Uncovered versus covered metallic stents for the management of unresectable malignant distal biliary obstruction: a randomized multicenter trial

Covered Versus Uncovered Metal Stents for the Drainage of the Malignant Distal Biliary Obstruction With ERCP: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

INTRODUCTION AND AIM

Unresectable malignant distal biliary obstruction is a condition that should be treated with drainage and clearance of the biliary duct. self-expanded metal stents (SEMS) are known to be better and more effective than plastic stents because the patency is longer. The actual evidence is insufficient to recommend if it is better the use of SEMSu over SEMSc or vice versa for the drainage of the malignant distal biliary obstruction during ERCP. We performed a systematic review and meta-analyses to demonstrate if exists superiority between one or other type of SEMS performed by ERCP.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a systematic review in different databases, such as PubMed, Cochrane, Medline, and OVID database. A search was made of all studies published up to May 2023.

RESULTS

Seven studies were analyzed. A total of 1070 patients were included. Of the total of patients, 48.9% were male. The cumulative stent patency, the failure rate, the survival probably and the adverse events rate, were similar between SEMSc and SEMSu groups. The stent migration rate was higher in the SEMSc group (RR=2.34 [95% CI: 1.35-4.08]). The tumor overgrowth was higher in the SEMSc group (RR=2.05 [95% CI: 1.13-3.72]). The tumor ingrowth was higher in the SEMSu group (RR=0.25 [95% CI: 0.11-0.61]).

CONCLUSIONS

The conclusions of our study show that there are no differences between the use of uncovered SEMS and covered SEMS for palliative treatment of distal biliopancreatic obstructions, and it has no impact on mortality or patient survival. New functional studies regarding the type of stent cover, radial force or length thereof are required.

Fully covered versus partially covered self-expandable metal stents for palliation of distal malignant biliary obstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Self-expandable metal stents (SEMSs) are standardly used for distal malignant biliary obstruction (dMBO). Although data suggest that covered versus uncovered SEMSs increase the time to recurrent biliary obstruction (TRBO), no data are available for fully covered (FC) versus partially covered (PC) designs.

METHODS

PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane databases were screened up to January 2023 for studies concerning dMBO treated by an FC- or PC-SEMS and describing adverse events (AEs), recurrences, or TRBO for specific design subpopulations. Pooled proportions or means were calculated using a random-effects model. Several subanalyses were preplanned, including a subanalysis restricted to prospective studies and unresectable diseases. Heterogeneity and publication bias were explored. Standardized differences (d-values) were calculated between groups.

RESULTS

From 1290 records, 62 studies (3327 using FC-SEMSs and 2322 using PC-SEMSs) were included. FC- versus PC-SEMSs showed negligible differences in the rate of total AEs (12% vs 9.9%) and all specific AEs, including cholecystitis (2.5% vs 2.6%). In a subanalysis restricted to prospective studies and unresectable diseases, the rate of RBO was comparable between FC-SEMSs (27.3% [95% confidence interval {CI}, 23.7-31.2], I2 = 35.34%) and PC-SEMSs (25.3% [95% CI, 20.2-30.7], I2 = 85.09%), despite small differences (d-values between .186 and .216) in the rate of ingrowth (.5% vs 2.9%) favoring FC-SEMSs and migration (9.8% vs 4.3%) favoring PC-SEMSs. TRBO was shorter for FC-SEMSs (238 days [95% CI, 191-286], I2 = 63.1%) versus PC-SEMSs (369 days [95% CI, 290-449], I2 = 71.9%; d-value = .116).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite considerable heterogeneity and small standardized differences, PC-SEMSs consistently exhibited longer TRBO than FC-SEMSs across analyses, without any other differences in AE rates, potentially proposing PC-SEMSs as the standard comparator and TRBO as the primary outcome for future randomized studies on dMBO. (Clinical trial registration number: CRD42023393965.).

Efficacy and complications of inoperable malignant distal biliary obstruction treatment by metallic stents: fully covered or uncovered?

Obstructive jaundice caused by malignant distal biliary obstruction is a common clinical symptom in patients with inoperable biliary-pancreatic cancer. Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP)-guided stent implantation is an effective treatment for obstructive jaundice. Internal stent drainage is more physiologic and associated with a better quality of life than external stent drainage methods such as percutaneous transhepatic gallbladder drainage or percutaneous transhepatic cholangiodrainage. Self-expanding metallic stents, which may be covered and uncovered, are commonly used. However, some uncertainties remain regarding the selection of metallic stents, including drainage patency time, clinical effect, stent migration, and post-operative complications such as pancreatitis, bleeding, and cholecystitis. This review aims to summarize the current progress and controversies surrounding the use of covered or uncovered metallic stents in inoperable common biliary obstruction via ERCP.

American Radium Society (ARS) Appropriate Use Criteria (AUC) for Extrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma

Although uncommon, extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (EHCC) is a deadly malignancy, and the treatment approaches remain controversial. While surgery remains the only cure, few patients are candidates for resection up front, and there are high rates of both local and distant failure following resection. Herein, we systematically review the available evidence regarding treatment approaches for patients with EHCC, including surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy. The evidence regarding treatment outcomes was assessed using the Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome, and Study design (PICOS) framework. A summary of recommendations based on the available literature is outlined for specific clinical scenarios encountered by providers in the clinic to guide the management of these patients.

Endoscopic palliation of malignant biliary obstruction

Malignant biliary obstruction often presents with challenges requiring the endoscopist to assess the location of the lesion, the staging of the disease, the eventual resectability and patient preferences in term of biliary decompression. This review will focus on the different modalities available in order to offer the most appropriate palliation, such as conventional endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, endoscopic ultrasound guided biliary drainage as well as ablative therapies including photodynamic therapy or radiofrequency ablation.

Covered versus uncovered metal stent for endoscopic drainage of a malignant distal biliary obstruction: Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

The role of a covered vs. an uncovered self-expandable metal stent (SEMS) for malignant distal biliary obstruction (MDBO) is not clear. This meta-analysis compared the efficacy of covered vs. uncovered SEMS for patients with MDBO after endoscopic insertion.

METHODS

A systematic meta-analysis of all relevant articles listed in PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar databases was performed. Fixed effects or random effects models were used to investigate pooled effects with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

RESULTS

The meta-analysis included 2358 patients from 12 eligible studies. Time to recurrent biliary obstruction (RBO) was significantly longer for covered SEMS (mean difference, 45.51 days; 95% CI 11.79-79.24). Although there was no significant difference in the RBO rate, subgroup analysis in pancreatic cancer occupying more than 90% (PC) revealed that the RBO rates were significantly lower for covered SEMS (odds ratio [OR] 0.43, 95% CI 0.25-0.74). Stent migration, sludge formation, and overgrowth were significantly more common with a covered SEMS (OR 7.92, 95% CI 4.01-15.64; OR 3.25, 95% CI 1.89-5.59; OR 2.03, 95% CI 1.20-3.43, respectively). The rate of ingrowth was significantly lower for covered SEMS. There was no significant difference in total procedure-related adverse events between the two types of SEMS.

CONCLUSIONS

A covered SEMS is superior to an uncovered SEMS with respect to prevention of RBO in patients with MDBO, particularly those caused by PC.