Secondary uncovered versus fully-covered metal stents for the management of occluded stent in unresectable distal malignant biliary obstruction.

IF 2.2 4区 医学 Q3 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY
Javier Tejedor-Tejada, Aranzazu Alvarez-Alvarez, Jose Manuel Olmos, Ana Cristina González-Bernal, Andrea Jimenez-Jurado, Samuel Robles-Gaitero, Jose M Perez-Pariente
{"title":"Secondary uncovered versus fully-covered metal stents for the management of occluded stent in unresectable distal malignant biliary obstruction.","authors":"Javier Tejedor-Tejada, Aranzazu Alvarez-Alvarez, Jose Manuel Olmos, Ana Cristina González-Bernal, Andrea Jimenez-Jurado, Samuel Robles-Gaitero, Jose M Perez-Pariente","doi":"10.1016/j.gastrohep.2024.502218","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Self-expandable metallic stents (SEMS) have been widely placed for unresectable distal malignant biliary obstruction (UDMBO). However, the dysfunction rate is 19-40% and its treatment is controversial. We aimed asses the efficacy and safety of a secondary biliary stents (uncovered (UC) versus fully-covered (FC) stent) for the management of occluded SEMS.</p><p><strong>Patients and methods: </strong>Between 2015 and June 2023, 41 patients with UDMBO underwent secondary biliary stent placement as \"stent-in-stent\" (20 FCSEMS and 21 UCSEMS). The primary outcomes were technical and clinical success of SEMS placement. Secondary outcomes included adverse events (AEs), patency and survival. Patients were prospectively followed until death or loss of follow-up.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Technical (100% vs 85.5%) and clinical (100% vs 95.2%) success rates were similar in FCSEMS and UCSEMS groups. The median follow-up period was 510 days (range 290-630). The median duration of stent patency of FCSEMS (220 days, IQR 137.5-442.5) was longer than UCSEMS (150 days, IQR 110-362.5) (P=0.395), although stent dysfunction within 6 months was not different between groups. Multivariate analysis indicated that sex (HR=0.909, 0.852-0.970), antitumor treatment (HR=0.248, 0.032-0.441), stent patency (HR=0.992, 0.986-0.998) and clinical success (HR=0.133, 0.026-0.690) were significant factors for overall survival. There were no remarkable differences in AEs.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The placement of additional biliary stent using the stent-in-stent method is an effective and safe rescue treatment for patients with UDMBO and occluded stent. In addition, the use of FCSEMS compared UCSEMS has unclear benefits regarding stent patency and overall survival.</p>","PeriodicalId":12802,"journal":{"name":"Gastroenterologia y hepatologia","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Gastroenterologia y hepatologia","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gastrohep.2024.502218","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Self-expandable metallic stents (SEMS) have been widely placed for unresectable distal malignant biliary obstruction (UDMBO). However, the dysfunction rate is 19-40% and its treatment is controversial. We aimed asses the efficacy and safety of a secondary biliary stents (uncovered (UC) versus fully-covered (FC) stent) for the management of occluded SEMS.

Patients and methods: Between 2015 and June 2023, 41 patients with UDMBO underwent secondary biliary stent placement as "stent-in-stent" (20 FCSEMS and 21 UCSEMS). The primary outcomes were technical and clinical success of SEMS placement. Secondary outcomes included adverse events (AEs), patency and survival. Patients were prospectively followed until death or loss of follow-up.

Results: Technical (100% vs 85.5%) and clinical (100% vs 95.2%) success rates were similar in FCSEMS and UCSEMS groups. The median follow-up period was 510 days (range 290-630). The median duration of stent patency of FCSEMS (220 days, IQR 137.5-442.5) was longer than UCSEMS (150 days, IQR 110-362.5) (P=0.395), although stent dysfunction within 6 months was not different between groups. Multivariate analysis indicated that sex (HR=0.909, 0.852-0.970), antitumor treatment (HR=0.248, 0.032-0.441), stent patency (HR=0.992, 0.986-0.998) and clinical success (HR=0.133, 0.026-0.690) were significant factors for overall survival. There were no remarkable differences in AEs.

Conclusions: The placement of additional biliary stent using the stent-in-stent method is an effective and safe rescue treatment for patients with UDMBO and occluded stent. In addition, the use of FCSEMS compared UCSEMS has unclear benefits regarding stent patency and overall survival.

在治疗无法切除的远端恶性胆道梗阻的闭塞支架时,二次覆盖与全覆盖金属支架的比较。
导言:自膨胀金属支架(SEMS)已被广泛用于治疗不可切除的远端恶性胆道梗阻(UDMBO)。然而,其功能障碍率为 19%-40%,其治疗方法也存在争议。我们旨在评估二次胆道支架(无盖支架(UC)与全覆盖支架(FC))治疗闭塞性 SEMS 的有效性和安全性:2015年至2023年6月期间,41名UDMBO患者接受了 "支架内支架 "二次胆道支架置入术(20例FCSEMS和21例UCSEMS)。主要结果是 SEMS 置入的技术和临床成功率。次要结果包括不良事件(AE)、通畅率和存活率。对患者进行前瞻性随访,直至死亡或失去随访:FCSEMS组和UCSEMS组的技术成功率(100% vs 85.5%)和临床成功率(100% vs 95.2%)相似。中位随访时间为 510 天(290-630 天不等)。FCSEMS 组支架通畅的中位持续时间(220 天,IQR 137.5-442.5)长于 UCSEMS 组(150 天,IQR 110-362.5)(P=0.395),但 6 个月内支架功能障碍在组间无差异。多变量分析表明,性别(HR= 0.909,0.852-0.970)、抗肿瘤治疗(HR= 0.248,0.032-0.441)、支架通畅率(HR= 0.992,0.986-0.998)和临床成功率(HR= 0.133,0.026-0.690)是影响总生存率的重要因素。AEs方面没有明显差异:结论:对于 UDMBO 和支架闭塞患者,采用支架植入法放置额外的胆道支架是一种有效、安全的抢救治疗方法。此外,与 UCSEMS 相比,使用 FCSEMS 在支架通畅率和总生存率方面的优势并不明显。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Gastroenterologia y hepatologia
Gastroenterologia y hepatologia GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY-
CiteScore
1.50
自引率
10.50%
发文量
147
审稿时长
48 days
期刊介绍: Gastroenterology and Hepatology is the first journal to cover the latest advances in pathology of the gastrointestinal tract, liver, pancreas, and bile ducts, making it an indispensable tool for gastroenterologists, hepatologists, internists and general practitioners.
文献相关原料
公司名称 产品信息 采购帮参考价格
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信