Duodenal metal stent placement is a risk factor for biliary metal stent dysfunction: an analysis using a time-dependent covariate

Management of malignant Gastric Outlet Obstruction (mGOO) due to pancreatic cancer in the era of EUS-Gastrojejunostomy: an international practice survey and case vignette study by Pancreas 2000 from the European Pancreatic Club

BACKGROUND

Malignant Gastric Outlet Obstruction (mGOO) has been standardly treated by surgical Gastrojejunostomy (S-GJ) or Endoscopic Stenting (ES). Recently, EUS-Gastrojejunostomy (EUS-GJ) has emerged as an alternative, despite its worldwide diffusion is heterogeneous. The aim of this survey was to assess clinical decision-making around mGOO and to explore current opinions regarding EUS-GJ.

METHODS

An online survey, spread through social networks and EPC newsletter, was created exploring opinions regarding indications, contraindications, benefits/risks, availability of mGOO treatments; 2 case vignettes explored clinical decision-making in different scenarios.

RESULTS

Overall, 290 pancreatologists from 44 countries responded, of whom 35% surgeons and 65% gastroenterologists. The most common treatment for mGOO was ES (86%), followed by laparoscopic GJ (76%). EUS-GJ was accessible to 59% of respondents, with 10% proficient in this technique. Gold-standard treatment for mGOO varied by specialty; 45% of gastroenterologists preferred ES, 20% EUS-GJ, and 10% surgical GJ, while among surgeons, these were 24%, 8%, and 25%, respectively. A higher annual volume of mGOO treated correlated with increased EUS-GJ adoption and reduced surgical advice. For 51%, EUS-GJ will become the primary treatment for mGOO, notably higher among gastroenterologists and high-volume centers. For 14%, EUS-GJ spread will be limited in the future, or used only when ES fails (19%). Life expectancy, disease stage and patient's frailty are the main decision driver in therapeutic choice, whereas future surgical resectability does not contraindicate any treatment for 75%. EUS-GJ's main advantages were its minimally invasive nature and clinical efficacy, offset by its steep learning curve.

CONCLUSIONS

This survey revealed significant differences in the management of mGOO, depending on specialties, local expertise and treatment volume, suggesting the lack of standardized algorithms. Life expectancy and patients' frailty are the main decision drivers. Regarding EUS-GJ, its availability remains suboptimal, with learning curve as the main perceived barrier.

Percutaneous insertion of long-covered biliary stents in patients with malignant duodenobiliary stricture

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the technical feasibility, safety, and efficacy of a long-covered biliary stent in patients with malignant duodenobiliary stricture.

METHODS

This retrospective study enrolled 57 consecutive patients (34 men, 23 women; mean age, 64 years; range, 32-85 years) who presented with malignant duodenobiliary stricture between February 2019 and November 2020. All patients were treated with a long (18 or 23 cm)-covered biliary stent.

RESULTS

The biliary stent deployment was technically successful in all 57 patients. The overall adverse event rate was 17.5% (10 of 57 patients). Successful internal drainage was achieved in 55 (96.5%) of 57 patients. The median patient survival and stent patency times were 99 days (95% confidence interval [CI], 58-140 days) and 73 days (95% CI, 60-86 days), respectively. Fourteen (25.5%) of the fifty-five patients presented with biliary stent dysfunction due to sludge (n = 11), tumor overgrowth (n = 1), collapse of the long biliary stent by a subsequently inserted additional duodenal stent (n = 1), or rapidly progressed duodenal cancer (n = 1). A univariate Cox proportional hazards model did not reveal any independent predictor of biliary stent patency.

CONCLUSIONS

Percutaneous insertion of a subsequent biliary stent was technically feasible after duodenal stent insertion. Percutaneous insertion of a long-covered biliary stent was safe and effective in patients with malignant duodenobiliary stricture.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT

In patients with malignant duodenobiliary stricture, percutaneous insertion of a long-covered biliary stent was safe and effective regardless of duodenal stent placement.

KEY POINTS

• Percutaneous insertion of long-covered biliary stents in patients with malignant duodenobiliary stricture is a safe and effective procedure. • Biliary stent deployment was technically successful in all 57 patients and successful internal drainage was achieved in 55 (96.5%) of 57 patients. • The median patient survival and stent patency times were 99 days and 73 days, respectively, after placement of a long-covered biliary stent in patients with duodenobiliary stricture.

Factors associated with patency of self-expandable metal stents in malignant biliary obstruction

INTRODUCTION

Endoscopic self-expandable metal stent (SEMS) placement is the key endoscopic treatment for unresectable malignant biliary obstruction. The benefit of covered SEMS over uncovered SEMS remains unknown as are risk factors for SEMS dysfunction. This study aimed to determine the factors associated with patency of SEMS.

METHODS

Patients with unresectable malignant biliary obstruction who underwent endoscopic SEMS placement at Ramathibodi Hospital, during January 2012 to March 2021 were included. Patient characteristics, clinical outcomes and patency of SEMS were collected. The primary outcome were stent patency and factors associated with patency of SEMS. The factors were analyzed by univariate and multivariate analyses. Median days of stent patency, median time of patient survival, rate of reintervention and complications after SEMS placement were collected.

RESULTS

One hundred and fourteen patients were included. SEMS dysfunction was found in 37 patients (32.5%). Size of cancer (Hazard ratio (HR), 1.20, (95% CI 1.02, 1.40), p 0.025), presence of stones or sludge during SEMS placement (Hazard ratio (HR), 3.91, (95% CI 1.74, 8.75), p 0.001), length of SEMS, 8 cm (HR 2.96, (95% CI 1.06, 8.3), p 0.039), and total bilirubin level above 2 mg/dL at one month after SEMS placement (HR 1.14, (95% CI 1.06, 1.22), p < 0.001) were associated with SEMS dysfunction. The median stent patency was 97 days. The median patient survival was 133 days, (95% CI 75-165). The rate of reintervention was 86% in patients with SEMS dysfunction.

CONCLUSION

The size of cancer, presence of stones or sludge during SEMS placement, the length of SEMS, and total bilirubin level above 2 mg/dL at 1 month after SEMS placement were associated with SEMS dysfunction. The median time of stent patency were not statistically different in each type of stent, covered stent, partially covered stent and uncovered stent. Median survival time of patients did not associate with SEMS patency or dysfunction.

