Novel antireflux covered metal stent for recurrent occlusion of biliary metal stents: a pilot study

BACKGROUND

Feasibility of antireflux metal stent (ARMS), designed to prevent duodenobiliary reflux, was reported in patients with distal malignant biliary obstruction. In this prospective pilot study, we aimed to evaluate a newly designed ARMS as a reintervention for self-expandable metallic stent (SEMS) occlusion believed to be caused by duodenobiliary reflux.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients with non-resectable distal malignant biliary obstruction were included in whom a prior SEMS was occluded as a result of sludge or food impaction between March 2010 and January 2012 at two Japanese tertiary referral centers. The occluded SEMS were endoscopically removed, if possible, and subsequently replaced by a newly designed ARMS. We evaluated the technical success rate and complications of ARMS and compared the time to occlusion of ARMS with that of prior SEMS.

RESULTS

A total of 13 patients were included. ARMS was successfully placed in all patients in a single procedure. No procedure-related complications were identified. ARMS occlusion occurred in two patients (15%), the causes of which were sludge in one patient and unknown in the other. ARMS migration occurred in four patients (31%). ARMS patency time was significantly longer than that of prior SEMS (median, not available vs 58 days; P = 0.039).

CONCLUSIONS

This newly designed ARMS is a technically feasible, safe, and effective reintervention for SEMS occlusion as a result of sludge or food impaction. An anti-migration mechanism to improve the outcomes of ARMS should be considered.

Estimation and comparison of cumulative incidences of biliary self-expandable metallic stent dysfunction accounting for competing risks

BACKGROUND

Self-expandable metallic stent (SEMS) placement is widely carried out for distal malignant biliary obstruction, and survival analysis is used to evaluate the cumulative incidences of SEMS dysfunction (e.g. the Kaplan-Meier [KM] method and the log-rank test). However, these statistical methods might be inappropriate in the presence of 'competing risks' (here, death without SEMS dysfunction), which affects the probability of experiencing the event of interest (SEMS dysfunction); that is, SEMS dysfunction can no longer be observed after death. A competing risk analysis has rarely been done in studies on SEMS.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We introduced the concept of a competing risk analysis and illustrated its impact on the evaluation of SEMS outcomes using hypothetical and actual data. Our illustrative study included 476 consecutive patients who underwent SEMS placement for unresectable distal malignant biliary obstruction.

RESULTS

A significant difference between cumulative incidences of SEMS dysfunction in male and female patients via theKM method (P = 0.044 by the log-rank test) disappeared after applying a competing risk analysis (P = 0.115 by Gray's test). In contrast, although cumulative incidences of SEMS dysfunction via the KM method were similar with and without chemotherapy (P = 0.647 by the log-rank test), cumulative incidence of SEMS dysfunction in the non-chemotherapy group was shown to be significantly lower (P = 0.031 by Gray's test) in a competing risk analysis.

CONCLUSION

Death as a competing risk event needs to be appropriately considered in estimating a cumulative incidence of SEMS dysfunction, otherwise analytical results may be biased.

Current Status of Endoscopic Biliary Drainage in Patients with Distal Malignant Biliary Obstruction

Distal malignant biliary obstruction is caused by various malignant diseases that require biliary drainage. In patients with operable situations, preoperative biliary drainage is required to control jaundice and cholangitis until surgery. In view of tract seeding, endoscopic biliary drainage is the first choice. Since neoadjuvant therapies are being developed, the time to surgery is increasing, especially in pancreatic cancer cases. Therefore, it requires long stent patency. Recently, preoperative biliary drainage using self-expandable metal stents has been reported as a useful modality to secure long stent patency. In patients with unresectable distal malignant biliary obstruction, self-expandable metal stent is the first choice for maintaining long stent patency. Although there are many comparison studies between a covered and an uncovered self-expandable metal stent, their use is still controversial. Recently, endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage has been performed as an alternative treatment. The clinical success and stent patency are favorable. We should take into consideration that both endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography-guided biliary drainage and endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage have advantages and disadvantages and chose the drainage method depending on the patient’s situation or the expertise of the endoscopist. Here, we discuss the current status of endoscopic biliary drainage in patients with distal malignant biliary obstruction.

One-step versus two-step distal self-expandable metal stent placement: A multicenter prospective randomized trial

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Two methods of transpapillary covered self-expandable metal stent (SEMS) placement are used for distal malignant biliary obstruction (MBO): after initial drainage by plastic stent (two-step method) and without previous drainage (one-step method).

METHODS

In total, 90 patients with unresectable pancreatic cancer and distal MBO were enrolled in this prospective multicenter randomized study and allocated to one-step (n = 45) and two-step (n = 45) groups. The main outcome was the time to recurrent biliary obstruction (TRBO). Secondary outcomes were the rates of early and late adverse events, survival time, the time required for bilirubin level reduction, and cost-effectiveness.

