S P Shamah1, C G Chapman2, H Haider2, C Liao2, I Waxman2, U D Siddiqui2. 1. Center for Endoscopic Research and Therapeutics (CERT), University of Chicago Medicine, 5700 S. Maryland Avenue, MC 8043, Chicago, IL, 60637, USA. steven.shamah@gmail.com. 2. Center for Endoscopic Research and Therapeutics (CERT), University of Chicago Medicine, 5700 S. Maryland Avenue, MC 8043, Chicago, IL, 60637, USA.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Jaundice is a common initial presentation of malignant biliary stricture. In patients with life expectancies that are greater than 3 months, self-expanding metal stents (SEMS) offer a larger diameter stent with longer patency and fewer complications compared to plastic stents. There have been conflicting results in the published literature as to efficacy and safety between the various SEMS types and diameters. We compared stent coating (PCSEMS vs USEMS) and diameter on clinical outcomes regarding management of malignant biliary obstruction. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted using a database of consecutive patients who underwent an ERCP with biliary SEMS placement (only 8 and 10 mm) between 2009 and 2017. RESULTS: In total, 278 patients who had SEMS at ERCP for malignant biliary obstruction were included (213 PCSEMS vs 65 USEMS). The groups were demographically evenly matched. Clinical success rates and patency duration were not statistically significant between PCSEMS and USEMS (98.1% vs 95.5%, P = 0.36, and 302.5 vs 225.5 days, P = 0.72, respectively). Adverse event rates were similar between both PCSEMS and USEMS with regard to overall adverse events. Stent diameter did not have an impact on overall clinical success (98.9% vs 95.3%, P = 0.11) or patency duration (239 days vs 336 days, P = 0.51). CONCLUSIONS: Our comparison of PCSEMS versus USEMS and 8 mm versus 10 mm showed no difference in clinical efficacy or adverse events between the two SEMS coatings and diameter, illustrating that coating and size do not matter in regard to stent choice, despite prior suggestive data.
INTRODUCTION:Jaundice is a common initial presentation of malignant biliary stricture. In patients with life expectancies that are greater than 3 months, self-expanding metal stents (SEMS) offer a larger diameter stent with longer patency and fewer complications compared to plastic stents. There have been conflicting results in the published literature as to efficacy and safety between the various SEMS types and diameters. We compared stent coating (PCSEMS vs USEMS) and diameter on clinical outcomes regarding management of malignant biliary obstruction. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted using a database of consecutive patients who underwent an ERCP with biliary SEMS placement (only 8 and 10 mm) between 2009 and 2017. RESULTS: In total, 278 patients who had SEMS at ERCP for malignant biliary obstruction were included (213 PCSEMS vs 65 USEMS). The groups were demographically evenly matched. Clinical success rates and patency duration were not statistically significant between PCSEMS and USEMS (98.1% vs 95.5%, P = 0.36, and 302.5 vs 225.5 days, P = 0.72, respectively). Adverse event rates were similar between both PCSEMS and USEMS with regard to overall adverse events. Stent diameter did not have an impact on overall clinical success (98.9% vs 95.3%, P = 0.11) or patency duration (239 days vs 336 days, P = 0.51). CONCLUSIONS: Our comparison of PCSEMS versus USEMS and 8 mm versus 10 mm showed no difference in clinical efficacy or adverse events between the two SEMS coatings and diameter, illustrating that coating and size do not matter in regard to stent choice, despite prior suggestive data.
Authors: Jennifer J Telford; David L Carr-Locke; Todd H Baron; John M Poneros; Brenna C Bounds; Peter B Kelsey; Robert H Schapiro; Christopher S Huang; David R Lichtenstein; Brian C Jacobson; John R Saltzman; Christopher C Thompson; David G Forcione; Christopher J Gostout; William R Brugge Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2010-11 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Eric Kullman; Farshad Frozanpor; Claes Söderlund; Stefan Linder; Per Sandström; Anna Lindhoff-Larsson; Ervin Toth; Gert Lindell; Eduard Jonas; Jacob Freedman; Martin Ljungman; Claes Rudberg; Bo Ohlin; Rebecka Zacharias; Carl-Eric Leijonmarck; Kalev Teder; Anders Ringman; Gunnar Persson; Mehmet Gözen; Olle Eriksson Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2010-11 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Peter B Cotton; Glenn M Eisen; Lars Aabakken; Todd H Baron; Matt M Hutter; Brian C Jacobson; Klaus Mergener; Albert Nemcek; Bret T Petersen; John L Petrini; Irving M Pike; Linda Rabeneck; Joseph Romagnuolo; John J Vargo Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2010-03 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: H Isayama; Y Komatsu; T Tsujino; N Sasahira; K Hirano; N Toda; Y Nakai; N Yamamoto; M Tada; H Yoshida; Y Shiratori; T Kawabe; M Omata Journal: Gut Date: 2004-05 Impact factor: 23.059
Authors: Raj J Shah; Douglas A Howell; David J Desilets; Sunil G Sheth; Willis G Parsons; Patrick Okolo; Glen A Lehman; Stuart Sherman; John Baillie; M Stanley Branch; Douglas Pleskow; Ram Chuttani; John J Bosco Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2003-06 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Burr J Loew; Douglas A Howell; Michael K Sanders; David J Desilets; Paul P Kortan; Gary R May; Raj J Shah; Yang K Chen; Willis G Parsons; Robert H Hawes; Peter B Cotton; Adam A Slivka; Jawad Ahmad; Glen A Lehman; Stuart Sherman; Horst Neuhaus; Brigitte M Schumacher Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2009-05-30 Impact factor: 9.427