The Role of Endoscopy in the Palliation of Pancreatico-Biliary Cancers: Biliary Drainage, Management of Gastrointestinal Obstruction, and Role in Relief of Oncologic Pain

Therapeutic endoscopy permits many and various treatments for cancer palliation in patients with bilio-pancreatic cancers, enabling different options, supporting patients during their route to oncologic treatments, and trying to improve their quality of life. Therefore, both endoscopic and endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided techniques are performed in this scenario. We performed a literature review focusing on the role of endoscopy in the palliation of those advanced pancreatic and biliary cancers developing malignant biliary obstruction (MBO), gastric outlet obstruction (GOO), and pain unresponsive to medical therapies. Therefore, we explored and focused on the clinical outcomes of endoscopic procedures in this scenario. In fact, the endoscopic treatment is based on achieving biliary drainage in the case of MBO through endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) or EUS-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD), while GOO is endoscopically treated through the deployment of an enteral stent or the creation of EUS-guided gastro-entero-anastomosis (EUS-GEA). Furthermore, untreatable chronic abdominal pain is a major issue in patients unresponsive to high doses of painkillers, so EUS-guided celiac plexus neurolysis (CPN) or celiac ganglia neurolysis (CGN) helps to reduce dosage and have better pain control. Therefore, therapeutic endoscopy in the palliative setting is an effective and safe approach for managing most of the clinical manifestations of advanced biliopancreatic tumors.

Combined endoscopic mAnagement of BiliaRy and gastrIc OutLET obstruction (CABRIOLET Study): A multicenter retrospective analysis

Objectives

Combined biliary obstruction and gastric outlet obstruction (GOO) represent a challenging clinical scenario despite developments in therapeutic endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) as GOO might impair EUS‐guided biliary drainage. Little is known about the effectiveness of different therapeutic combinations used to treat double obstruction, especially regarding stent patency.

Methods

All consecutive patients with double obstruction treated between 2016 and 2021 in three tertiary academic centres were eligible for inclusion. Five combinations involving enteral stenting (ES), EUS‐guided gastroenterostomy (EUS‐GE), hepaticogastrostomy (EUS‐HGS), choledochoduodenostomy (EUS‐CDS), and transpapillary biliary stenting (TPS) were evaluated for dysfunction during follow‐up, either as proportions or dysfunction‐free survival (DFS) using Kaplan–Meier estimates.

Results

Ninety‐three patients were included (male 46%; age 67 [interquartile range 60–76] years; pancreatic cancer 73%, metastatic 57%), resulting in 103 procedure combinations. Different combinations showed significantly different overall dysfunction rates (p = 0.009), ranging from the null rate of EUS‐GE+HG to the 18% rate of EUS‐GE+TPS, 31% of EUS‐GE+EUS‐CD, 53% of ES+TPS and 83% of ES+EUS‐CDS. Sub‐analyses restricted to biliary dysfunction confirmed these trends. A multivariate Cox proportional‐hazards regression of DFS, a stenosis distal to the papilla (HR 3.2 [1.5–6.9]) and ES+EUS‐CDS (HR 5.6 [2–15.7]) independently predicted dysfunction.

Conclusions

Despite a lack of statistical power per combination, this study introduces new associations beyond the increased risk of GOO recurrence with ES versus EUS‐GE. EUS‐CDS showed reduced effectiveness and frequent dysfunction in the context of GOO, especially when combined with ES. EUS‐GE+HGS or EUS‐GE+TPS in this setting might result in superior patency. These results suggest that a prospective evaluation of the optimal endoscopic approach to malignant double obstruction is needed.

Comparison between transpapillary versus transmural endoscopic ultrasound-guided decompression for biliary obstruction: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Recent advances have led to the development of transmural endoscopic ultrasound guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) for cases where the duodenal papilla cannot be accessed.

OBJECTIVES

We performed a meta-analysis comparing efficacy and complications of both approaches for biliary drainage.

REVIEW METHODS

English articles were searched in PubMed. Primary outcomes included technical success and complications. Secondary outcomes were clinical success and subsequent stent malfunction. Patient demographics and etiology of obstruction were collected and relative risk ratios and 95% CIs were calculated. P-value <0.05 was considered as statistically significant.

RESULTS

Initial database search yielded 245 studies from which 7 were chosen based upon inclusion criteria for final analysis. There was no statistically different relative risk for technical success when comparing primary EUS-BD to endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) (RR: 1.04) or overall procedural complication rate (RR 1.39). EUS-BD did have increased specific risk of cholangitis (RR: 3.01). Likewise, primary EUS-BD and ERCP had similar RR for clinical success (RR: 1.02) and overall stent malfunction (RR: 1.55), but stent migration was higher in the primary EUS-BD group (RR: 5.06).

CONCLUSIONS

Primary EUS-BD may be considered when the ampulla cannot be accessed, when there is gastric outlet obstruction, or presence of a duodenal stent.

The efficacy and safety of a duckbill-type anti-reflux metal stent as the initial metal stent for distal malignant biliary obstruction in unresectable pancreatic cancer

Background

The usefulness of duckbill-type anti-reflux metal stent (DMS) in self-expandable metal stent-naïve pancreatic cancer (PC) patients has not been well-studied. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of DMS in such patients.

Methods

We analyzed consecutive patients with unresectable PC who received a covered metal stent (CMS) as the initial self-expandable metal stent at our institution. Technical success, functional success, causes of recurrent biliary obstruction (RBO), time to RBO (TRBO), adverse events (AEs), and reintervention rates were compared between DMS and conventional CMS (c-CMS).

Results

A total of 69 patients were included (DMS: 28, c-CMS: 41). Technical success, functional success, and AEs were similar between groups. Tumor ingrowth was more common in the DMS group (18% vs. 0%, p = 0.009), while non-occlusion cholangitis tended to be more common in the c-CMS group (0% vs. 15%, p = 0.074). Median time to RBO was similar between groups (276 vs. 273 days, p = 0.915). The anti-reflux valve of DMS was found torn in 56% of patients. Endoscopic reintervention was successful in all cases, despite failed stent removal in 88% of patients in the DMS group.

Conclusions

DMS was not associated with longer time to RBO compared to c-CMS in self-expandable metal stent-naïve patients.

Long-term outcomes of duckbill-type anti-reflux metal stents versus conventional covered metal stents in reinterventions after covered biliary metal stent dysfunction in unresectable pancreatic cancer

BACKGROUND

The use of duckbill-type anti-reflux metal stents (DMS) in reinterventions after covered metal stent (CMS) dysfunction has been reported in patients with distal malignant biliary obstruction (MBO). However, the superiority of DMS over conventional CMS (c-CMS) has not been established. Therefore, we conducted this retrospective study to evaluate the long-term efficacy and safety of DMS as a second stent in comparison with c-CMS.

METHODS

We investigated consecutive patients with distal MBO due to unresectable pancreatic cancer who underwent reintervention after dysfunction of initial biliary CMS at our institution. We compared causes of recurrent biliary obstruction (RBO), time to RBO (TRBO), adverse events (AEs), and reintervention rates of DMS and c-CMS in this stenting.

