| Literature DB >> 22496603 |
Ken Ito1, Yoshinori Igarashi, Takahiko Mimura, Yui Kishimoto, Yoshinori Kikuchi, Naoki Okano.
Abstract
Background and Aims. For distal malignant biliary obstruction in cases with short life expectancy, occlusion of plastic stents (PSs) does not usually occur before death, and the application of such a procedure is considered adequate from the viewpoint of cost-effectiveness. Methods and Setting. A new commercially available DLS with side holes, a conventional DLS, and, uncovered self-expanding metal stents (SEMSs) were retrospectively evaluated in patients with jaundice due to unresectable distal malignant biliary obstruction. Results. A total of 64 patients received endoscopic biliary stenting (23 patients with the new DLS, 24 patients with conventional DLS, and 17 patients with uncovered SEMS) from December 2002 to August 2009. Median patency time was found to be 198 days for the new DLS group and 99 days for the conventional DLS group, revealing a significant difference between devices. There was, however, no significant difference in median patency time between the new DLS and the uncovered SEMS (198 days versus 344 days). Conclusion. The new DLS is efficient and safe and may be considered the first choice for unresectable distal malignant obstruction in cases with short life expectancy.Entities:
Year: 2012 PMID: 22496603 PMCID: PMC3310264 DOI: 10.1155/2012/680963
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Diagn Ther Endosc ISSN: 1026-714X
Figure 1DLS with side holes (Olympus Medical Systems, Tokyo, Japan). Two side holes (18-gauge size) on the proximal side of the tip.
Patient characteristics by stent type and laboratory values on admission.
| New DLS | DLS | UMS | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Number | 23 | 24 | 17 |
| Gender (m/f) | 16/7 | 19/5 | 9/8 |
| Age | 68.1 ± 12.8 | 70.9 ± 11.2∗1 | 72.1 ± 11.2∗2 |
| Diagnosis | |||
| Pancreatic cancer | |||
| III | 2 | 4 | 2 |
| IVa | 6 | 6 | 7 |
| IVb | 11 | 11 | 4 |
| Biliary duct cancer | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| Other | 4 | 3 | 2 |
| Unresectable due to: | |||
| Advanced stage | 21 | 20 | 13 |
| Patient age | 0 | 4 | 2 |
| Other | 2 | 0 | 2 |
| Chemotherapy | |||
| + | 16 | 11 | 8 |
| − | 7 | 13 | 9 |
| T-Bil (mg/dL) | 6.8 ± 5.6 | 5.2 ± 4.6∗1 | 6.6 ± 7.4∗2 |
| ALP (IU/L) | 1027 ± 515 | 1296 ± 890∗1 | 1094 ± 910∗2 |
∗1New DLS+ versus DLS n.s. ∗2New DLS versus UMS n.s.
Figure 4Patency period in malignant lower biliary obstruction with new DLS, conventional DLS, and UMS. Significant difference was noted using the new DLS (log-rank test; P = 0.0014).
Figure 5Stent patency in malignant lower biliary obstruction with chemotherapy. Chemotherapy group (a); 245 days for the new DLS group, and 95 days for the conventional DLS group, 344 days for the UMS group (log-rank test; P = 0.0058). Nonchemotherapy group (b); 127 days for the new DLS group, 100 days for the conventional DLS group, and 139 days for the UMS group (log-rank test; P = 0.179).
Incidence of stent malfunction.
| DLS (24) | New DLS (23) | UMS (17) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mean patency time | 74 ± 66 | 160 ± 136∗1 | 196 ± 147∗3 |
| Stent malfunction | 16 | 15∗2 | 7∗3 |
| (%) | (66.6) | (65.2) | (41.1) |
| Ingrowth | 0 | 0 | 4 |
| Overgrowth | 2 | 1 | 0 |
| Sludge | 5 | 3 | 0 |
| Food scraps | 2 | 4 | 1 |
| Impaction (bile duct) | 3 | 3 | 0 |
| Impaction (duodenal wall) | 3 | 1 | 1 |
| Other | 1 | 3 | 1 |
| Complication | 3 | 2∗2 | 0∗3 |
| (%) | (12.5) | (8.7) | (0) |
| Cholecystitis | 2 | 0 | 0 |
| Pancreatitis | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Hemorrhage | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Migration | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| Other | 0 | 1 | 0 |
DLS versus new DLS: ∗1 P < 0.05. ∗2n.s. UMS versus new DLS: 3n.s.
Figure 2ERCP shows malfunctioning DLS migration at 198 days after placement.
Figure 3New DLS flap damage at 97 days after placement.
Risk factors for stent occlusion by univariate analysis.
| HR |
| |
|---|---|---|
| Age (>65 versus 65 years) | 0.951 (0.637–1.419) | 0.507 |
| Gender | 0.910 (0.600–1.380) | 0.427 |
| Pancreatic cancer stage | 1.348 (0.904–2.011) | 0.100 |
| IVb chemotherapy group | 0.945 (0.651–1.370) | 0.483 |
| DLS | 0.938 (0.647–1.359) | 0.476 |
| New DLS | 0.877 (0.609–1.262) | 0.341 |
| UMS | 1.286 (0.789–2.097) | 0.205 |
CI: confidence interval; HR: hazards ratio.