the efficacy and protection of EES with SES in primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Methods: In this retrospective study, a total of 404 patients with coronary artery stenosis who underwent angioplasty of one or more coronary arteries were included in the study. Of these, 202 were treated with SES and the others with EES. The data were collected by a questionnaire through which the annual incidence of coronary stent complications including the occurrence of stent thrombosis (confirmed by re-angiography), the occurrence of acute coronary syndrome leading to hospitalization, the occurrence of vascular myocardial infarction related to the stenting vessel, the need for re-angiography and angioplasty and finally the incidence of cardiac mortality were evaluated. Results: This study showed that the odds ratio of EES thrombosis to SES stent in the unadjusted model is 1.01 (0.06-16.34) and in the adjusted model for confounding variables was equal to 0.80 (0.04-13.35) which in both models, these values were not statistically significant. Conclusion: The findings of the present study indicate that there is no statistically significant difference between the outcomes in the two groups treated with SES and EES release stents