RESULTS

A total of 76 patients were included (DMS 41 and c-CMS 35). While overall RBO rates were similar between the two groups (46% vs. 63%, p = 0.172), RBO due to non-occlusion cholangitis tended to be less frequent in the DMS group than in the c-CMS group (2% vs. 14%, p = 0.089). Median TRBO was significantly longer in the DMS group (286 days vs. 112 days, p = 0.029). DMS was identified as the only significant risk factor for TRBO (hazard ratio, 0.52; p = 0.044). Overall AE rates were significantly lower in the DMS group (2% vs. 23%, p = 0.010), with non-occlusion cholangitis being the most common AE in the c-CMS group. Endoscopic reintervention was successfully performed in all patients in both groups, despite failed stent removal in 15% of patients in DMS group.

CONCLUSIONS

DMS was associated with a significantly longer TRBO and lower rate of AEs compared with c-CMS in reinterventions after initial CMS dysfunction. DMS may be preferable to c-CMS as a second stent after biliary CMS dysfunction.

Comparison of Duodenal Stenting and Gastrojejunostomy for Duodenal Obstruction with Biliary Obstruction

BACKGROUND

The best palliation for double obstruction (duodenal obstruction with biliary obstruction) remains unclear. We aimed to compare outcomes of duodenal stenting (DuS) with gastrojejunostomy (GJ) and identify factors associated with survival time and time to recurrent biliary obstruction (TRBO).

METHODS

Patients who underwent DuS or GJ combined with biliary stenting for double obstruction due to unresectable malignancy were retrospectively enrolled.

RESULTS

In total, 111 patients were included; 84 underwent DuS, and 27 underwent GJ. The weighted survival time of the DuS group was significantly shorter than that of the GJ group (86 days vs 134 days, P < 0.01). Although the weighted TRBO was not significantly different between the two groups, when limited to patients with distal duodenal obstruction, the weighted TRBO was significantly longer in the DuS group than in the GJ group (207 days vs. 32 days, P < 0.01). GJ for distal duodenal obstruction was identified as the factor with the highest hazard ratio and was associated with a shorter TRBO (hazard ratio 8.5, P < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Regarding survival time, GJ should be considered the primary treatment for patients with double obstruction. However, for patients with distal duodenal obstruction, DuS should be considered because GJ may be a risk factor for a shorter TRBO.

How to successfully administer palliative treatment with a stent for malignant gastric outlet obstruction?

Although endoscopic stenting (ES) has been widely used as a less-invasive palliation method for malignant gastric outlet obstruction (GOO), recent reports have highlighted issues related to the procedure. For successful treatment, various aspects must be assessed before considering the practices. First, it is necessary to eliminate cases with contraindications such as coexistence of distal small-bowel obstruction or perforation. Other factors potentially related to clinical failure (i.e., peritoneal carcinomatosis) may require consideration but remain controversial. ES has better short-term outcomes than surgical gastrojejunostomy (GJ). GJ has recently been considered preferable in cases with longer life expectancy because of superior sustainability. Various types of stents are now commercially available, but their ideal structure and mechanical properties have not yet been clarified. Covered metal stent may reduce stent obstruction but is prone to increase stent migration, and its significance remains uncertain. Subsequent chemotherapy after stenting should be considered, as it is expected to prolong patient survival without increasing the risk of adverse events. Furthermore, it may be helpful in preventing tumor ingrowth. In cases with GOO combined with biliary obstruction, biliary intervention is often difficult. Recently, endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) has been widely used as an alternative procedure for endoscopic transpapillary biliary drainage (ETBD). Despite the lack of consensus as to whether ETBD or EUS-BD is preferred, EUS-BD is useful as a salvage technique for cases where ETBD is difficult. To perform stent placement successfully, it is important to pay attention to the above points; however, many remaining issues need to be clarified in the future.

Biliary obstruction and pancreatitis after duodenal stent placement in the descending duodenum: a retrospective study

BACKGROUND

Metallic stents placed in the descending duodenum can cause compression of the major duodenal papilla, resulting in biliary obstruction and pancreatitis. These are notable early adverse events of duodenal stent placement; however, they have been rarely examined. This study aimed to assess the incidence of and risk factors for biliary obstruction and/or pancreatitis after duodenal stent placement in the descending duodenum.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed data of consecutive patients who underwent metallic stent placement in the descending duodenum for malignant gastric outlet obstruction at a tertiary referral cancer center between April 2014 and December 2019. Risk factors for biliary obstruction and/or pancreatitis were analyzed using a logistic regression model.

RESULTS

Sixty-five patients were included. Biliary obstruction and/or pancreatitis occurred in 12 patients (18%): 8 with biliary obstruction, 2 with pancreatitis, and 2 with both biliary obstruction and pancreatitis. Multivariate analysis indicated that female sex (odds ratio: 9.2, 95% confidence interval: 1.4-58.6, P = 0.02), absence of biliary stents (odds ratio: 12.9, 95% confidence interval: 1.8-90.2, P = 0.01), and tumor invasion to the major duodenal papilla (odds ratio: 25.8, 95% confidence interval: 2.0-340.0, P = 0.01) were significant independent risk factors for biliary obstruction and/or pancreatitis.

CONCLUSIONS

The incidence of biliary obstruction and/or pancreatitis after duodenal stent placement in the descending duodenum was non-negligible. Female sex, absence of biliary stents, and tumor invasion to the major duodenal papilla were the primary risk factors. Risk stratification can allow endoscopists to better identify patients at significant risk and permit detailed informed consent.

Biliary metal stents should be placed near the hilar duct in distal malignant biliary stricture patients

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic biliary drainage using a self-expandable metallic stent (SEMS) has been widely performed to treat distal malignant biliary obstruction (DMBO). However, the optimal position of the stent remains unclear.

AIM

To determine the ideal position for SEMS placement.

METHODS

In total, 135 DMBO patients underwent SEMS (uncovered or covered) placement over a ten-year period. A total of 127 patients with biliary obstruction between the junction of the cystic duct and Vater's papilla were enrolled. An SEMS was placed through the upper common bile duct 2 cm from the biliary hilar duct in 83 patients (Hilar group) or near the top of the biliary obstruction in 44 patients (Lower group). Technical and functional success, adverse events, and risk factors for SEMS dysfunction were evaluated.

RESULTS

The stent patency period was significantly longer in the Hilar group than in the Lower group (P value < 0.01). In multivariate analysis, the only statistically significant risk factor for SEMS dysfunction was being in the Lower group (hazard ratio: 9.94, 95% confidence interval: 2.25-44.0, P < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

A longer patency period was achieved by positioning the SEMS near the biliary hilar duct.

