Dataset Information

Extrabiliary applications of fully covered antimigration biliary metal stents.

ABSTRACT:

Background and aims

Endoscopic stent placement in luminal GI strictures is not always feasible with traditional stents. For example, standard luminal stent delivery catheters may not successfully traverse severe strictures, and enteral stents may not be suitable for sites in the GI tract that pose significant adverse events if downstream migration were to occur. We demonstrate extrabiliary applications of specialized, fully covered antimigration biliary metal stents.

Methods

This is a retrospective series of 4 patients with different benign and malignant luminal GI strictures who underwent placement of fully covered antimigration biliary metal stents in different configurations as a bridge or destination therapy.

Results

Luminal obstruction resolved without adverse events in all cases.

Conclusions

Although off label, extrabiliary use of these stents can successfully address scenarios of complex luminal pathology. To compensate for the small stent caliber, two stents may be placed side by side in a double-barrel configuration. Strict diet modifications are necessary when applying this therapeutic paradigm.

SUBMITTER: Bazerbachi F

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7483763 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:AimTo compare the efficacy of using covered self-expandable metal stents (CSEMSs) and uncovered self-expandable metal stents (UCSEMSs) to treat objective jaundice caused by an unresectable malignant tumor.MethodsWe performed a comprehensive electronic search from 1980 to May 2015. All randomized controlled trials comparing the use of CSEMSs and UCSEMSs to treat malignant distal biliary obstruction were included.ResultsThe analysis included 1417 patients enrolled in 14 trials. We did not detect significant differences between the UCSEMS group and the CSEMS group in terms of cumulative stent patency (hazard ratio (HR) 0.93, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.19-4.53; p = 0.93, I2 = 0%), patient survival (HR 0.77, 95% CI 0.05-10.87; p = 0.85, I2 = 0%), overall stent dysfunction (relative ratio (RR) 0.85, M-H, random, 95% CI 0.57-1.25; p = 0.83, I2 = 63%), the overall complication rate (RR 1.26, M-H, fixed, 95% CI 0.94-1.68; p = 0.12, I2 = 0%) or the change in serum bilirubin (weighted mean difference (WMD) -0.13, IV fixed, 95% CI 0.56-0.3; p = 0.55, I2 = 0%). However, we did detect a significant difference in the main causes of stent dysfunction between the two groups. In particular, the CSEMS group exhibited a lower rate of tumor ingrowth (RR 0.25, M-H, random, 95% CI 0.12-0.52; p = 0.002, I2 = 40%) but a higher rate of tumor overgrowth (RR 1.76, M-H, fixed, 95% CI 1.03-3.02; p = 0.04, I2 = 0%). Patients with CSEMSs also exhibited a higher migration rate (RR 9.33, M-H, fixed, 95% CI 2.54-34.24; p = 0.008, I2 = 0%) and a higher rate of sludge formation (RR 2.47, M-H, fixed, 95% CI 1.36-4.50; p = 0.003, I2 = 0%).ConclusionsOur meta-analysis indicates that there is no significant difference in primary stent patency and stent dysfunction between CSEMSs and UCSEMSs during the period from primary stent insertion to primary stent dysfunction or patient death. However, when taking further management for occluded stents into consideration, CSEMSs is a better choice for patients with malignant biliary obstruction due to their removability.

Project description:Endoscopic placement of multiple plastic stents in parallel is the first-line treatment for most benign biliary strictures; it is possible that fully covered, self-expandable metallic stents (cSEMS) may require fewer endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography procedures (ERCPs) to achieve resolution.To assess whether use of cSEMS is noninferior to plastic stents with respect to stricture resolution.Multicenter (8 endoscopic referral centers), open-label, parallel, randomized clinical trial involving patients with treatment-naive, benign biliary strictures (N?=?112) due to orthotopic liver transplant (n?=?73), chronic pancreatitis (n?=?35), or postoperative injury (n?=?4), who were enrolled between April 2011 and September 2014 (with follow-up ending October 2015). Patients with a bile duct diameter less than 6 mm and those with an intact gallbladder in whom the cystic duct would be overlapped by a cSEMS were excluded.Patients (N?=?112) were randomized to receive multiple plastic stents or a single cSEMS, stratified by stricture etiology and with endoscopic reassessment for resolution every 3 months (plastic stents) or every 6 months (cSEMS). Patients were followed up for 12 months after stricture resolution to assess for recurrence.Primary outcome was stricture resolution after no more than 12 months of endoscopic therapy. The sample size was estimated based on the noninferiority of cSEMS to plastic stents, with a noninferiority margin of -15%.There were 55 patients in the plastic stent group (mean [SD] age, 57 [11] years; 17 women [31%]) and 57 patients in the cSEMS group (mean [SD] age, 55 [10] years; 19 women [33%]). Compared with plastic stents (41/48, 85.4%), the cSEMS resolution rate was 50 of 54 patients (92.6%), with a rate difference of 7.2% (1-sided 95% CI, -3.0% to ?; P?<?.001). Given the prespecified noninferiority margin of -15%, the null hypothesis that cSEMS is less effective than plastic stents was rejected. The mean number of ERCPs to achieve resolution was lower for cSEMS (2.14) vs plastic (3.24; mean difference, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.74 to 1.46; P?<?.001).Among patients with benign biliary strictures and a bile duct diameter 6 mm or more in whom the covered metallic stent would not overlap the cystic duct, cSEMS were not inferior to multiple plastic stents after 12 months in achieving stricture resolution. Metallic stents should be considered an appropriate option in patients such as these.clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01221311.