Does endoscopic sphincterotomy reduce the risk of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis after biliary stenting? A systematic review and meta-analysis

Endoscopic sphincterotomy to prevent post-ERCP pancreatitis after self-expandable metal stent placement for distal malignant biliary obstruction (SPHINX): a multicentre, randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) with fully covered self-expandable metal stent (FCSEMS) placement is the preferred approach for biliary drainage in patients with suspected distal malignant biliary obstruction (MBO). However, FCSEMS placement is associated with a high risk of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP). Endoscopic sphincterotomy prior to FCSEMS placement may reduce PEP risk.

OBJECTIVE

To compare endoscopic sphincterotomy to no sphincterotomy prior to FCSEMS placement.

DESIGN

This multicentre, randomised, superiority trial was conducted in 17 hospitals and included patients with suspected distal MBO. Patients were randomised during ERCP to receive either endoscopic sphincterotomy (sphincterotomy group) or no sphincterotomy (control group) prior to FCSEMS placement. The primary outcome was PEP within 30 days. Secondary outcomes included procedure-related complications and 30-day mortality. An interim analysis was performed after 50% of patients (n=259) had completed follow-up.

RESULTS

Between May 2016 and June 2023, 297 patients were included in the intention-to-treat analysis, with 156 in the sphincterotomy group and 141 in the control group. After the interim analysis, the study was terminated prematurely due to futility. PEP did not differ between groups, occurring in 26 patients (17%) in the sphincterotomy group compared with 30 patients (21%) in the control group (relative risk 0.78, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.26, p=0.37). There were no significant differences in bleeding, perforation, cholangitis, cholecystitis or 30-day mortality.

CONCLUSION

This trial found that endoscopic sphincterotomy was not superior to no sphincterotomy in reducing PEP in patients with distal MBO. Therefore, there was insufficient evidence to recommend routine endoscopic sphincterotomy prior to FCEMS placement.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NL5130.

The addition of endoscopic sphincterotomy to biliary stent placement and its impact on the risk of adverse events: an updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Endoscopic sphincterotomy (ES) is not mandatory before biliary stenting. The impact of ES before biliary stent placement remains uncertain. Previous studies have reported that ES can increase adverse event rates by up to 4.5 times compared with no ES. We aimed to assess the occurrence of post-ERCP adverse events following biliary stent placement with and without ES.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases were systematically searched for randomized controlled trials. The primary outcome was post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP). Subgroup analyses were performed with patients undergoing biliary drainage due to obstruction, using metal stents, and using plastic stents. Secondary outcomes were postprocedural bleeding, perforation, stent/catheter occlusion, stent/catheter migration, and cholangitis. Heterogeneity was examined with I2 statistics, and a random-effects model was used. Review Manager 5.4 was used for statistical analyses.

RESULTS

Seven RCTs with 1022 patients were included. There was no significant difference between the ES and non-ES groups (odds ratio [OR], .46; 95% CI, .19-1.09; P = .08; I2 = 59%) regarding PEP; however, a significant difference in bleeding rates was found between groups, favoring non-ES (OR, 7.01; 95% CI, 2.24-21.99; P = .0008; I2 = 0%). The analysis of the occurrence of cholangitis (OR, 1.25; 95% CI, .58-2.69; P = .56; I2 = 67%), perforation (OR, 1.95; 95% CI, .07-55.73; P = .70; I2 = 58%), stent/catheter migration (OR, 2.15; 95% CI, .61-7.57; P = 0.23; I2 = 6%), and stent/catheter occlusion (OR, .91; 95% CI, .37-2.25; P = .84; I2 = 0%) did not favor either group.

CONCLUSIONS

Performing ES before biliary drainage does not affect the PEP rate but is associated with an increased postprocedural bleeding rate.

Is there a place for endoscopic management in post-cholecystectomy iatrogenic bile duct injuries?

In this editorial we comment on the article by Emara et al published in the recent issue of the World Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery. Previously, surgery was the primary treatment for bile duct injuries (BDI). The treatment of BDI has advanced due to technological breakthroughs and minimally invasive procedures. Endoscopic and percutaneous treatments have largely supplanted surgery as the primary treatment for most instances in recent years. Patient management, including the specific technique, is typically impacted by local knowledge and the kind and severity of the injury. Endoscopic therapy is a highly successful treatment for postoperative benign bile duct stenosis and offers superior long-term outcomes compared to surgical correction. Based on the damage features of BDI, therapeutic options include endoscopic duodenal papillary sphincterotomy, endoscopic nasobiliary drainage, and endoscopic biliary stent implantation.

