A phase III, multicenter, prospective, single-blinded, noninferiority, randomized controlled trial on the performance of a novel esophageal stent with an antireflux valve (with video)

Esophageal Self-Expandable Metal Stents Can Fracture in the Distal Third When Used for Post-Bariatric Surgery Complications: A Single Center Experience and Review of the Literature with Video

Background: Esophageal self-expandable metal stents (SEMS) are an important endoscopic tool. These stents have now been adapted successfully to manage post-bariatric surgery complications such as anastomotic leaks and strictures. In centers of expertise, this has become the primary standard-of-care treatment given its minimally invasive nature, and that it results in early oral feeding, decreased hospitalization, and overall favorable outcomes. Self-expandable metal stents (SEMS) fractures are a rare complication of unknown etiology. We aimed to investigate possible causes of SEMS fractures and highlight a unique endoscopic approach utilized to manage a fractured and impaled SEMS. Methods: This is a retrospective study of consecutive patients who underwent esophageal SEMS placement between 2015-2021 at a tertiary referral center to identify fractured SEMS. Patient demographics, stent characteristics, and possible etiologies of fractured SEMS were identified. A comprehensive literature review was also conducted to evaluate all prior cases of fractured SEMS and to hypothesize fracture theories. Results: There were seven fractured esophageal SEMS, of which six were used to manage post-bariatric surgery complications. Five SEMS were deployed with their distal ends in the gastric antrum and proximal ends in the distal esophagus. All stents fractured within 9 weeks of deployment. Most stents (5/7) were at least 10 cm in length with fractures commonly occurring in the distal third of the stents (6/7). The wires of a fractured SEMS were embedded within the esophagogastric junction in one case, prompting the use of an overtube that was synchronously advanced while steadily extracting the stent. Discussion: We suggest the following four etiologies of SEMS fractures: anatomical, physiological, mechanical, and chemical. Stent curvature at the stomach incisura can lead to strain- and stress-related fatigue due to mechanical bending with exacerbation from respiratory movements. Physiologic factors (gastric body contractions) can result in repetitive squeezing of the stent, adding to metal fatigue. Intrinsic properties (long length and low axial force) may be contributing factors. Lastly, the stomach acidic environment may cause nitinol-induced chemical weakness. Despite the aforementioned theories, SEMS fracture etiology remains unclear. Until more data become available, it may be advisable to remove these stents within 6 weeks.

Best Practices in Esophageal, Gastroduodenal, and Colonic Stenting

Endoscopic stenting is an area of endoscopy that has witnessed noteworthy advancements over the last decade, resulting in evolving clinical practices among gastroenterologists around the world. Indications for endoscopic stenting have progressively expanded, becoming a frequent part of the management algorithm for various benign and malignant conditions of the gastrointestinal tract, from esophagus to rectum. In addition to expanded indications, continuous technological enhancements and development of novel endoscopic stents have resulted in an increased success of these approaches and, in some cases, allowed new applications. This review aimed to summarize best practices in esophageal, gastroduodenal, and colonic stenting.

Endoscopic Stenting for Malignant Dysphagia in Patients with Esophageal Cancer

Malignant dysphagia is a common problem in patients with esophageal cancer. Endoscopic stenting can resolve dysphagia caused by malignant stricture; however, controversy exists regarding the use of esophageal stenting for the treatment of malignant stricture, including whether stenting or radiotherapy is superior, whether stenting before or after radiotherapy is safe, whether stenting before or after chemotherapy is safe, and whether low-radial-force stents are safer than conventional stents. Among treatment options for malignant dysphagia, stenting may have some disadvantages in terms of pain relief and the risk of adverse events compared with radiotherapy and in terms of survival compared with gastrostomy. Additionally, the risk of stent-related adverse events is significantly associated with prior radiotherapy. The risk of perforation is especially high when a radiation dose of >40 Gy is delivered to the esophagus after stenting, whereas perforation is not associated with prior chemotherapy or additional chemotherapy after stenting. Nevertheless, stenting remains an important palliative option, especially for patients with a short life expectancy and a strong desire for oral intake, because stenting can facilitate a more rapid improvement in dysphagia than radiotherapy or gastrostomy. The application of a low-radial-force stent should be considered to reduce the risk of adverse events, especially in patients with prior radiotherapy.

Anti-reflux versus conventional self-expanding metal stents in the palliation of esophageal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background and study aims  Self-expanding metal stents (SEMS) are an effective palliative endoscopic therapy to reduce dysphagia in esophageal cancer. Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is a relatively common complaint after non-valved conventional SEMS placement. Therefore, valved self-expanding metal stents (SEMS-V) were designed to reduce the rate of GERD symptoms. We aimed to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing the two stents. Material and methods  This was a systematic review and meta-analysis including only randomized clinical trials (RCT) comparing the outcomes between SEMS-V and non-valved self-expanding metal stents (SEMS-NV) following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis guidelines. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool. Data were analyzed with Review Manager Software. Quality of evidence was evaluated using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation guidelines. Results  Ten randomized clinical trials including a total of 467 patients, 234 in the SEMS-V group and 233 in the SEMS-NV group, were included. There were no statistically significant differences regarding GERD qualitative analysis (RD -0.17; 95 % CI -0.67, 0.33; P  = 0.5) and quantitative analysis (SMD -0.22; 95 % CI -0.53, 0.08; P  = 0.15) technical success (RD -0.03; 95 % CI -0.07, 0.01; P  = 0.16), dysphagia improvement (RD -0.07; 95 % CI -0.19, 0.06; P  = 0.30), and adverse events (RD 0.07; 95 % CI -0.07, 0.20; P  = 0.32). Conclusions  Both SEMS-V and SEMS-NV are safe and effective in the palliation of esophageal cancer with similar rates of GERD, dysphagia relief, technical success, adverse events, stent migration, stent obstruction, bleeding, and improvement of the quality of life.

