Sunguk Jang1, Tyler Stevens2, Mansour A Parsi3, Amit Bhatt2, Adam Kichler4, John J Vargo2. 1. Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio. Electronic address: jangs@ccf.org. 2. Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio. 3. Department of Gastroenterology, Tulane University, New Orleans, Louisiana. 4. Division of Gastroenterology, Geisinger Medicine Institute, Danville, Pennsylvania.
Abstract
BACKGROUND & AIMS: Treatment of malignant biliary strictures with endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) guided stent placement is highly effective. Our objective was to compare the efficacy and adverse outcomes between plastic stents (PS) and self-expandable metallic stents (SEMS). METHODS: A cohort study was performed of all consecutive patients who underwent ERCP with stent placement for the management of malignant biliary stricture. Comparisons on clinical success, patency duration, stent dysfunction, unplanned reintervention and adverse outcomes were performed. Univariate and multivariable analyses were performed to identify factors associated with clinical success, need for reintervention, and stent dysfunction. RESULTS: From 2012 to 2019, 1139 patients underwent ERCP with PS placement while 1008 patients received SEMS for the management of malignant biliary stricture. In distal strictures, SEMS reported a significantly higher rate of clinical success compared with PS (94.1% vs 87.4%, P < 0.001) and a lower rate of unplanned reintervention (17.1% vs 27.4%, P < 0.001). In hilar strictures, the rates of clinical success and unplanned intervention were comparable. The patency duration and time to unplanned reintervention were significantly longer with SEMS than PS, irrespective of stricture location. In distal stricture, PS was associated with a significantly higher rate of cholangitis than SEMS (6.9% vs 2.4%; P < .001) but a lower rate of pancreatitis (3.6% vs 6%; P = 0.021). CONCLUSION: Given superior efficacy, durability and lower rates of cholangitis, SEMS should be offered as the first line endoscopic treatment option for malignant distal biliary stricture. For malignant hilar stricture, SEMS is an attractive alternative to PS in some cases by offering a comparable efficacy with a superior durability.
BACKGROUND & AIMS: Treatment of malignant biliary strictures with endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) guided stent placement is highly effective. Our objective was to compare the efficacy and adverse outcomes between plastic stents (PS) and self-expandable metallic stents (SEMS). METHODS: A cohort study was performed of all consecutive patients who underwent ERCP with stent placement for the management of malignant biliary stricture. Comparisons on clinical success, patency duration, stent dysfunction, unplanned reintervention and adverse outcomes were performed. Univariate and multivariable analyses were performed to identify factors associated with clinical success, need for reintervention, and stent dysfunction. RESULTS: From 2012 to 2019, 1139 patients underwent ERCP with PS placement while 1008 patients received SEMS for the management of malignant biliary stricture. In distal strictures, SEMS reported a significantly higher rate of clinical success compared with PS (94.1% vs 87.4%, P < 0.001) and a lower rate of unplanned reintervention (17.1% vs 27.4%, P < 0.001). In hilar strictures, the rates of clinical success and unplanned intervention were comparable. The patency duration and time to unplanned reintervention were significantly longer with SEMS than PS, irrespective of stricture location. In distal stricture, PS was associated with a significantly higher rate of cholangitis than SEMS (6.9% vs 2.4%; P < .001) but a lower rate of pancreatitis (3.6% vs 6%; P = 0.021). CONCLUSION: Given superior efficacy, durability and lower rates of cholangitis, SEMS should be offered as the first line endoscopic treatment option for malignant distal biliary stricture. For malignant hilar stricture, SEMS is an attractive alternative to PS in some cases by offering a comparable efficacy with a superior durability.
Authors: David M de Jong; Jeska A Fritzsche; Amber S Audhoe; Suzanne S L Yi; Marco J Bruno; Rogier P Voermans; Lydi M J W van Driel Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2022-04-21 Impact factor: 6.639