One-stage versus two-stage endoscopic management for acute cholangitis caused by common bile duct stones: A retrospective multicenter cohort study

BACKGROUND

One-stage endoscopic management, where papillary interventions and stone removal are simultaneously performed, has been reported to be an effective treatment for acute cholangitis caused by common bile duct stones (CBDS). However, there have been few reports comparing it with two-stage management, and there is no established strategy for the indication of one-stage management. The aim of the present study was to compare the short- and long-term outcomes between one- and two-stage management for acute cholangitis caused by CBDS.

METHODS

We retrospectively studied 577 patients who underwent one- or two-stage endoscopic management for acute cholangitis between May 2010 and December 2020. The patients were divided into one- and two-stage groups by endoscopic management. The clinical outcomes were compared between groups.

RESULTS

The technical and clinical success were similar in both groups, although the length of hospital stay was significantly shorter in the one-stage group. Although there was no difference in the early adverse event (AE) between two groups, post-ERCP pancreatitis was recognized in 3.4% and 10.0%, which was significantly higher in the two-stage group. The cumulative late AE rate was 22.6% and 14.1%, which was significantly higher in the one-stage group. In the multivariate analyses, intervention (one-stage), number of CBDS ≥2, biliary drainage, the use of ML, and gallbladder stone were identified as significant factors associated with the recurrence of CBDS.

CONCLUSION

Although one-stage endoscopic management is useful and safe with reducing hospital stays, diligent postoperative follow-up with consideration to recurrence of CBDS is essential.

Pilot study on cultural and metagenomic analysis of bile and biliary stentslead to unveiling the key players in stent occlusion

Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangio-Pancreatography (ERCP) with biliary stenting is a minimally invasive medical procedure employed to address both malignant and benign obstructions within the biliary tract. Benign biliary strictures (BBSs), typically arising from surgical interventions such as liver transplants and cholecystectomy, as well as chronic inflammatory conditions, present a common clinical challenge. The current gold standard for treating BBSs involves the periodic insertion of plastic stents at intervals of 3-4 months, spanning a course of approximately one year. Unfortunately, stent occlusion emerges as a prevalent issue within this treatment paradigm, leading to the recurrence of symptoms and necessitating repeated ERCPs. In response to this clinical concern, we initiated a pilot study, delving into the microbial composition present in bile and on the inner surfaces of plastic stents. This investigation encompassed 22 patients afflicted by BBSs who had previously undergone ERCP with plastic stent placement. Our preliminary findings offered promising insights into the microbial culprits behind stent occlusion, with Enterobacter and Lactobacillus spp. standing out as prominent bacterial species known for their biofilm-forming tendencies on stent surfaces. These revelations hold promise for potential interventions, including targeted antimicrobial therapies aimed at curtailing bacterial growth on stents and the development of advanced stent materials boasting anti-biofilm properties.

Adverse events of self-expandable metal stent placement for malignant distal biliary obstruction: a large multicenter study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Endoscopic placement of self-expandable metal stents (SEMSs) for malignant distal biliary obstruction (MDBO) may be accompanied by several types of adverse events. The present study analyzed the adverse events occurring after SEMS placement for MDBO.

METHODS

The present study retrospectively investigated the incidence and types of adverse events in patients who underwent SEMS placement for MDBO between April 2018 and March 2021 at 26 hospitals. Risk factors for acute pancreatitis, cholecystitis, and recurrent biliary obstruction (RBO) were evaluated by univariate and multivariate analyses.

RESULTS

Of the 1425 patients implanted with SEMSs for MDBO, 228 (16.0%) and 393 (27.6%) experienced early adverse events and RBO, respectively. Pancreatic duct without tumor involvement (P = .023), intact papilla (P = .025), and SEMS placement across the papilla (P = .037) were independent risk factors for acute pancreatitis. Tumor involvement in the orifice of the cystic duct was an independent risk factor for cholecystitis (P < .001). Use of fully and partially covered SEMSs was an independent risk factor for food impaction and/or sludge. Use of fully covered SEMSs was an independent risk factor for stent migration. Use of uncovered SEMSs and laser-cut SEMSs was an independent risk factor for tumor ingrowth.