Usefulness of duckbill‐type anti‐reflux self‐expandable metal stents for distal malignant biliary obstruction with duodenal invasion: A pilot study

Objectives

Early obstruction of a self‐expandable metal stent placed for distal malignant biliary obstruction is more likely to occur in the presence of duodenal invasion. An anti‐reflux self‐expandable metal stent (ARMS) has been developed for the purpose of preventing duodenal fluid reflux into the bile duct. In this study, we evaluated the usefulness and safety of a duckbill‐type ARMS (D‐ARMS) in the situation of duodenal invasion.

Methods

We retrospectively analyzed 10 consecutive patients who received D‐ARMS for distal malignant biliary obstruction with duodenal invasion. We evaluated non‐occlusion cholangitis, recurrent biliary obstruction (RBO), and adverse events after D‐ARMS placement.

Results

There were no cases of non‐occlusion cholangitis. RBO was observed in 2 patients (20%), and time to RBO was 236 days and 117 days, respectively. The causes of RBO were overgrowth and sludge formation. The median time to RBO was 382 days (range, 117–382 days). Only one adverse event was observed (cholecystitis).

Conclusions

D‐ARMS shows potential as an optimal ARMS.

Risk Factors of Duodenobiliary Reflux-Related Dysfunction of Covered Biliary Metal Stents after Treatment of Duodenal Stricture in Patients with Malignant Biliary and Duodenal Obstruction

Duodenal obstruction is often accompanied with unresectable malignant distal biliary obstruction in patients who have undergone biliary self-expandable metal stent (SEMS) placement. Duodenobiliary reflux (DBR) is a major cause of recurrent biliary obstruction (RBO) after covered biliary SEMS placement. We analyzed the risk factors for DBR-related SEMS dysfunction following treatment for malignant duodenal obstruction. Sixty-one patients with covered SEMS who underwent treatment for duodenal obstruction were included. We excluded patients with tumor-related stent dysfunction (n = 6) or metal stent migration (n = 1). Fifty-four patients who underwent covered biliary SEMS placement followed by duodenal metal stenting or surgical gastrojejunostomy were included. Eleven patients had DBR-related biliary SEMS dysfunction after treatment of duodenal obstruction. There was no difference between the duodenal metal stenting group and the surgical gastrojejunostomy group. Duodenal obstruction below the papilla of Vater and a score of ≤2 on the Gastric Outlet Obstruction Scoring System after treatment for duodenal obstruction were associated with DBR-related covered biliary SEMS dysfunction. Thus, creating a reliable route for ensuring good oral intake and avoiding DBR in patients with duodenal obstruction below the papilla of Vater are both important factors in preventing DBR-related covered biliary SEMS dysfunction.

Advanced Endoscopic Techniques for the Diagnosis of Pancreatic Cancer and Management of Biliary and GastricOutlet Obstruction

Following high-quality imaging studies for staging, endoscopic ultrasound examination fine needle aspiration/biopsy is the preferred modality for tissue diagnosis of pancreatic cancer. Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography with metal stent placement is used for palliation of malignant biliary obstruction. Metal stents can be placed in patients with resectable pancreatic cancer in whom surgery is going to be delayed. For palliation of gastric outlet obstruction, endoscopic enteral stenting is often selected because of its less invasiveness. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage for malignant biliary obstruction or gastrojejunostomy for gastric outlet obstruction are emerging less invasive techniques as compared with palliative surgery.

Endoscopic Double Stenting for the Management of Combined Malignant Biliary and Duodenal Obstruction

Periampullary cancers are often diagnosed at advanced stages and can cause both biliary and duodenal obstruction. As these two obstructions reduce patients’ performance status and quality of life, appropriate management of the disease is important. Combined malignant biliary and duodenal obstruction is classified according to the location and timing of the duodenal obstruction, which also affect treatment options. Traditionally, surgical bypass (gastrojejunostomy and hepaticojejunostomy) has been performed for the treatment of unresectable periampullary cancer. However, it has recently been substituted by less invasive endoscopic procedures due to its high morbidity and mortality. Thus, endoscopic double stenting (transpapillary stenting and enteral stenting) has become the current standard of care. Limitations of transpapillary stenting include its technical difficulty and the risk of duodenal-biliary reflux. Recently, endoscopic ultrasound-guided procedures have emerged as a novel platform and have been increasingly utilized in the management of biliary and duodenal obstruction. As the prognosis of periampullary cancer has improved due to recent advances in chemotherapy, treatment strategies for biliary and duodenal obstruction are becoming more important. In this article, we review the treatment strategies for combined malignant biliary and duodenal obstruction based on the latest evidence.

Double Stenting for Malignant Biliary and Duodenal Obstruction: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Data about the efficacy of palliative double stenting for malignant duodenal and biliary obstruction are limited.

Antireflux metal stent for biliary obstruction: Any benefits?

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography with stent placement has been utilized as standard palliative management of distal malignant biliary obstruction (MBO). Compared to plastic stents, metal stents can provide longer-term relief of symptoms. When a large-bore metal stent is placed across the ampulla, patients are predisposed to the risk of cholangitis or stent dysfunction due to reflux of duodenal contents. To mitigate the risk of adverse events associated with the duodenobiliary reflux, efforts have been directed to development of antireflux metal stents (ARMSs). The antireflux property has been introduced through adding of an antireflux valve to the duodenal stent end. Evidence from clinical studies indicates that ARMSs may not only reduce the risk of ascending cholangitis during follow-up but also prolong stent patency time. However, the results of clinical studies testing ARMSs are inconsistent owing to heterogeneous designs of antireflux valves and stent bodies. Metal stents are increasingly indicated for benign biliary strictures and MBO in the setting of neoadjuvant chemotherapy, and therefore, research is warranted to evaluate ARMSs for those indications. Given that endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided transmural biliary drainage has gained popularity, the optimal timing of placing an ARMS in relation to EUS-guided and percutaneous drainage should be investigated. Development and evaluation of ARMSs require an integrative approach utilizing phantom and animal models, measurements of stent mechanical properties, and in vivo functional study after stent placement. In this review article, we summarize updated evidence on ARMSs for MBO and discuss issues that should be addressed in future studies.

Endoscopic management of concomitant biliary and duodenal malignant obstruction: Impact of the timing of drainage for one vs. two procedures and the modalities of biliary drainage

Background and Objectives

Concomitant biliary and duodenal malignant obstruction are a severe condition mainly managed by duodenal and biliary stenting, which can be performed simultaneously (SAMETIME) or in two distinct procedures (TWO-TIMES). We conducted a single-center retrospective study to evaluate the feasibility of a SAMETIME procedure and the impact of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-hepaticogastrostomy in double malignant obstructions.

Patients and Methods

From January 1, 2011, to January 1, 2018, patients with concomitant malignant bilioduodenal obstruction treated endoscopically were included. The primary endpoint was hospitalization duration. The secondary endpoints were bilioduodenal reintervention rates, adverse event rates, and overall survival. Patients were divided into groups for statistical analysis: (i) divided according to the timing of biliary drainage: SAMETIME vs. TWO-TIMES group, (ii) divided based on the biliary drainage method: EUS-HG group underwent hepaticogastrostomy, while DUODENAL ACCESS group underwent endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), percutaneous transhepatic drainage (PCTD) or EUS-guided choledocoduodenostomy (EUS-CD).

