Self-expandable metal stent placement for malignant duodenal obstruction distal to the bulb

Clinical outcomes of different types of metallic stents in malignant distal duodenum stenosis: A retrospective study

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE

Endoscopic stenting at malignant distal duodenum stenosis (MDDS) is challenging because of the duodenal C-loop configuration, the acute angle of the duodenojejunal junction, and the limited length of the endoscope. Few studies have investigated the clinical outcomes of stenting at the distal duodenum. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate the clinical outcomes of treating MDDS with different types of metallic stents.

METHODS

From January 2012 to December 2020, fifty-six patients with MDDS who underwent duodenal stenting were enrolled for analysis. Thirty-five patients received uncovered self-expandable metallic stents (UC-SEMS), and twenty-one patients received partially covered self-expandable metallic stents (PC-SEMS). All patients were followed up till death or for 18 months. The clinical success rate, stent dysfunction rate, and stent patency were compared between the groups. Multivariate analysis was conducted to identify factors related to stent dysfunction.

RESULTS

The clinical success rates were 85.7 % in both the UC-SEMS and PC-SEMS groups. Stent dysfunction rates (UC-SEMS: 34.3 %, PC-SEMS: 38.1 %, p = 0.773) and the average stent patency (UC-SEMS: 117.2 days, PC-SEMS: 100.0 days, p = 0.576) were not statistically different between the groups. Multivariate analysis disclosed the age ≥65 years was significantly related to stent dysfunction (odds ratio: 4.78, p = 0.031).

CONCLUSION

Both UC-SEMS and PC-SEMS are safe and effective treatment options for MDDS. However, stent dysfunction remains a significant issue to overcome, particularly in the elderly. Further research is needed to explore novel strategies that can improve the effectiveness of stent placement and reduce the risk of stent dysfunction.

Efficacy and safety of endoscopic duodenal stent versus endoscopic or surgical gastrojejunostomy to treat malignant gastric outlet obstruction: systematic review and meta-analysis

Background and study aims  Malignant disease accounts for up to 80 % of gastric outlet obstruction (GOO) cases, which may be treated with duodenal self-expanding metal stents (SEMS), surgical gastrojejunostomy (GJ), and more recently endoscopic-ultrasound-guided gastroenterostomy (EUS-GE). These three treatments have not been compared head-to-head in a randomized trial. Methods  We searched the Embase and MEDLINE databases for studies published January 2015-February 2021 assessing treatment of malignant GOO using duodenal SEMS, endoscopic (EUS-GE) or surgical (laparoscopic or open) GJ. Efficacy outcomes assessed included technical and clinical success rates, GOO recurrence and reintervention. Safety outcomes included procedure-related bleeding or perforation, and stent-related events for the duodenal SEMS and EUS-GE arms. Results  EUS-GE had a lower rate of technical success (95.3%) than duodenal SEMS (99.4 %) or surgical GJ (99.9%) ( P  = 0.0048). For duodenal SEMS vs. EUS-GE vs. surgical GJ, rates of clinical success (88.9 % vs. 89.0 % vs. 92.3 % respectively, P  = 0.49) were similar. EUS-GE had a lower rate of GOO recurrence based on limited data ( P  = 0.0036), while duodenal SEMS had a higher rate of reintervention ( P  = 0.041). Overall procedural complications were similar (duodenal SEMS 18.7 % vs. EUS-GE 21.9 % vs. surgical GJ 23.8 %, P  = 0.32), but estimated bleeding rate was lowest ( P  = 0.0048) and stent occlusion rate was highest ( P  = 0.0002) for duodenal SEMS. Conclusions  Duodenal SEMS, EUS-GE, and surgical GJ showed similar clinical efficacy for the treatment of malignant GOO. Duodenal SEMS had a lower procedure-related bleeding rate but higher rate of reintervention.

Outcomes of patients with malignant duodenal obstruction after receiving self-expandable metallic stents: A single center experience

Objectives

Self-expandable metallic stent (SEMS) placement is a safe and effective palliative treatment for malignant gastric outlet obstruction; however, the clinical outcomes of gastric and duodenal stenoses may differ. This study aimed to investigate the clinical efficacy of SEMS placement and the predictors of clinical outcomes, specifically in malignant duodenal obstruction (MDO).

Methods

Between September 2009 and March 2021, 79 patients with MDO who received SEMS placement in our hospital were retrospectively enrolled. Patients were divided into three groups according to the obstruction levels: above-papilla group (type 1), papilla involved group (type 2), and below-papilla group (type 3). The clinical outcomes and predictors of survival and restenosis were analyzed.