CONCLUSIONS

Pancreatic duct without tumor involvement, intact papilla, and SEMS placement across the papilla were independent risk factors for acute pancreatitis, and tumor involvement in the orifice of the cystic duct was an independent risk factor for cholecystitis. The risk factors for food impaction and/or sludge, stent migration, and tumor ingrowth differed among types of SEMSs.

A Risk Prediction Model for Post-endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography Pancreatitis After Stent Insertion for Malignant Biliary Obstruction: Development and Validation

OBJECTIVES

Pancreatitis is the most common complication of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). There are currently no prediction models, particularly for post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) after biliary stent placement due to malignant biliary obstruction (MBO). To that end, we aim to develop and validate a predictive model for PEP.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed the data of patients who underwent ERCP for biliary stent placement due to MBO at the Second Affiliated Hospital of Harbin Medical University from January 1, 2014 to August 31, 2021. The eligible patients were randomly allocated to the development and validation cohorts. A prediction model was built using the development cohort, and the model's effect was validated using a validation cohort.

RESULTS

A total of 1524 patients were enrolled, including 1016 in the development cohort and 508 in the validation cohort, with an overall PEP rate of 7.1%. The model's predictors included acute pancreatitis history, the absence of pancreatic duct dilation, nonpancreatic cancer, difficult cannulation, and pancreatic injection. The area under the curve (AUC) in the development cohort was 0.810, and the incidence of PEP in the low-risk, medium-risk, and high-risk groups was 1.53%, 9.12%, and 36.36%, respectively. Meanwhile, the AUC of the validation cohort was 0.781, and the incidence of PEP in the low-risk, medium-risk, and high-risk groups was 4.17%, 8.75%, and 41.67%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

This study was the first to build and validate a risk prediction model, especially for PEP after biliary stent placement due to MBO. Moreover, this model might assist clinicians in identifying high-risk patients and help implement preventive measures in a more timely manner.

Suprapapillary Biliary Stents Have Longer Patency Times than Transpapillary Stents-A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS

Endoscopic biliary stent placement is a minimally invasive intervention for patients with biliary strictures. Stent patency and function time are crucial factors. Suprapapillary versus transpapillary stent positioning may contribute to stent function time, so a meta-analysis was performed in this comparison.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted in the CENTRAL, Embase, and MEDLINE databases to find data on suprapapillary stent placement compared to the transpapillary method via endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in cases of biliary stenosis of any etiology and any stent type until December 2020. We carried out a meta-analysis focusing on the following outcomes: stent patency, stent migration, rate of cholangitis and pancreatitis, and other reported complications.

RESULTS

Three prospective and ten retrospective studies involving 1028 patients were included. Suprapapillary stent placement appeared to be superior to transpapillary stent positioning in patency (weighted mean difference = 50.23 days, 95% CI: 8.56, 91.98; p = 0.0.018). In a subgroup analysis of malignant indications, suprapapillary positioning showed a lower rate of cholangitis (OR: 0.34, 95% CI: 0.13, 0.93; p = 0.036). Another subgroup analysis investigating metal stents in a suprapapillary position resulted in a lower rate of pancreatitis (OR: 0.16, 95% CI: 0.03, 0.95; p = 0.043) compared to transpapillary stent placement. There was no difference in stent migration rates between the two groups (OR: 0.67, 95% CI: 0.17, 2.72; p = 0.577).

CONCLUSIONS

Based on our results, suprapapillary biliary stenting has longer stent patency. Moreover, the stent migration rate did not differ between the suprapapillary and transpapillary groups.

