Dataset Information

Initial experience of endoscopic ultrasound-guided antegrade covered stent placement with long duodenal extension for malignant distal biliary obstruction (with video).

ABSTRACT:

Background/purpose

This study aimed to evaluate the feasibility of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided antegrade covered stent placement with long duodenal extension (EASL) for malignant distal biliary obstruction (MDBO) with duodenal obstruction (DO) or surgically altered anatomy (SAA) after failed endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP).

Methods

Outcomes were technical and clinical success, reintervention rate, adverse events, stent patency, and overall survival. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) and competing-risk analysis were performed to compare with conventional EUS-BD.

Results

Twenty-five patients (DO, n = 18; SAA, n = 7) were included. The technical and clinical success rates were 96% and 84%, respectively. Reintervention occurred in two patients (8.3%). Adverse events occurred in six patients (24%; two cholangitis, 16%; four mild postprocedural pancreatitis [24% (n = 4/17) in patients with non-pancreatic cancers]). The median patency was 9.4 months, and the overall survival was 2.73 months. After IPTW adjustment, the median patency in the EASL (n = 25) and conventional EUS-BD (n = 29) were 10.1 and 6.5 months, respectively (P = .018).

Conclusions

EASL has acceptable clinical outcomes with a low reintervention rate but higher rate of postprocedural pancreatitis in patients with non-pancreatic cancers. Randomized trials comparing EASL and conventional EUS-BD for MDBO with pancreatic cancers and DO/SAA after failed ERCP are needed to validate our findings.

SUBMITTER: So H

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9290461 | 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.