RESULTS

The median TRBO did not differ significantly between the one-step and two-step groups (not available vs 314 days, P = 0.134). SEMS migration occurred significantly more frequently in the two-step group (14.3% vs 0%, P = 0.026). No significant difference was observed between groups in early (7.3% vs 14.3%, P = 0.483) or late (12.2% and 11.9%, P = 1) adverse events other than RBO, survival time (P = 0.104), or the median number of days required to reach a bilirubin level considered to be acceptable for chemotherapy administration (<3 mg/dL; P = 0.881). The total costs of stent placement and reintervention were significantly lower in the one-step SEMS group (3347 vs 5465 US dollars, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The superiority of TRBO with two-step SEMS placement was not demonstrated. One-step SEMS placement might be a promising method from the viewpoints of cost-effectiveness and less invasiveness (UMIN-CTR clinical trial registration number: UMIN000016010).

The efficacy and safety of a duckbill-type anti-reflux metal stent as the initial metal stent for distal malignant biliary obstruction in unresectable pancreatic cancer

Background

The usefulness of duckbill-type anti-reflux metal stent (DMS) in self-expandable metal stent-naïve pancreatic cancer (PC) patients has not been well-studied. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of DMS in such patients.

Methods

We analyzed consecutive patients with unresectable PC who received a covered metal stent (CMS) as the initial self-expandable metal stent at our institution. Technical success, functional success, causes of recurrent biliary obstruction (RBO), time to RBO (TRBO), adverse events (AEs), and reintervention rates were compared between DMS and conventional CMS (c-CMS).

Results

A total of 69 patients were included (DMS: 28, c-CMS: 41). Technical success, functional success, and AEs were similar between groups. Tumor ingrowth was more common in the DMS group (18% vs. 0%, p = 0.009), while non-occlusion cholangitis tended to be more common in the c-CMS group (0% vs. 15%, p = 0.074). Median time to RBO was similar between groups (276 vs. 273 days, p = 0.915). The anti-reflux valve of DMS was found torn in 56% of patients. Endoscopic reintervention was successful in all cases, despite failed stent removal in 88% of patients in the DMS group.

Conclusions

DMS was not associated with longer time to RBO compared to c-CMS in self-expandable metal stent-naïve patients.

Re-intervention with 10-mm vs 12-mm covered self-expandable metallic stent for recurrent unresectable distal biliary obstruction in patients with previous stent implantation

BACKGROUND

Treatment for unresectable distal malignant biliary obstruction (DMBO) involves placing a 10-mm covered self-expandable metallic stent (CSEMS). In recurrent biliary obstruction (RBO), replacement of the CSEMS is recommended; however, the appropriate stent type remains unknown. We speculated that large-bore CSEMSs would provide longer patency. We compared the efficacy of 10-mm and 12-mm CSEMS in patients with RBO.

METHODS

We retrospectively retrieved data on patients who underwent CSEMS replacement from the endoscopic database. We investigated the time to RBO (TRBO) after CSEMS replacement. The hazard ratio (HR) for the the second TRBO was estimated using the Cox proportional hazard model. The estimated median second TRBO was determined using the Kaplan-Meier method.

RESULTS

Among the 493 patients with DMBOs treated with 10-mm CSEMS, 48 and 29 patients underwent re-intervention with 10-mm and 12-mm CSEMS, respectively. The use of 12-mm CSEMS was inversely associated with second TRBO (multivariable-adjusted HR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.39-0.98; P = .042). The estimated median second TRBO was greater with the 12 mm CSEMS than with the 10 mm variety (562 days vs 207 days; P = .019).

CONCLUSION

The second intervention with 12-mm CSEMS was associated with a longer TRBO.

Same versus separate sessions of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography for distal malignant biliary obstruction: a propensity score-matched study

BACKGROUND

Same-session endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is an attractive policy for patients with distal malignant biliary obstruction (DMBO) requiring fine-needle biopsy (FNB) and biliary drainage. However, scanty and conflicting data exists regarding safety and efficacy when comparing these two procedures performed in same versus separate sessions.

METHODS

Single-center, retrospective, propensity score-matched study including patients with DMBO who underwent EUS-FNB followed by ERCP during the same or separate sessions. The primary outcome was the safety of the procedure [number of patients experiencing adverse events (AEs), overall AEs, its severity, post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP)]. Secondary outcomes were successful ERCP, use of advanced cannulation techniques, EUS-FNB adequacy, length of hospital stay, overall procedure time, and time to recurrent biliary obstruction.

RESULTS

After propensity matching, 87 patients were allocated to each group. AEs developed in 23 (26.4%) vs. 17 (19.5%) patients in the same and separate sessions group, respectively (p = 0.280). The overall number, the severity of AEs, and the rate of PEP were similar in the two groups. Secondary outcome parameters were also comparable in the 2 groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Same-session EUS-FNB followed by ERCP with biliary drainage is safe and does not impair technical outcomes of tissue adequacy and biliary cannulation.

