Combined biliary obstruction and gastric outlet obstruction management: comparison of various strategies of biliary stenting and duodenal derivation in terms of reintervention risk: an expert single-center experience.

IF 1.7 4区 医学 Q3 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY
Jean-Michel Gonzalez, Ivann Bouteiller, Diane Lorenzo, Mohamed Gasmi, Marc Barthet
{"title":"Combined biliary obstruction and gastric outlet obstruction management: comparison of various strategies of biliary stenting and duodenal derivation in terms of reintervention risk: an expert single-center experience.","authors":"Jean-Michel Gonzalez, Ivann Bouteiller, Diane Lorenzo, Mohamed Gasmi, Marc Barthet","doi":"10.1080/00365521.2025.2537895","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Double malignant biliary and duodenal obstruction is a frequent and debilitating complication of advanced biliopancreatic cancers. Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided biliary and enteric drainage techniques have emerged as alternatives to ERCP and duodenal stenting (DS), but optimal therapeutic sequencing remains unclear.</p><p><strong>Patients and methods: </strong>We conducted a retrospective monocentric study including 34 patients treated for DMBO-DDO between February 2015 and December 2023. Inclusion required histologically confirmed tumors with both distal malignant biliary obstruction (DMBO) and high-grade gastric outlet obstruction (GOO). Treatment sequences were guided by the first symptom and validated by a multidisciplinary team. The primary endpoint was biliary reintervention rate according to different therapeutic combinations. Secondary endpoints included technical and clinical success, adverse events, and global reintervention rates.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Mean patient age was 75 years, with pancreatic adenocarcinoma being the most common (58.8%). ERCP was the first procedure in 67.6% of cases. Technical success was 100% for all biliary interventions. The overall biliary reintervention rate was 52.9%, significantly higher in ERCP-based strategies (up to 77.8%) compared to EUS-guided approaches (18.2%-40%; <i>p</i> = 0.03). Lower initial bilirubin levels (<150 μmol/L) were also associated with increased reintervention rates (77.2% vs. 23.5%; <i>p</i> = 0.019). Complication rates were low (4.4% for grade ≥ III).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>ERCP-first strategies for DMBO in the association of GOO showed significantly higher biliary reintervention rates compared to EUS-guided approaches. These findings suggest that EUS-based drainage should be favored in selected patients. Prospective multicenter studies are needed to refine treatment algorithms and confirm predictive factors for reintervention.</p>","PeriodicalId":21461,"journal":{"name":"Scandinavian Journal of Gastroenterology","volume":" ","pages":"958-965"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Scandinavian Journal of Gastroenterology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00365521.2025.2537895","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/8/21 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Double malignant biliary and duodenal obstruction is a frequent and debilitating complication of advanced biliopancreatic cancers. Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided biliary and enteric drainage techniques have emerged as alternatives to ERCP and duodenal stenting (DS), but optimal therapeutic sequencing remains unclear.

Patients and methods: We conducted a retrospective monocentric study including 34 patients treated for DMBO-DDO between February 2015 and December 2023. Inclusion required histologically confirmed tumors with both distal malignant biliary obstruction (DMBO) and high-grade gastric outlet obstruction (GOO). Treatment sequences were guided by the first symptom and validated by a multidisciplinary team. The primary endpoint was biliary reintervention rate according to different therapeutic combinations. Secondary endpoints included technical and clinical success, adverse events, and global reintervention rates.

Results: Mean patient age was 75 years, with pancreatic adenocarcinoma being the most common (58.8%). ERCP was the first procedure in 67.6% of cases. Technical success was 100% for all biliary interventions. The overall biliary reintervention rate was 52.9%, significantly higher in ERCP-based strategies (up to 77.8%) compared to EUS-guided approaches (18.2%-40%; p = 0.03). Lower initial bilirubin levels (<150 μmol/L) were also associated with increased reintervention rates (77.2% vs. 23.5%; p = 0.019). Complication rates were low (4.4% for grade ≥ III).

Conclusions: ERCP-first strategies for DMBO in the association of GOO showed significantly higher biliary reintervention rates compared to EUS-guided approaches. These findings suggest that EUS-based drainage should be favored in selected patients. Prospective multicenter studies are needed to refine treatment algorithms and confirm predictive factors for reintervention.

胆道梗阻和胃出口梗阻联合治疗:胆道支架置入术和十二指肠衍生术在再干预风险方面的比较:专家单中心经验。
背景:胆道和十二指肠双恶性梗阻是晚期胆道胰腺癌的常见并发症。超声内镜(EUS)引导下的胆道和肠内引流技术已成为ERCP和十二指肠支架置入(DS)的替代方案,但最佳治疗顺序尚不清楚。患者和方法:我们进行了一项回顾性单中心研究,包括2015年2月至2023年12月期间接受dbo - ddo治疗的34例患者。纳入需要组织学证实的肿瘤同时伴有远端恶性胆道梗阻(DMBO)和高度胃出口梗阻(GOO)。治疗顺序以第一症状为指导,并由多学科团队进行验证。主要终点是不同治疗组合的胆道再干预率。次要终点包括技术和临床成功、不良事件和全球再干预率。结果:患者平均年龄75岁,以胰腺腺癌最常见(58.8%)。在67.6%的病例中,ERCP是首选手术。所有胆道干预的技术成功率为100%。总体胆道再干预率为52.9%,基于ercp的策略(高达77.8%)明显高于eus引导的方法(18.2%-40%;p = 0.03)。初始胆红素水平降低(p = 0.019)。并发症发生率低(≥III级为4.4%)。结论:与eus引导的方法相比,ercp优先策略在粘连的DMBO中显示出显着更高的胆道再干预率。这些发现表明,在选定的患者中,应优先采用基于eus的引流。需要前瞻性的多中心研究来完善治疗算法并确认再干预的预测因素。
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
3.40
自引率
5.30%
发文量
222
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The Scandinavian Journal of Gastroenterology is one of the most important journals for international medical research in gastroenterology and hepatology with international contributors, Editorial Board, and distribution
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信