A case of delayed pancreatic fistula after covered self-expandable metallic stent deployment for pancreatic head cancer

A 69-year-old man was referred to our hospital with obstructive jaundice. A tumor with poor contrast enhancement was found in the pancreatic head, but there was no evidence of pancreatic atrophy, irregular stenosis, or dilation of the main pancreatic duct. He was diagnosed with borderline resectable pancreatic cancer with distal malignant biliary obstruction. After plastic stent placement, serum bilirubin levels improved, and chemotherapy was started. However, he developed cholangitis; thus, the plastic stent was replaced with a covered self-expandable metallic stent. He subsequently developed a delayed pancreatic fistula due to main pancreatic duct disruption. An endoscopic nasopancreatic duct drainage tube was placed to bridge the main pancreatic duct disruption after removing the covered self-expandable metallic stent. In addition, endoscopic ultrasound-guided transmural drainage was performed for the infected fluid collection caused by the pancreatic fistula, and the clinical symptoms quickly improved. This case presents the possibility of a delayed pancreatic fistula due to self-expandable metallic stent deployment. The need for considering such delayed complications when placing self-expanding metallic stents is highlighted.

Risk of Pancreatitis Following Biliary Stenting With/Without Endoscopic Sphincterotomy: A Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND & AIMS

The efficacy of endoscopic sphincterotomy (ES) before endoscopic transpapillary biliary drainage in preventing post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis (PEP) has not been established. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of performing ES before biliary stent/tube placement on the occurrence of PEP.

METHODS

Three hundred seventy patients with biliary stricture requiring endoscopic biliary stenting were enrolled and randomly allocated to the ES group (n = 185) or non-ES group (n = 185). All participants were followed up for 30 days after the procedure. The data and occurrence of adverse events were prospectively collected. The primary outcome measure of this study was the incidence of PEP within 2 days of initial transpapillary biliary drainage. Secondary outcome measures were the incidence of other adverse events related to biliary stent/tube placement.

RESULTS

PEP occurred in 36 patients (20.6%) in the non-ES group and in 7 patients (3.9%) in the ES group (P < .001). The difference in the incidence of PEP between the 2 groups in the per-protocol population was 16.7% (95% confidence interval, 10.1%-23.3%), which was not within the noninferiority margin of 6%. Except for bleeding, the incidences of other adverse events were not significantly different between the groups.

CONCLUSION

ES before endoscopic biliary stenting could have the preventive effect on the occurrence of PEP in patients with biliary stricture. University Hospital Medical Information Network Number, UMIN000025727.University Hospital Medical Information Network Clinical Trial Registry URL: https://www.umin.ac.jp/ctr/index.htm.

Prevention of pancreatitis after stent implantation for distal malignant biliary strictures: systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Biliary stent placement remains a palliative treatment for patients with unresectable distal malignant biliary strictures (DMBS). The incidence of post-ERCP-pancreatitis (PEP) significantly increases in patients receiving fully covered self-expandable metal stents (FCSEMS) who undergo endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP).

AREAS COVERED

This review provides an overview of prevention of PEP after stent implantation for DMBSs. The following operational variables were evaluated: (1) stent type (plastic or metal stent); (2) stent location (above or across the sphincter of Oddi); (3) prophylactic pancreatic duct stent placement; (4) endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST). PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane database were searched to identify eligible studies up to October 2021. The odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were pooled using fixed- or random- effects models.

EXPERT OPINION

1. PEP occurs more frequently in DMBS patients with self-expandable metal stents (SEMS) compared to that plastic stent (PS). 2. The PEP incidence is higher in covered stents than that in uncovered self-expandable metal stents (USEMS), but not significantly. 3. PEP incidence increases in patients receiving transpapillary FCSEMS placement, particularly when there is an absence of pancreatic duct dilation, and prophylactic pancreatic stenting is recommended for these patients. 4. Limited studies with small sample indicate that there is no significant difference in PEP incidence between transpapillary and suprapapillary stents placement for DMBS. 5. Limited studies indicate that EST does not significantly affect the incidence of pancreatitis in DMBS patients.