Outcomes of 6-mm diameter fully covered self-expandable metal stents for preoperative biliary drainage in pancreatic cancer

Background

10-mm self-expandable metal stents (SEMSs) are commonly used for preoperative biliary drainage in pancreatic cancer. However, smaller diameter SEMSs have attracted attention with the attempt to reduce stent-related adverse events (AEs).

Methods

We retrospectively analyzed consecutive borderline resectable pancreatic cancer patients who underwent neoadjuvant therapy and fully covered SEMS (FCSEMS) placement from April 2015 to May 2023. The primary outcome was stent-related non-event rate (NER), which was defined as the rate of completion of surgery without developing any preoperative events (recurrent biliary obstruction [RBO] or stent-related AEs). Secondary outcomes included stent-related AEs, causes of RBO, and cumulative incidence of RBO. Risk factors for pancreatitis, RBO, and stent migration were also examined.

Results

A total of 76 patients were included (6-mm group: 23; 10-mm group: 53). Stent-related NER (57% vs. 64%, p = 0.610), stent-related AEs (4% vs. 15%, p = 0.263), overall RBO rates (39% vs. 23%, p = 0.168), cumulative incidence of RBO (hazard ratio, 2.24; 95% confidence interval, 0.95-5.25; p = 0.065) were not significantly different between the two groups. Tumor involvement of the pancreatic duct was identified as a risk-reducing factor for pancreatitis, while an FCSEMS diameter of 6 mm was not identified as a risk factor for RBO and stent migration.

Conclusions

Stent-related NER was not significantly affected by FCSEMS diameter. Further studies are needed to confirm the usefulness of 6-mm diameter FCSEMS for preoperative biliary drainage in patients with borderline resectable pancreatic cancer.

Safety of biliary drainage with 6-mm metallic stent for preoperative obstructive jaundice in pancreatic cancer: PURPLE SIX STUDY

BACKGROUND AND AIM

The 10-mm self-expandable metal stent (SEMS) is the standard for endoscopic transpapillary biliary drainage before pancreatic cancer surgery. However, the efficacy of stents thinner than 10 mm has not been adequately validated. Therefore, we aimed to evaluate the safety of a 6-mm fully covered SEMS (FCSEMS) for distal malignant biliary obstruction (DMBO) during preoperative chemotherapy for pancreatic cancer.

METHODS

This was a single-arm, multicenter, prospective phase II study of endoscopic transpapillary initial biliary drainage for DMBO before pancreatic cancer surgery. The primary endpoint was stent-related adverse events, and the key secondary endpoint was the non-recurrent biliary obstruction (non-RBO) rate during the observation period for both resectable (R) and borderline resectable (BR) pancreatic cancers.

RESULTS

The study enrolled 33 patients, among whom 32 received the study treatment. There were 23 and 9 cases of R and BR pancreatic cancers, respectively. The technical and clinical success rates were 97.0% and 90.1%, respectively. The stent-related adverse event rate was 3.1% (n = 1, acute pancreatitis) (95% confidential interval, 0.00-16.2), which met the criteria to be considered safe. The overall non-RBO rate during the observation period (median 96 days) was 78.1% (82.6% and 66.7% for R and BR pancreatic cancer cases, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

The 6-mm FCSEMS is an extremely safe metallic stent with a low stent-related adverse event rate of 3.1% for preoperative biliary drainage in pancreatic cancer. It is considered the optimal stent for preoperative biliary drainage in terms of the non-RBO rate. UMIN Clinical Trial Registry (UMIN-CTR 000041704).

Efficacy and safety of a novel polytetrafluoroethylene-coated self-expandable metal stent for distal malignant biliary obstruction

Background

Stent migration and sludge formation remain significant problems associated with covered self-expandable metal stents (CSEMSs). The EGIS biliary stent fully covered flare type (EGIS biliary stent), a new type of polytetrafluoroethylene-coated self-expandable metal stent with low axial force and an anti-migration system, was developed to overcome these disadvantages. We conducted this study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of this stent in comparison with conventional CSEMS (c-CSEMS).

Methods

We retrospectively analyzed consecutive patients with unresectable pancreatic cancer who received initial CSEMS for distal malignant biliary obstruction. The primary outcome was time to recurrent biliary obstruction (RBO). Secondary outcomes included technical success rate, functional success rate, stent-related adverse events, causes of RBO, and re-intervention.

Results

A total of 40 patients were included (EGIS group: 20; c-CSEMS group: 20). The technical and functional success rates were similar between the two groups. Stent-related adverse event rates (20% vs. 15%, p > 0.99) and overall RBO rates (56% vs. 50%, p > 0.99) were not significantly different between the two groups. Stent migration was the most common cause of RBO in the EGIS group, while stent occlusion was in the c-CSEMS group. The median time to RBO (102 vs. 434 days, p = 0.10) was not significantly different between the two groups. Endoscopic transpapillary re-intervention was successful in most patients in both groups.

Conclusions

The EGIS biliary stent was not associated with a longer time to RBO compared to c-CSEMS. Further improvements, especially against stent migration, are needed to improve its efficacy.