Results

Thirty-one patients were included (19 women, median age = 71 years). Stenosis was mainly related to pancreatic cancer (17 patients, 54.8%). Sixteen patients were in the SAMETIME group, and 15 were in the TWO-TIMES group. Biliary drainage was performed by EUS-HG in 11 (35.%) patients, PCTD in 11 (35.%), ERCP in 8 (25.8%) and choledoduodenostomy in 1. Thirty patients died during follow-up. The median survival was 77 days (9% confidence interval [37-140]). The mean hospitalization duration was lower in the SAMETIME group: 7.5 vs. 12.6 days, P = 0.04. SAMETIME group patients tended to have a lower complication than TWO-TIMES (26.7% vs. 56.3%, P = 0.10). The EUS-HG group tended to have a lower complication rate (5% vs. 18.2%, P = 0.07) and less biliary endoscopic revision (30% vs. 9.1%, P = 0.37) than DUODENAL ACCESS.

Conclusions

SAMETIME drainage is associated with a lower hospital stay without increased morbidity. EUS-HG could provide better access because it did not exhibit a higher complication rate and showed a tendency toward better patency and fewer complications.

International consensus statements for endoscopic management of distal biliary stricture

Distal biliary strictures (DBS) are common and may be caused by both malignant and benign pathologies. While endoscopic procedures play a major role in their management, a comprehensive review of the subject is still lacking. Our consensus statements were formulated by a group of expert Asian pancreatico-biliary interventional endoscopists, following a proposal from the Digestive Endoscopy Society of Taiwan, the Thai Association for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, and the Tokyo Conference of Asian Pancreato-biliary Interventional Endoscopy. Based on a literature review utilizing Medline, Cochrane library, and Embase databases, a total of 19 consensus statements on DBS were made on diagnosis, endoscopic drainage, benign biliary stricture, malignant biliary stricture, and management of recurrent biliary obstruction and other complications. Our consensus statements provide comprehensive guidance for the endoscopic management of DBS.

Percutaneous transpapillary biliary stent placement for distal malignant biliary obstruction: Outcomes and survival analysis

BACKGROUND/AIMS

For distal malignant biliary obstruction (MBO), a percutaneous metal stent is usually inserted by the transpapillary method. However, stent-related complications and recurrent biliary obstruction following transpapillary stent placement are concerns, and survival analysis of patients with distal MBO has rarely been done.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

From January 2012 to March 2016, 104 patients underwent transpapillary uncovered metal stent placement for distal MBO at our institution. Clinical success, complications, recurrent biliary obstruction rates, and predictors of survival were analyzed.

RESULTS

Of the total 104 patients, clinical success after stent insertion was achieved in 93 patients (90.3%). Major complications were observed in 24 patients (23.1%), which were as follows: cholangitis in 19 patients; pancreatitis in four patients; and biloma in one patient. Recurrent biliary occlusion was observed in 28 patients (26.9%). The median overall survival period was 162 days. The 3-, 6-, and 12-month overall survival rates after stent insertion were 64.4%, 41.3%, and 10.6%, respectively. Results of multivariate analysis indicated that metastatic carcinoma compared with ampullary carcinoma (HR=3.82; 95% CI, 1.30-11.24; p=0.015) and longer biliary stricture (HR=1.04; 95% CI, 1.02-1.06; p<0.001) were independent risk factors for worse survival after metal stent insertion.

CONCLUSION

Transpapillary stent placement was found to be effective with acceptable complication rates for treating distal MBO. Primary tumor and length of biliary stricture were found to be statistically significant independent prognostic factors for survival.

Antireflux covered metal stent for nonresectable distal malignant biliary obstruction: Multicenter randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND AND AIM

An antireflux metal stent (ARMS) for nonresectable distal malignant biliary obstruction (MBO) may prevent recurrent biliary obstruction (RBO) as a result of duodenobiliary reflux and prolong time to RBO (TRBO). Superiority of ARMS over conventional covered self-expandable metal stents (SEMS) has not been fully examined.

METHODS

We conducted a multicenter randomized controlled trial to examine whether TRBO of an ARMS with a funnel-shaped valve was longer than that of a covered SEMS in SEMS-naïve patients. We enrolled 104 patients (52 patients per arm) at 11 hospitals in Japan. Secondary outcomes included causes of RBO, adverse events, and patient survival.

RESULTS

TRBO did not differ significantly between the ARMS and covered SEMS groups (median, 251 vs 351 days, respectively; P = 0.11). RBO as a result of biliary sludge or food impaction was observed in 13% and 9.8% of patients who received an ARMS and covered SEMS, respectively (P = 0.83). ARMS was associated with a higher rate of stent migration compared with the covered SEMS (31% vs 12%, P = 0.038). Overall rates of adverse events were 20% and 18% in the ARMS and covered SEMS groups, respectively (P = 0.97). No significant between-group difference in patient survival was observed (P = 0.26).

CONCLUSIONS

The current ARMS was not associated with longer TRBO compared with the covered SEMS. Modifications including addition of an anti-migration system are required to use the current ARMS as first-line palliative treatment of distal MBO (UMIN-CTR clinical trial registration number: UMIN000014784).

Success and safety of endoscopic treatments for concomitant biliary and duodenal malignant stenosis: A review of the literature

Synchronous biliary and duodenal malignant obstruction is a challenging endoscopic scenario in patients affected with ampullary, peri-ampullary, and pancreatic head neoplasia. Surgical bypass is no longer the gold-standard therapy for these patients, as simultaneous endoscopic biliary and duodenal stenting is currently a feasible and widely used technique, with a high technical success in expert hands. In recent years, endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) has evolved from a diagnostic to a therapeutic procedure, and is now increasingly used to guide biliary drainage, especially in cases of failed endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). The advent of lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMS) has expanded EUS therapeutic options, and changed the management of synchronous bilioduodenal stenosis. The most recent literature regarding endoscopic treatments for synchronous biliary and duodenal malignant stenosis has been reviewed to determine the best endoscopic approach, also considering the advent of an interventional EUS approach using LAMS.

Prospective multicenter study of primary EUS-guided choledochoduodenostomy using a covered metal stent

Background and Objectives:

EUS-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) is increasingly reported as a salvage technique after failed endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, but it is still controversial whether EUS-BD can replace transpapillary biliary stenting. Therefore, we conducted this multicenter, prospective study of EUS-guided choledochoduodenostomy (EUS-CDS) using a covered metallic stent (CMS) as primary biliary drainage for unresectable distal malignant biliary obstruction (MBO).