Possible reasons for the regrettable results of patency of an inside stent in endoscopic transpapillary biliary stenting

Endoscopic biliary decompression is a minimally invasive procedure for cholestasis since the first endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography-guided biliary stenting performed by Soehendra and Reynders-Frederix. Among the endoscopic biliary decompression, endoscopic transpapillary biliary stenting (EBS), is a mainstream choice and presently has two methods of placement: stenting above the sphincter of Oddi (SO) (suprapapillary) and stenting across the SO (transpapillary). Stent patency is the most important concern for patients, endoscopists and physicians because it can affect both the life prognosis and treatment schedule of patients. Biliary stent occlusion can occur because of several factors. Among them, direct food impaction, biofilm formation, and sludge formation play important roles and are presumed to be theoretically overcome by EBS above the SO. Thus, EBS above the SO is expected to result in a longer patency than EBS across the SO. In the literature, there have been six comparative studies on EBS for distal biliary obstruction in which the stent was placed above or across the SO, including two randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with negative results of stenting above the SO. With respect to EBS for hilar biliary obstruction, there have been no RCTs, whereas four retrospective comparative studies with negative results and four retrospective comparative studies showing positive results of stenting above the SO have been reported. In this review, we focused on EBS above and across the SO, and summarized the positive and negative results of the two types of stenting to promote effective clinical practice and to provide a basis for future studies.

Endoscopic Stenting for Malignant Biliary Obstruction: Results of a Nationwide Experience

Background/Aims

Many unanswered questions remain about the treatment of malignant hilar obstruction. We investigated endoscopic stenting for malignant biliary strictures, as reported in a nationwide registry.

Methods

All endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) procedures entered in the Swedish Registry of Gallstone Surgery and ERCP from January 2010 to December 2017 in which stenting was performed for malignant biliary stricture management were included in this study. Patency was estimated by determining the time to reintervention.

Results

Endoscopic stenting was performed for malignant stricture management in 4623 ERCP procedures, of which 1364 (29.5%) were performed for hilar strictures. Of the hilar strictures, 320 (23.5%) were intrahepatic strictures (Bismuth-Corlette III-IV). Adverse events were more common after hilar stenting than after distal stenting (17.2% vs. 12.0%, p<0.0001). The 6-month reintervention rate was 73.4% after hilar stenting compared with 55.9% after distal stenting (p<0.0001). The 6-month reintervention rates for Bismuth-Corlette types I, II, IIIa, IIIb, and IV were 70.4%, 75.6%, 90.0%, 87.5%, and 85.7%, respectively. In multivariate analysis, the risk for reintervention was three times higher after hilar stenting than after distal stenting (hazard ratio 3.47, 95% confidence interval 2.01-6.00, p<0.001).

Conclusions

This study with a relatively large patient cohort undergoing endoscopic stenting confirms that stenting for malignant hilar obstruction has more adverse events and lower patency than stenting for distal malignant obstruction.

Endoscopic drainage in patients with malignant extrahepatic biliary obstruction: when and how

The question of when and how to drain a malignant biliary obstruction (MBO), both intrinsic or extrinsic, remains a controversial point among endoscopists. An important factor that influences the decision to drain an MBO or not is if the patient is a surgical candidate or not and, in the former case, if the patients must undergo neoadiuvant chemotherapy or not. Other questions arising during biliary drainage in MBO patients is which type of stent should be chosen, plastic or metal, and if endoscopic biliary sphincterotomy must be performed or not when a stent is placed. The present review attempts to answer these questions and summarizes the optimal approach toward patients with MBO based on the available evidence.

Inutility of endoscopic sphincterotomy to prevent pancreatitis after biliary metal stent placement in the patients without pancreatic duct obstruction

Background: The incidence of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) has been reported to be significantly higher in patients without main pancreatic duct (MPD) obstruction who undergo transpapillary biliary metal stent (MS) placement than in those with ordinary ERCP setting.Objective: To evaluate the benefit of endoscopic sphincterotomy (ES) prior to MS placement in preventing PEP in patients with distal malignant biliary obstruction (MBO) without MPD obstruction.Materials and methods: In total, 160 patients who underwent initial MS placement for MBO were enrolled. Eighty-two patients underwent ES immediately prior to MS placement, whereas 78 underwent MS placement without ES. An inverse probability of treatment weighting method was adopted to adjust the differences of the patients' characteristics. The primary outcome was the incidence of PEP. The secondary outcomes included the incidence of other adverse events (bleeding, cholangitis, perforation and stent dislocation) and time to recurrent biliary obstruction.Results: The incidence of PEP was 26.8% in the ES and 23.1% in the non-ES (unadjusted odds ratio [OR] [95%CI]: 1.22, [0.60-2.51], adjusted OR [95%CI]: 1.23, [0.53-2.81], p = .63). Logistic-regression analysis revealed no factors that could be attributed to the occurrence of PEP. The incidence of other adverse events was not different between the groups. The median time to recurrent biliary obstruction was 131 (2-465) days and 200 (4-864) days in the ES and non-ES, respectively (p = .215).Conclusions: ES prior to MS placement for patients with distal MBO without MPD obstruction does not reduce the incidence of PEP.