Results

The technical and clinical success rates were 97.5% and 80.5%, respectively. Among patients who had successful stent placement, stent restenosis occurred in 17 patients (22.1%). The overall median stent patency time was 103 days. The overall median survival time after stent placement was 116 days. There was no difference in the stent patency, or stent dysfunction and procedure-related adverse events among the three groups. A longer length of duodenal stenosis ≥ 4 cm was associated with poor prognosis (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.92, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.06–3.49, p = 0.032) and post-stent chemotherapy was associated with lower mortality (HR = 0.33; 95% CI = 0.17–0.63, p = 0.001).

Conclusion

SEMS is a safe and effective treatment for MDO. Chemotherapy after SEMS implantation improve the survival for these patients and a longer length of stenosis predicts higher mortality.

The Great View Forward: The Use of a Colonoscope for Distal Duodenal Stent Placement

INTRODUCTION

Stent placement in the distal duodenum can be difficult. We describe a case report of a 94-year-old man with metastatic pancreatic head cancer compressing the third and fourth portions of the duodenum, treated by endoscopic stent placement using a colonoscope.

AREAS COVERED

A literature review highlighted two possible procedures for stent placement in the distal duodenum, namely forward-viewing and side-viewing endoscopies. Gastroscopes, duodenoscopes, enteroscopes, and colonoscopes have all been suggested for the purpose. For distal lesions, especially when the duodenal wall is stiffened due to compression or infiltration by neoplastic lesions, a conventional upper endoscope can be too short to reach the narrowed site in "push mode," necessitating the use of a longer endoscope.

EXPERT COMMENTARY

A colonoscope can be safely and effectively used to accomplish distal duodenal stent placement.

Use of Direct Oral Anticoagulants in Patients with Cancer: Practical Considerations for the Management of Patients with Nausea or Vomiting

Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have proven efficacy and safety and are approved for use in the prevention and treatment of thromboembolic events in patients with venous thromboembolism (VTE) and those with atrial fibrillation (AF). There is no clear guidance on the use of DOACs in the significant proportion of these patients who have or will develop concomitant cancer. The occurrence of nausea and vomiting in these patients, despite implementation of guideline-recommended antiemetic strategies, is a particular concern because it may affect oral drug intake and consequently outcomes with anticoagulation therapy.Here, we review recent data on the incidence and management of cancer-associated nausea and vomiting and the current evidence and guidance relating to the use of DOACs in patients with cancer. On the basis of this evidence, an international working group of experts in the fields of cancer-associated thrombosis/hemostasis, hematology, and oncology discussed key issues related to the use of DOACs in patients with VTE or AF and cancer who are at risk of nausea and vomiting and developed some consensus recommendations. We present these consensus recommendations, which outline strategies for the use and management of anticoagulants, including DOACs, in patients with VTE or AF and cancer for whom oral drug intake may pose challenges. Guidance is provided on managing patients with gastrointestinal obstruction or nausea and vomiting that is caused by cancer treatments or other cancer-related factors.The recommendations outlined in this review provide a useful reference for health care professionals and will help to improve the management of anticoagulation in patients with VTE or AF and cancer.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) offer several advantages over traditional anticoagulants, including ease of administration and the lack of need for routine monitoring. However, the management of patients with an indication for anticoagulation and concomitant cancer, who are at high risk of thromboembolic events, presents several challenges for administering oral therapies, particularly with regard to the risk of nausea and vomiting. In the absence of robust data from randomized trials and specific guidelines, consensus recommendations were developed for healthcare professionals regarding the use of DOACs in patients with cancer, with a focus on the management of patients who are at risk of nausea and vomiting.

Bare-metal stents across the Vater's ampulla is a safe method for patients with lower bile duct obstruction

This study explored the effect of the implant position of stents across the Vater's ampulla on treatment outcomes in patients with lower bile duct obstruction.In the retrospective study, 41 patients with malignant obstruction of the lower bile duct and obstructive jaundice received percutaneous transhepatic biliary placement of bare-metal stents. Basic demographic data on patients, such as sex, age, and primary diseases, and follow-up data, including postoperative complications and jaundice-free survival, were recorded. The follow-up data on patients with an involved ampulla, patients with an uninvolved ampulla, patients with a stent across the ampulla, and patients with a stent at a site other than the ampulla were compared. Furthermore, prognostic factors for jaundice- free survival were investigated using Cox proportional hazards regression analysis.Among the 41 patients, 38 patients experienced subsiding of jaundice, whereas 3 cases had unsuccessful stent patency. Whether or not the ampulla was involved did not influence the incidence rates of postoperative complications and the jaundice-free survival time. Notably, when stents were placed across the ampulla, the jaundice-free survival time was significantly longer than when stents were placed at sites other than across the ampulla (P < .05). Furthermore, placement of the stent across the ampulla or at other sites was an independent prognostic factor (hazard ratio = 0.154, 95% confidence interval 0.042-0.560, P = .005) for jaundice-free survival of patients.The current study revealed that the implant position of a stent across the ampulla resulted in maintenance of stent patency and prolongation of the jaundice-free survival time.