Methods:

Patients with unresectable distal MBO without any prior drainage are enrolled. Primary endpoint is a technical success and secondary endpoints are adverse events, functional success, and recurrent biliary obstruction (RBO) of EUS-CDS. Clinical outcomes were compared between EUS-CDS and transpapillary stenting as a control.

Results:

A total of 34 patients were enrolled in 10 Japanese institutions. The cause of MBO was pancreatic cancer in 28 patients. Median tumor size and common bile duct diameter were 31 and 13 mm, respectively. Technical success rate was 97% with a median procedure time of 25 min and functional success rate was 100%. The rate of RBO was 29% and the causes of RBO were nontumor related: Migration in 18%, sludge/food impaction in 9%, and stent impaction to the duodenal wall in 3%. Other adverse events were abdominal pain in 6% and cholecystitis in 9%. A median cumulative time to RBO was 11.3 months. The rate of RBO and cumulative time to RBO of EUS-CDS were comparable to those of transpapillary stenting (36% and 9.1 months, respectively).

Conclusion:

EUS-CDS using a CMS as primary biliary drainage was technically feasible and its safety appeared comparable to transpapillary stenting.

Endoscopic duodenal stent versus surgical gastrojejunostomy for gastric outlet obstruction in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer

BACKGROUND

Malignant gastric outlet obstruction (GOO) often develops in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer (APC). It is not clear whether endoscopic duodenal stenting (DS) or surgical gastrojejunostomy (GJJ) is preferable as palliative treatment.

AIMS

To compare the efficacy and safety of GJJ and DS for GOO with APC.

METHODS

Consecutive 99 patients who underwent DS or GJJ for GOO with APC were evaluated. We compared the technical and clinical success rates, the incidence of adverse event (AE), the time to start chemotherapy and discharge and survival durations between DS and GJJ. Prognostic factors for overall survival (OS) were investigated on the multivariate analysis.

RESULTS

GOO was managed with GJJ in 35 and DS in 64. The technical and clinical success rates were comparable. DS was associated with shorter time to start oral intake and earlier chemotherapy start and discharge. No difference was seen in the early and late AE rates. Multivariate analyses of prognostic factors for OS showed that performance status ≧2, administration of chemotherapy, and presence of obstructive jaundice to be significant factors. There were no significant differences in survival durations between the groups, regardless of the PS.

CONCLUSIONS

There were no significant differences in the technical and clinical success and AE rates and survival duration between DS and GJJ in management of GOO by APC. DS may be a preferable option over GJJ given that it will lead to an earlier return to oral intake, a shortened length of hospital stay, and finally an earlier referral for chemotherapy.

Laparoscopic gastrojejunostomy for gastric outlet obstruction in patients with unresectable hepatopancreatobiliary cancers: A personal series and systematic review of the literature

The major symptoms of advanced hepatopancreatic-biliary cancer are biliary obstruction, pain and gastric outlet obstruction (GOO). For obstructive jaundice, surgical treatment should de consider in recurrent stent complications. The role of surgery for pain relief is marginal nowadays. On the last, there is no consensus for treatment of malignant GOO. Endoscopic duodenal stents are associated with shorter length of stay and faster relief to oral intake with more recurrent symptoms. Surgical gastrojejunostomy shows better long-term results and lower re-intervention rates, but there are limited data about laparoscopic approach. We performed a systematic review of the literature, according PRISMA guidelines, to search for articles on laparoscopic gastrojejunostomy for malignant GOO treatment. We also report our personal series, from 2009 to 2017. A review of the literature suggests that there is no standardized surgical technique either standardized outcomes to report. Most of the studies are case series, so level of evidence is low. Decision-making must consider medical condition, nutritional status, quality of life and life expectancy. Evaluation of the patient and multidisciplinary expertise are required to select appropriate approach. Given the limited studies and the difficulty to perform prospective controlled trials, no study can answer all the complexities of malignant GOO and more outcome data is needed.

Covered duodenal self-expandable metal stents prolong biliary stent patency in double stenting: The largest series of bilioduodenal obstruction

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Endoscopic biliary and duodenal stenting (DS; double stenting) is widely accepted as a palliation therapy for malignant bilioduodenal obstruction. The aim of the current study was to investigate the patency and adverse events of duodenal and biliary stents in patients with DS.

METHODS

Patients who underwent DS from April 2004 to March 2017 were analyzed retrospectively with regard to clinical outcomes and predictive factors of recurrent biliary and duodenal obstruction (recurrent biliary obstruction [RBO] and recurrent duodenal obstruction [RDO]).

RESULTS

A total of 109 consecutive patients was enrolled. Technical success of DS was achieved in 108 patients (99.1%). Symptoms due to biliary and duodenal obstruction were improved in 89 patients (81.7%). RBO occurred in 25 patients (22.9%) and RDO in 13 (11.9%). The median times to RBO and RDO from DS were 87 and 76 days, respectively. Placement of a duodenal uncovered self-expandable metal stent (U-SEMS) was significantly associated with RBO in the multivariable analysis (P = 0.007). Time to RBO was significantly longer in the duodenal covered self-expandable metal stent group than in the U-SEMS group (P = 0.003). No predictive factors of RDO were detected, and duodenal stent type was not associated with the time to RDO (P = 0.724).

CONCLUSIONS

Double stenting was safe and effective for malignant bilioduodenal obstruction. Duodenal U-SEMS is a risk factor for RBO. The covered self-expandable metal stent is the preferred type of duodenal SEMS in patients with DS (Clinical trial registration number: UMIN000027606).

International study of endoscopic management of distal malignant biliary obstruction combined with duodenal obstruction

OBJECTIVE

Endoscopic transpapillary or endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided stent placement is used for nonresectable distal malignant biliary obstruction. We conducted a retrospective study to evaluate endoscopic biliary drainage in patients with duodenal obstruction.

METHODS

We included consecutive patients who underwent endoscopic biliary drainage combined with a duodenal stent at 16 referral centers in four Asian countries. The primary outcome was time to recurrent biliary obstruction (TRBO). We assessed TRBO according to the sequence of biliary and duodenal obstruction (group 1/2/3, biliary obstruction first/concurrent/duodenal obstruction first, respectively) or the location of duodenal obstruction (type I/II/III, proximal to/affecting/distal to the ampulla, respectively). We also evaluated functional success and adverse events.

RESULTS

We included 110 patients (group1/2/3, 67/29/14 patients; type I/II/III, 45/46/19 patients; endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography [ERCP]/EUS-guided choledocoduodenostomy/EUS-guided hepaticogastrostomy, 90/10/10 patients, respectively). The median TRBO of all cases was 450 days (interquartile range, 212-666 days) and functional success was achieved in 105 cases (95%). The TRBO did not differ significantly by the timing or location of duodenal obstruction (p = .30 and .79, respectively). The TRBO of metal stents (n = 96) tended to be longer compared with plastic stents (n = 14, p = .083). Compared with ERCP, EUS-guided biliary drainage was associated with a higher rate of adverse events.