Recent Updates in Gastrointestinal Stent Placement from the Esophagus to the Colon: A Radiological Perspective

Fluoroscopic-guided stent placement has become an advantageous treatment option for diverse gastrointestinal disorders. In addition to palliative stent placement in patients with inoperable cancers, stenting has gradually expanded to other conditions, including as a bridge to surgery, as well as in patients' benign lesions and anastomotic strictures or leaks. This narrative review describes the indications, efficacy and safety of stent placement from the esophagus to the colon, including current recommendations, recent updates, and novel stents.

AGA Clinical Practice Update on the Optimal Management of the Malignant Alimentary Tract Obstruction: Expert Review

BACKGROUND & AIMS

The purpose of this expert review is to describe the current methodologies available to manage malignant alimentary tract obstructions as well the evidence behind the various methods (including their efficacy and safety), indications, and appropriate timing of interventions.

METHODS

This is not a formal systematic review but is based on a review of the literature to provide best practice advice statements. No formal rating of the quality of evidence or strength of recommendation is carried out. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 1: For all patients with alimentary tract obstruction, the decision about specific interventions should be made in a multidisciplinary setting including oncologists, surgeons, and endoscopists and take into account the characteristics of the obstruction, patient's expectations, prognosis, expected subsequent therapies, and functional status. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 2: For patients who present with esophageal obstruction from esophageal cancer and who are potential candidates for resection or chemoradiation, clinicians should not routinely insert a self-expanding metal stent (SEMS) without multidisciplinary review because of high rates of stent migration, higher morbidity and mortality, and potentially lower R0 (microscopically negative margins) resection rates. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 3: For patients who present with esophageal obstruction from esophageal cancer who are potential candidates for resection and who have concerns of malnutrition, clinicians may consider the use of enteral feeding tubes (via nasogastric or percutaneous route). Clinicians should be aware of the potential risk of abdominal wall tumor seeding as well as making subsequent gastric conduit formation difficult with percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy placement. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 4: For patients who present with esophageal obstruction from esophageal cancer who are not candidates for resection, clinicians should consider either SEMS insertion or brachytherapy as sole therapy or in combination. Clinicians should not consider the use of laser therapy or photodynamic therapy because of the lack of evidence of better outcomes and superior alternatives. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 5: For patients with malignant esophageal obstruction who are undergoing SEMS placement, clinicians should use a fully covered or partially covered SEMS and not an uncovered SEMS, with consideration of a stent-anchoring/fixation method. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 6: For patients with gastric outlet obstruction who have a life expectancy greater than 2 months, have good functional status, and who are surgically fit, surgical gastrojejunostomy should be considered. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 7: For patients with gastric outlet obstruction who are undergoing surgical gastrojejunostomy, a laparoscopic approach is favored over an open approach because of lower blood loss and shorter hospital stay. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 8: For patients with gastric outlet obstruction who are not candidates for gastrojejunostomy (surgical or endoscopic ultrasound-guided), clinicians should consider the insertion of an enteral stent. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 9: Enteral stents should not be used in patients with multiple luminal obstructions or severely impaired gastric motility because of the limited benefit in these scenarios. Clinicians can consider placement of a venting gastrostomy in these patients. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 10: Depending on the experience of the endoscopist, endoscopic ultrasound-guided gastrojejunostomy is an acceptable alternative to surgical gastrojejunostomy and enteral stent placement. Clinicians should be aware that there are currently no dedicated Food and Drug Administration-approved devices for endoscopic ultrasound-guided gastrojejunostomy. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 11: For patients with malignant colonic obstruction who are candidates for resection, insertion of SEMS is a reasonable choice as a "bridge to surgery" to allow for one-stage, elective resection. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 12: For patients with malignant colonic obstruction who are not candidates for resection, either SEMS placement or a diverting colostomy are reasonable choices depending on the patient's goals and functional status. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 13: SEMS is a reasonable option for patients with proximal (or right-sided) malignant obstructions, both as a "bridge to surgery" and in the palliative setting. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 14: SEMS placement is a reasonable alternative for patients with extracolonic malignancy who are not candidates for surgery, although their placement is more technically challenging, clinical success rates are more variable, and complications (including stent migration) are more frequent.

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.

Palliative care for advanced gastric cancer

INTRODUCTION

Proactive palliative care can effectively relieve symptoms early and effectively as well as improve the quality of life of patients with gastric adenocarcinoma (GAC).

AREAS COVERED

The review summarizes palliative care for GAC. GAC caused specific symptoms, such as malignant gastric outlet obstruction (GOO), bleeding, weight loss, and/or ascites, therefore, these symptoms must be addressed specifically.

EXPERT OPINION

Palliative care should start early to control general symptoms, thus may improve the patient's condition to make the patient eligible for anti-cancer treatment. As some stage IV GAC patients can now live longer, palliative interventions become more important. A multimodality interdisciplinary approach is strongly encouraged.