Big End Double-Layer Stents for the Treatment of Gastric Outlet Obstruction Caused by Stomach Cancer

Objectives

This study is aimed at evaluating the efficacy and safety of the big end double-layer uncovered self-expanding metal stents (SEMS) for the treatment of gastric outlet obstruction (GOO) caused by distal stomach cancer.

Methods

Seventy three patients receiving big end double-layer uncovered SEMS for the treatment of GOO caused by distal gastric cancer will be included in this multicenter prospective clinical trial. The main outcome measures included the functional outcome, the complications, the reinterventional rates, the average treatment charges, and the mean survival time. Monthly telephone calls were needed to assess the food intake until the patients died.

Results

The technical and the clinical success rates were 98.6%. The stent obstruction caused by tumor ingrowth was observed in one patient (1.4%). The incidence of food impaction was 2.9% (2/70) and the reinterventional rate was 4.3% (3/70). However, stent migration and obstruction caused by overgrowth were not observed. No perforation and severe bleeding were observed. The median cost of endoscopic stenting and total hospitalization (including reinterventions) for the big end double-layer uncovered SEMS in this study was $2945 and $3408, respectively. The mean survival time was 212.5 days.

Conclusions

The placement of big end double-layer uncovered SEMS is a safe and effective modality and has the potential to be one of the options for the treatment of GOO caused by the distal gastric cancer.

Stent placement versus surgical palliation for adults with malignant gastric outlet obstruction

BACKGROUND

Malignant gastric outlet obstruction is the clinical and pathological consequence of cancerous disease causing a mechanical obstruction to gastric emptying. It usually occurs when malignancy is at an advanced stage; therefore, people have a limited life expectancy. It is of paramount importance to restore oral intake to improve quality of life for the person in a manner that has a minimal risk of complications and a short recovery period.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of endoscopic stent placement versus surgical palliation for people with symptomatic malignant gastric outlet obstruction.

SEARCH METHODS

In May 2018 we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase and Ovid CINAHL. We screened reference lists from included studies and review articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials comparing stent placement with surgical palliation for people with gastric outlet obstruction secondary to malignant disease.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted study data. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for binary outcomes, mean difference (MD) or standardised mean difference (SMD) with 95% CI for continuous outcomes and the hazard ratio (HR) for time-to-event outcomes. We performed meta-analyses where meaningful. We assessed the quality of evidence using GRADE criteria.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified three randomised controlled trials with 84 participants. Forty-one participants underwent surgical palliation and 43 participants underwent duodenal stent placement. There may have been little or no difference in the technical success of the procedure (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.09; low-quality evidence), or whether the time to resumption of oral intake was quicker for participants who had undergone duodenal stent placement (MD -3.07 days, 95% CI -4.76 to -1.39; low-quality evidence).Due to very low-quality evidence, we were uncertain whether surgical palliation improved all-cause mortality and median survival postintervention.The time to recurrence of obstructive symptoms may have increased slightly following duodenal stenting (RR 5.08, 95% CI 0.96 to 26.74; moderate-quality evidence).Due to very low-quality evidence, we were uncertain whether surgical palliation improved serious and minor adverse events. The heterogeneity for adverse events was moderately high (serious adverse events: Chi² = 1.71; minor adverse events: Chi² = 3.08), reflecting the differences in definitions used and therefore, may have impacted the outcomes. The need for reintervention may have increased following duodenal stenting (RR 4.71, 95% CI 1.36 to 16.30; very low-quality evidence).The length of hospital stay may have been shorter (by approximately 4 to 10 days) following stenting (MD -6.70 days, 95% CI -9.41 to -3.98; moderate-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The use of duodenal stent placement in malignant gastric outlet obstruction has the benefits of a quicker resumption of oral intake and a reduced inpatient hospital stay; however, this is balanced by an increase in the recurrence of symptoms and the need for further intervention.It is impossible to draw further conclusions on these and the other measured outcomes, primarily due to the low number of eligible studies and small number of participants which resulted in low-quality evidence. It was not possible to analyse the impact on quality of life each intervention had for these participants.