CONCLUSION

Transpapillary or transmural endoscopic biliary drainage with a duodenal stent was effective, irrespective of the timing or location of duodenal obstruction. A prospective study is required considering the tradeoff of technical success rate, stent patency, and adverse events (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02376907).

Antireflux Metal Stent as a First-Line Metal Stent for Distal Malignant Biliary Obstruction: A Pilot Study

Background/Aims

In distal malignant biliary obstruction, an antireflux metal stent (ARMS) with a funnel-shaped valve is effective as a reintervention for metal stent occlusion caused by reflux. This study sought to evaluate the feasibility of this ARMS as a first-line metal stent.

Methods

Patients with nonresectable distal malignant biliary obstruction were identified between April and December 2014 at three Japanese tertiary centers. We retrospectively evaluated recurrent biliary obstruction and adverse events after ARMS placement.

Results

In total, 20 consecutive patients were included. The most common cause of biliary obstruction was pancreatic cancer (75%). Overall, recurrent biliary obstruction was observed in seven patients (35%), with a median time to recurrent biliary obstruction of 246 days (range, 11 to 246 days). Stent occlusion occurred in five patients (25%), the causes of which were sludge and food impaction in three and two patients, respectively. Stent migration occurred in two patients (10%). The rate of adverse events associated with ARMS was 25%: pancreatitis occurred in three patients, cholecystitis in one and liver abscess in one. No patients experienced non-occlusion cholangitis.

Conclusions

The ARMS as a first-line biliary drainage procedure was feasible. Because the ARMS did not fully prevent stent dysfunction due to reflux, further investigation is warranted.

Covered versus uncovered metal stents for malignant gastric outlet obstruction: Systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Self-expandable metal stents (SEMS) are used for non-resectable malignant gastric outlet obstruction (GOO). Studies of covered versus uncovered SEMS have yielded inconsistent results as a result of heterogeneity in design and patient population. We carried out a meta-analysis to compare covered and uncovered gastroduodenal SEMS.

METHODS

Using MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane database, we identified 1624 patients from 13 prospective and retrospective studies that evaluated covered and uncovered SEMS for malignant GOO and were published until October 2016. We pooled data on SEMS dysfunction, technical and clinical success, and adverse events using the fixed-effect or random-effects model.

RESULTS

Compared with uncovered SEMS, covered SEMS did not show any significant difference in stent dysfunction risk (risk ratio [RR], 1.02; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.79-1.32). A subgroup analysis of five randomized trials suggested a trend toward a lower dysfunction risk in covered SEMS (RR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.45-0.88). Covered SEMS were associated with a lower occlusion risk (RR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.28-0.68), but with a higher migration risk (RR, 4.28; 95% CI, 2.89-6.34). Technical and clinical success rates were comparable between the groups. Overall adverse events tended to be more frequent in covered SEMS (RR, 1.75; 95% CI, 1.09-2.83).

CONCLUSIONS

Outcomes of covered and uncovered gastroduodenal SEMS were comparable, although the lower dysfunction rate of covered SEMS observed in the analysis of randomized trials needs further investigation. Antimigration mechanisms for covered SEMS and identification of patients who can achieve longer patency from uncovered SEMS would help improve the outcomes of gastroduodenal SEMS.

Conversion to endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage by temporary nasobiliary drainage placement in patients with prior biliary stenting

Background and Objectives:

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD), first reported as an alternative to percutaneous transhepatic BD in failed endoscopic retrograde cholangiography, is sometimes performed as reintervention for transpapillary stent dysfunction such as in patients with new onset gastric outlet obstruction, but direct conversion to EUS-BD can potentially have a risk of leakage of infected bile. The aim of this study is to evaluate the safety and efficacy of conversion to EUS-BD using a temporary endoscopic nasobiliary drainage (ENBD) tube placement as a reintervention for prior BD.

Patients and Methods:

Sixteen patients with prior BD for malignant biliary obstruction undergoing conversion to EUS-BD using a temporary ENBD tube placement were studied. Technical and clinical success rate and adverse events were evaluated.

Results:

The major reason for conversion to EUS-BD was recurrent cholangitis due to duodenobiliary reflux (n = 13). In 14 patients with an indwelling covered metal or plastic stent, the stents were removed before temporary ENBD placement. After a median duration of 6 days, subsequent conversion to EUS-BD using a covered metal stent was performed, which was technically and clinically successful in all 16 patients (14 hepaticogastrostomy and 2 choledochoduodenostomy). Adverse events were observed in 3 patients (19%): one bleeding, one cholecystitis, and one cholangitis. No bile leak, peritonitis, or sepsis was observed.

Conclusions:

Conversion to EUS-BD using temporary ENBD tube placement in patients with prior BD was technically feasible and relatively safe without infectious complications related to bile leakage.

Endoscopic management of combined malignant biliary and gastric outlet obstruction

Patients with periampullary cancer or gastric cancer often develop malignant biliary obstruction (MBO) and gastric outlet obstruction (GOO), and combined MBO and GOO is not rare in these patients. Combined MBO and GOO is classified by its location and sequence, and treatment strategy can be affected by this classification. Historically, palliative surgery, hepaticojejunostomy and gastrojejunostomy were carried out, but the current standard treatment is combined transpapillary stent and duodenal stent placement. Although a high technical success rate is reported, the procedure can be technically difficult and duodenobiliary reflux with subsequent cholangitis is common after double stenting. Recent development of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided procedures enables the management of MBO as well as GOO under EUS guidance. EUS-guided biliary drainage is now increasingly reported as an alternative to percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage in failed endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), and GOO is one of the major reasons for failed ERCP. In addition to EUS-guided biliary drainage, the feasibility of EUS-guided double-balloon-occluded gastrojejunostomy bypass for MBO was recently reported, and EUS-guided double stenting can potentially become the treatment of choice in the future. However, as each procedure has its advantages and disadvantages, treatment strategy should be selected based on the type of obstruction and the prognosis and performance status of the patient.

Upper Gastrointestinal Stent Insertion in Malignant and Benign Disorders

Upper gastrointestinal (GI) stents are increasingly being used to manage upper GI obstructions. Initially developed for palliative treatment of esophageal cancer, upper GI stents now play an emerging role in benign strictures of the upper GI tract. Because recurrent obstruction and stent-related complications are common, new modifications of stents have been implemented. Self-expandable metal stents (SEMS) have replaced older plastic stents. In addition, newly designed SEMS have been developed to prevent complications. This review provides an overview of the various types, indications, methods, complications, and clinical outcomes of upper GI stents in a number of malignant and benign disorders dividing the esophagus and gastroduodenum.

