Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography-guided Biliary Drainage with Duckbill-type Anti-reflux Metal Stent versus Endoscopic Ultrasound-guided Hepaticogastrostomy for Malignant Distal Biliary Obstruction in Pancreatic Cancer with Duodenal Invasion

IF 1.4 Q4 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY
DEN open Pub Date : 2025-06-06 DOI:10.1002/deo2.70154
Tsuyoshi Takeda, Takashi Sasaki, Tatsuki Hirai, Yoichiro Sato, Yuri Maegawa, Takafumi Mie, Takaaki Furukawa, Yukari Suzuki, Takeshi Okamoto, Masato Ozaka, Naoki Sasahira
{"title":"Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography-guided Biliary Drainage with Duckbill-type Anti-reflux Metal Stent versus Endoscopic Ultrasound-guided Hepaticogastrostomy for Malignant Distal Biliary Obstruction in Pancreatic Cancer with Duodenal Invasion","authors":"Tsuyoshi Takeda,&nbsp;Takashi Sasaki,&nbsp;Tatsuki Hirai,&nbsp;Yoichiro Sato,&nbsp;Yuri Maegawa,&nbsp;Takafumi Mie,&nbsp;Takaaki Furukawa,&nbsp;Yukari Suzuki,&nbsp;Takeshi Okamoto,&nbsp;Masato Ozaka,&nbsp;Naoki Sasahira","doi":"10.1002/deo2.70154","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>Duodenal invasion is a risk factor for early recurrent biliary obstruction (RBO) due to the increased risk of duodenobiliary reflux. Transpapillary biliary drainage using anti-reflux metal stents (ARMS) and endoscopic ultrasound-guided hepaticogastrostomy (EUS-HGS) are two different strategies for this condition.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>We retrospectively reviewed unresectable pancreatic cancer (PC) patients with duodenal invasion who underwent either transpapillary biliary drainage using duckbill-type ARMS (D-ARMS) or EUS-HGS for malignant distal biliary obstruction (MDBO). Technical and clinical success, causes of RBO, non-RBO adverse events (AEs), time to RBO (TRBO), and endoscopic reintervention (ERI) were compared between groups.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Forty-four patients were included (D-ARMS: 22, EUS-HGS: 22). Technical and clinical success rates, and non-RBO AE rates (9.1% vs. 36.4%, <i>p</i> = 0.069) were not significantly different between groups. Common causes of RBO were biliary debris/stones in the D-ARMS group and hyperplasia in the EUS-HGS group. Overall RBO rates (33.3% vs. 45.0%, <i>p</i> = 0.53), median TRBO (246 vs. 222 days, <i>p</i> = 0.98), and outcomes after ERI were comparable between groups.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>Transpapillary biliary drainage using D-ARMS may be a viable option in managing MDBO with duodenal invasion, especially for non-high-volume centers, when both procedures are technically feasible.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":93973,"journal":{"name":"DEN open","volume":"6 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/deo2.70154","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"DEN open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/deo2.70154","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Duodenal invasion is a risk factor for early recurrent biliary obstruction (RBO) due to the increased risk of duodenobiliary reflux. Transpapillary biliary drainage using anti-reflux metal stents (ARMS) and endoscopic ultrasound-guided hepaticogastrostomy (EUS-HGS) are two different strategies for this condition.

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed unresectable pancreatic cancer (PC) patients with duodenal invasion who underwent either transpapillary biliary drainage using duckbill-type ARMS (D-ARMS) or EUS-HGS for malignant distal biliary obstruction (MDBO). Technical and clinical success, causes of RBO, non-RBO adverse events (AEs), time to RBO (TRBO), and endoscopic reintervention (ERI) were compared between groups.

Results

Forty-four patients were included (D-ARMS: 22, EUS-HGS: 22). Technical and clinical success rates, and non-RBO AE rates (9.1% vs. 36.4%, p = 0.069) were not significantly different between groups. Common causes of RBO were biliary debris/stones in the D-ARMS group and hyperplasia in the EUS-HGS group. Overall RBO rates (33.3% vs. 45.0%, p = 0.53), median TRBO (246 vs. 222 days, p = 0.98), and outcomes after ERI were comparable between groups.

Conclusions

Transpapillary biliary drainage using D-ARMS may be a viable option in managing MDBO with duodenal invasion, especially for non-high-volume centers, when both procedures are technically feasible.

内镜下逆行胆管造影引导下胆道引流鸭嘴型抗反流金属支架与内镜下超声引导下肝胃造口术治疗侵犯十二指肠的胰腺癌恶性胆道远端梗阻的比较
背景十二指肠侵犯是早期复发性胆道梗阻(RBO)的危险因素,因为十二指肠胆道反流的风险增加。采用抗反流金属支架(ARMS)和超声内镜引导下肝胃造口术(EUS-HGS)的经乳头胆道引流是治疗这种疾病的两种不同策略。方法回顾性分析不可切除的胰腺癌(PC)十二指肠侵犯患者,采用鸭嘴型ARMS (D-ARMS)或EUS-HGS行经乳头胆道引流治疗恶性胆道远端梗阻(MDBO)。比较两组之间的技术和临床成功率、RBO原因、非RBO不良事件(ae)、RBO时间(TRBO)和内镜再干预(ERI)。结果纳入44例患者(D-ARMS: 22例,EUS-HGS: 22例)。技术和临床成功率、非rbo AE发生率(9.1% vs 36.4%, p = 0.069)组间无显著差异。RBO的常见原因是D-ARMS组的胆道碎片/结石和EUS-HGS组的增生。总RBO率(33.3% vs. 45.0%, p = 0.53)、中位TRBO (246 vs. 222天,p = 0.98)和ERI后的结果在两组之间具有可比性。结论经乳头胆道引流采用D-ARMS可能是治疗合并十二指肠侵犯的MDBO的可行选择,特别是在非大容量中心,当两种方法在技术上可行时。
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
CiteScore
1.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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