Endoscopic sphincterotomy to prevent post-ERCP pancreatitis in patients with biliary neoplasms: a multicenter retrospective cohort study

Background and aims  Treatment of biliary neoplasms often involves multiple endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP)-related procedures. Endoscopic sphincterotomy (ES) may prevent post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP). This retrospective, multicenter cohort study aimed to investigate the effectiveness of ES for prevention of PEP in patients with biliary neoplasm. Methods  Patients with biliary duct neoplasm who underwent ERCP between January 2006 and December 2016 were enrolled. The frequency of PEP was compared between the ES and non-ES groups using propensity score analysis. The effectiveness of ES in subgroups of patients who underwent biliary duct stent placement, intraductal ultrasound (IDUS), and transpapillary biliary duct biopsy was analyzed by logistic regression. Results  Of the 362 patients enrolled, 84 (23.2 %) developed PEP. Propensity score matching for PEP risk factors in 172 ERCP procedures showed that the frequency of PEP in the ES group was lower than that in the non-ES group (19.7 % vs. 33.7 %). Non-ES was also an independent risk factor for PEP in patients who underwent intraductal ultrasound and transpapillary biliary duct biopsy (RR = 4.54 and 5.26), but was not an independent risk factor for PEP in patients with biliary duct stents. In addition, there was no evidence that the frequency of PEP was statistically different between patients with plastic stents and metal stents in the ES and non-ES groups ( P  = 0.14 and 0.10). Conclusions  ES is an effective technique to prevent PEP in patients with biliary neoplasms. In particular, ES is a safe technique to prevent PEP when performing IDUS and transpapillary biliary duct biopsy.

Early Diagnosis And Management Of Malignant Distal Biliary Obstruction: A Review On Current Recommendations And Guidelines

Malignant biliary obstruction is a challenging condition, requiring a multimodal approach for both diagnosis and treatment. Pancreatic adenocarcinoma and cholangiocarcinoma are the leading causes of malignant distal biliary obstruction. Early diagnosis is difficult to establish as biliary obstruction can be the first presentation of the underlying disease, which can already be at an advanced stage. Consequently, the majority of patients (70%) with malignant distal biliary obstruction are unresectable at the time of diagnosis. The association of clinical findings, laboratory tests, imaging, and endoscopic modalities may help in identifying the underlying cause. Novel endoscopic techniques such as cholangioscopy, intraductal ultrasonography, or confocal laser endomicroscopy have been developed with promising results, but are not used in routine clinical practice. As the number of patients with malignant distal biliary obstruction who will undergo curative surgery is limited, endoscopy has a crucial role in palliation, to relieve biliary obstruction. According to the last European guidelines published in the management of biliary obstruction, self-expandable metal stents have a central place in biliary drainage compared to plastic stents. Endoscopic ultrasound has evolved impressively in the last decades. When standard techniques of biliary cannulation by endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography fail, endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage is a good option compared to percutaneous drainage.

Risk Factors for Pancreatitis and Cholecystitis after Endoscopic Biliary Stenting in Patients with Malignant Extrahepatic Bile Duct Obstruction

Background/Aims:

For the treatment of malignant biliary obstruction, endoscopic retrograde biliary drainage (ERBD) has been widely accepted as a standard procedure. However, post-ERBD complications can affect the lives of patients. The purpose of this study was to identify the predictive factors for these complications, including the patient’s status, cancer status, and stent type.

Methods:

This was a retrospective analysis conducted in a single tertiary hospital from January 2007 to July 2017. The following variables were evaluated: sex, age, body mass index, cancer type, history of pancreatitis, gallbladder stone, previous biliary stenting, precut papillotomy, stent type, contrast injection into the pancreatic duct or gallbladder, cystic duct invasion by the tumor, and occlusion of the cystic duct orifice by a metal stent.