Upper Gastrointestinal Stent Insertion in Malignant and Benign Disorders

Upper gastrointestinal (GI) stents are increasingly being used to manage upper GI obstructions. Initially developed for palliative treatment of esophageal cancer, upper GI stents now play an emerging role in benign strictures of the upper GI tract. Because recurrent obstruction and stent-related complications are common, new modifications of stents have been implemented. Self-expandable metal stents (SEMS) have replaced older plastic stents. In addition, newly designed SEMS have been developed to prevent complications. This review provides an overview of the various types, indications, methods, complications, and clinical outcomes of upper GI stents in a number of malignant and benign disorders dividing the esophagus and gastroduodenum.

Percutaneous biliary covered stent insertion in patients with malignant duodenobiliary obstruction

BACKGROUND

Although the use of polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE)-covered biliary stents has proven to be feasible for the treatment of benign and malignant biliary disease, less is known regarding the outcomes of percutaneous placement of a covered stent in patients with malignant duodenobiliary obstruction.

PURPOSE

To investigate the technical and clinical efficacy of the percutaneous placement of a PTFE-covered biliary stent in patients with malignant duodenobiliary obstruction.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

From April 2007 to September 2012, the medical records of 45 consecutive patients with malignant duodenobiliary obstruction were retrospectively reviewed. All percutaneous biliary stent deployment was performed using PTFE-covered stents, whereas duodenal stent insertion was performed either fluoroscopically or endoscopically using covered or uncovered stents.

RESULTS

Biliary stent deployment was technically successful in all patients. None of the stents migrated after deployment. Procedure-related minor complications, including self-limiting hemobilia, occurred in three (7%) patients. Successful internal drainage was achieved in 39 (87%) of the 45 patients. The median survival time after biliary stent placement was 62 days (95% confidence interval, 8-116 days), and the cumulative stent patency rates at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months were 96%, 92%, 75%, and 38%, respectively. The causes of biliary stent dysfunction included stent occlusion caused by a subsequently inserted duodenal stent (n = 7), food impaction (n = 3), and sludge incrustation (n = 1). One patient developed acute cholecystitis 131 days after biliary stent placement and underwent percutaneous transhepatic gallbladder drainage.

CONCLUSION

Percutaneous insertion of a PTFE-covered stent is a safe and effective method for palliative treatment of patients with malignant duodenobiliary obstruction. If possible, subsequent biliary stent insertion is preferable in order to prevent possible biliary stent dysfunction caused by subsequent insertion of a duodenal stent.

Increased rates of duodenal obstruction in pancreatic cancer patients receiving modern medical management

BACKGROUND

Duodenal obstruction from pancreatic cancer historically occurs in 2-25 % of patients without surgery, but with new advances in chemotherapy and radiation therapy, the life expectancy of pancreatic cancer has increased.

AIM

The aim of the study was to determine the rate of development of duodenal obstruction requiring intervention in patients with pancreatic head adenocarcinoma who do not undergo surgical resection, but receive modern chemoradiation.

METHODS

It is a retrospective single center study. Inclusion criteria were patients with pancreatic cancer who underwent ERCP with metal biliary stent and then chemoradiation who subsequently developed symptomatic duodenal obstruction and underwent either metal duodenal stent placement or surgical duodenal bypass.

RESULTS

Twenty-four of 63 patients (38 %, 95 % CI 26-50 %) with unresectable pancreatic cancer and biliary stents who received chemotherapy and/or radiation therapy developed duodenal obstruction. The average length of time from diagnosis of pancreatic adenocarcinoma to development of outlet obstruction was 11.4 ± 4.9 months (range 1.5-40 months). Average length of time from development of duodenal obstruction to death was 4.8 ± 2.1 months (range 0.5-60 months). Average survival time from diagnosis to death was 16.6 ± 5.6 months (range 4.5-58 months).

CONCLUSION

Thirty-eight percent of patients with unresectable pancreatic head adenocarcinoma and metal biliary stents who receive chemotherapy and/or radiation therapy eventually develop symptomatic duodenal obstruction requiring duodenal stent or surgical bypass. This rate of duodenal obstruction is nearly twice that of previous reports using older oncologic therapy and will likely increase as patients survive longer with advances in medical therapy for pancreatic cancer.

Transmural biliary drainage can be an alternative to transpapillary drainage in patients with an indwelling duodenal stent

BACKGROUND

Self-expandable metal stents (SEMS) are widely utilized to relieve symptoms of malignant gastric outlet obstruction (GOO), but GOO is frequently complicated by nonresectable distal biliary obstruction. The optimal endoscopic approach to biliary drainage in this setting remains controversial and has yet to be resolved.

AIMS

To compare the safety and efficacy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided transmural biliary drainage (EUS-BD) and transpapillary drainage in patients with an indwelling duodenal SEMS.

METHODS

Patients who underwent EUS-BD or transpapillary drainage for distal malignant biliary obstruction with an indwelling duodenal SEMS between June 2007 and August 2012 at three Japanese tertiary referral centers were identified retrospectively. We compared times to stent dysfunction, causes of dysfunction, and procedural related complications between these two groups.

RESULTS

Twenty patients were included in the study (7 EUS-BD and 13 transpapillary drainage). EUS-BD was performed via hepaticogastrostomy using a SEMS in three patients and via choledochoduodenostomy using a SEMS or a plastic stent in two patients each. Transpapillary drainage was performed using a SEMS in all patients. The stent patency rate in the EUS-BD group was higher than that in the transpapillary drainage group (100 vs. 71% at 1 month and 83 vs. 29% at 3 months, respectively). The rate of stent dysfunction in the EUS-BD group tended to be lower than that in the transpapillary group (14 vs. 54%; P = 0.157). Complication rates were similar between the groups (P = 1.000), with moderate bleeding in one patient in the EUS-BD group and mild pancreatitis in one patient in the transpapillary group.

CONCLUSION

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided transmural biliary drainage is an alternative to transpapillary drainage in patients with an indwelling duodenal SEMS.

Palliation of biliary and duodenal obstruction in patients with unresectable pancreatic cancer: endoscopy or surgery?

Patients with unresectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma often develop biliary and/or duodenal obstruction during the course of their disease. Jaundice, pruritis, nausea and vomiting impact negatively on the quality of life and chemotherapy must often be withheld until these symptoms are resolved. In the past, an open surgical palliative bypass was proposed, but the development of endoprosthetic stents has changed the management of these patients. The success rate for placement of duodenal and biliary stents is greater than 90% with low morbidity. Classical surgical bypass surgery includes biliary-digestive and gastro-jejunal anastomoses. Many studies have compared endoscopic and surgical treatment, and there is a clear advantage to endoscopic treatment in terms of quality of life and cost.