Optimization of biliary drainage in inoperable distal malignant strictures

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.).

Comparison of 6-mm and 10-mm-diameter, fully-covered, self-expandable metallic stents for distal malignant biliary obstruction

Background and study aims For distal malignant biliary obstruction, self-expandable metallic stents (SEMSs) have a larger inner diameter compared to plastic stents, which prolongs time to recurrent biliary obstruction (TRBO), although stent-related complications are still a problem. This study aimed to compare the outcomes between using 10– and 6-mm-diameter fully-covered SEMS (FCSEMS) for distal malignant biliary obstruction.

Patients and methods This single-center, retrospective study included patients with 10-mm or 6-mm-diameter FCSEMS to treat distal malignant biliary obstruction. Clinical success, stent-related adverse events (AEs), cumulative incidence of RBO, factors involved in stent-related AEs, and factors involved in RBO were evaluated.

Results There were 243 eligible cases between October 2017 and December 2021. The cumulative incidence of RBO did not differ significantly between the 10-mm and 6-mm groups. Stent-related AEs occurred in 31.6 % and 11.4 % of patients between the 10-mm and 6-mm groups, respectively (P < 0.01). Pancreatitis occurred in 10.5 % and 3.6 % (P = 0.04) and cholecystitis occurred in 11.8 % and 3.0 % of patients (P = 0.03) in the 10-mm and 6-mm groups, respectively. In multivariate analysis, the 6-mm stent was extracted as a factor linked to a reduced risk of AEs, but not as a risk factor of RBO.

Conclusions The 6-mm-diameter FCSEMS for distal malignant biliary obstruction is a well-balanced stent with a cumulative incidence of RBO compatible to that of the 10-mm-diameter FCSEMS and fewer stent-related AEs.

Does endoscopic sphincterotomy contribute to the prevention of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis after endoscopic biliary stenting for malignant biliary obstruction? A multicenter prospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

There is no consensus on the necessity of endoscopic sphincterotomy (ES) to prevent post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis (PEP) after endoscopic stenting in patients with malignant biliary obstruction. We investigated the incidence of PEP after endoscopic biliary stenting for malignant biliary obstruction with or without ES in a multicenter prospective cohort study.

METHODS

We enrolled 807 patients who underwent endoscopic biliary stenting for malignant biliary obstruction with a native papilla at 36 hospitals between April 2017 and March 2018. The incidence of PEP in patients with or without ES was compared for subgroups based on stent type, placement method, and patient background. Univariate and multivariate analysis was performed to investigate the incidence of PEP in all stenting patients.

RESULTS

Plastic and metal stents (MS) were inserted in 598 and 209 patients, respectively. The incidence of PEP in patients with or without ES was 7.9% and 7.4%, respectively among all stenting patients. The incidences of PEP with or without ES in plastic stent insertion patients, patients with MS insertion, stent insertions across the papilla, stent insertions across the papilla in patients without main pancreatic duct obstruction, and fully covered MS insertions across the papilla were compared. There was no overall significant difference in the incidence of PEP between those with or without ES. Multivariate logistic regression analysis for the incidence of PEP in all stenting patients revealed obstruction of the main pancreatic duct at the pancreatic head and epinephrine spraying on the papilla were significant factors; there was no significant difference in the incidence of PEP between patients with or without ES.

CONCLUSION

Endoscopic sphincterotomy may not contribute to the prevention of PEP after endoscopic biliary stenting for malignant biliary obstruction, even in cases of insertion with a fully covered MS across the papilla.

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.