Results:

Multivariate analysis showed that contrast injection into the pancreatic duct was a risk factor for pancreatitis. Patients with a history of bile drainage showed a lower risk of pancreatitis. For cholecystitis, the analysis revealed contrast injection into the gallbladder and cystic duct invasion by the tumor as important predictive factors. Metal stents showed a greater risk of post-procedure pancreatitis than plastic stents, but did not affect the incidence of cholecystitis.

Conclusions:

Considering that contrast injection is the most important factor for both complications, a careful approach by the physician is essential in preventing the occurrence of any complications. Further, choosing the type of stent is an important factor for patients at a risk of post-procedure pancreatitis.

Preoperative biliary drainage of the hepatic lobe to be resected does not affect liver hypertrophy after percutaneous transhepatic portal vein embolization

BACKGROUND

In patients with malignant perihilar biliary strictures, preoperative biliary drainage (PBD) of the hepatic lobe to be resected may decrease the liver volume of the future liver remnant (FLR) after percutaneous transhepatic portal vein embolization (PVE). However, evidence of its application is insufficient. This study aimed to clarify the effects of PBD on liver hypertrophy after PVE.

METHODS

Between January 2008 and December 2017, 169 patients with malignant perihilar biliary strictures underwent major hepatectomy or palliative surgery at our hospital. Of these, 76 patients who underwent PVE were categorized into two groups: group A (n = 29) who received unilateral PBD of the FLR and group B (n = 47) who received bilateral PBD, including that of the hepatic lobe to be resected. FLR ratios after PVE and liver hypertrophy ratios were retrospectively compared in both groups.

RESULTS

Group B exhibited significantly severe biliary stenosis (p = 0.0038) and high serum bilirubin before biliary drainage (p = 0.0037). After PVE, the total liver volumes were 1287 ± 260 ml and 1340 ± 257 ml (p = 0.39), respectively. FLR volumes were 555 ± 135 and 577 ± 113 ml (p = 0.45), respectively. FLR ratios were 43.4 ± 8.2% and 43.4 ± 6.4%, respectively (p = 0.98). Liver hypertrophy ratios were 124.2 ± 17.7% and 129.2 ± 20.9%, respectively (p = 0.28). In addition, an examination which excluded patients with Bismuth type I obtained similar result.

CONCLUSIONS

PBD of the hepatic lobe to be resected did not decrease the FLR ratios and hypertrophy ratios. Thus, in patients with poor biliary drainage, additional PBD of the target lobe is acceptable.

Reducing the risk of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis using 4-Fr pancreatic plastic stents placed with common-type guidewires: Results from a prospective multinational registry

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Pancreatic plastic stents (PPS) can reduce the risk of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis (PEP). Prospective multicenter documentation of PEP rate after PPS placement is scarce. A new 4-Fr stent designed to be deployed over a 0.035-inch guidewire was used to assess the effectiveness of PEP prophylaxis.

METHODS

High-PEP-risk patients received a 4-Fr PPS for primary or secondary prophylaxis at seven centers in four countries. Patients were followed until spontaneous PPS migration, endoscopic stent removal, or for 4 months, whichever came first. Main outcome was PEP rate.

RESULTS

One hundred six (106) patients received PPS for PEP prophylaxis [61 (58%) primary, 45 (42%) secondary prophylaxis]. Median age was 54 years. Eighty-one (76%) PPS were placed using a 0.035-inch guidewire. By investigator choice 99 (93%) stents were single pigtail. Median stent length was 8 cm (range 3-12 cm). Technical success achieved in 100% of cases. Two patients in the primary prophylaxis group (3%, 95% CI 0.4-11%) experienced mild/moderate PEP. Seventy-eight PPS available for analysis underwent spontaneous migration after a median of 29 days. There were no reports of stent-induced ductal trauma. Post-hoc analysis of migration rate by PPS length showed no statistically significant trend.

CONCLUSIONS

Among high-risk patients in the primary prophylaxis group, observed rates of PEP are low (3%, 95% CI 0.4-11%) with the use of prophylactic 4-Fr pancreatic duct stents compatible with a 0.035-inch guidewire. This low rate is not unequivocally due to the prophylactic stent.

Endoscopic biliary self-expandable metallic stent in malignant biliary obstruction with or without sphincterotomy: systematic review and meta-analysis

Background and aim  To assess the rate of adverse events and the technical success rate of biliary stenting with or without EBS.  Methods  A literature search up to February 2017 was performed. Studies assessing adverse events (AEs) and technical success rates of stenting with or without EBS were considered. Results  Seven studies (870 patients; 12 treatment arms) were included. Early AEs, i. e. those occurring within 30 days, were significantly lower in no-EBS vs. EBS-group (11 % vs . 20.1 %; OR: 0.36, 95 %CI: 0.13 - 1.00). Rates of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis were not significantly different in the two groups (no-EBS vs . EBS: 6.1 % vs 5 %; OR: 1.33, 95 %CI: 0.68 - 2.59). The rate of bleeding was significantly lower in patients without EBS (no-EBS vs EBS: 0 % vs 5 %; OR: 0.12, 95 % CI: 0.03 - 0.45). Rates of cholangitis were significantly lower in patients without EBS (no-EBS vs . EBS: 3.3 % vs. 7.4 %; OR: 0.38, 95 %CI: 0.17 - 0.83). Both late AEs and mortality rates did not significantly differ between no-EBS and EBS patients (19.9 % vs. 18.9 %; OR: 0.93, 95 %CI: 0.56 - 1.53, and 2.5 % vs. 2.9 %; OR: 1.18, 95 %CI: 0.22 - 6.29, respectively). The technical success rate for stent insertion also did not differ (98 % vs. 97.6 %; OR: 1.05, 95 %CI: 0.42 - 2.63). Conclusion  EBS seems to be associated, in the first 30 days after the procedure, with an increased risk of cholangitis and bleeding. No difference was observed in the rate of post-ERCP pancreatitis.

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.

New 14-mm diameter Niti-S biliary uncovered metal stent for unresectable distal biliary malignant obstruction

AIM

To investigate whether an uncovered self-expandable metal stent (UCSEMS) with a large diameter could prevent recurrent biliary obstruction (RBO).

METHODS

Thirty-eight patients with malignant biliary obstruction underwent treatment with an UCSEMS with a 14-mm diameter (Niti-S 14). Retrospectively, we evaluated technical and functional success rate, RBO rate, time to RBO, survival time, and adverse events in these patients.

RESULTS

Stent placement success and functional success were achieved in all patients. Two patients (5.3%) had RBO due to tumor ingrowth or overgrowth. The median time to RBO was 190 (range, 164-215) d. The median survival time was 120 (range, 18-502) d. The 6-mo non-RBO rate was 91%. Other adverse events other than RBO occurred as follows: Acute cholecystitis, post-ERCP pancreatitis, hemobilia, and fever without exacerbation of liver injury, and liver abscess in 4 (10.3%), 3 (7.9%), 2 (5.3%), 1 (2.6%), and 1 (2.6%), respectively. Migration of the stents was not observed.

CONCLUSION

Niti-S 14 is considered to be a preferable metal stent because of a low rate of RBO with no migration.

Effect of endoscopic transpapillary biliary drainage with/without endoscopic sphincterotomy on post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis in patients with biliary stricture (E-BEST): a protocol for a multicentre randomised controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

The effect of endoscopic sphincterotomy prior to endoscopic biliary stenting to prevent post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis remains to be fully elucidated. The aim of this study is to prospectively evaluate the non-inferiority of non-endoscopic sphincterotomy prior to stenting for naïve major duodenal papilla compared with endoscopic sphincterotomy prior to stenting in patients with biliary stricture.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We designed a multicentre randomised controlled trial, for which we will recruit 370 patients with biliary stricture requiring endoscopic biliary stenting from 26 high-volume institutions in Japan. Patients will be randomly allocated to the endoscopic sphincterotomy group or the non-endoscopic sphincterotomy group. The main outcome measure is the incidence of pancreatitis within 2 days of initial transpapillary biliary drainage. Data will be analysed on completion of the study. We will calculate the 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of the incidence of pancreatitis in each group and analyse weather the difference in both groups with 95% CIs is within the non-inferiority margin (6%) using the Wald method.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study has been approved by the institutional review board of Hokkaido University Hospital (IRB: 016-0181). Results will be submitted for presentation at an international medical conference and published in a peer-reviewed journal.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

The University Hospital Medical Information Network ID: UMIN000025727 Pre-results.