Suprapapillary Stent-By-Stent Deployment With Slim-Fully Covered Versus Uncovered Metal Stents for Malignant Hilar Biliary Obstruction: A Multicenter Comparative Study (With Video).

IF 4.7
Tadahisa Inoue, Michihiro Yoshida, Naoaki Yamada, Rena Kitano, Tomoya Kitada, Shun Futagami, Kenta Kachi, Fumihiro Okumura, Itaru Naitoh
{"title":"Suprapapillary Stent-By-Stent Deployment With Slim-Fully Covered Versus Uncovered Metal Stents for Malignant Hilar Biliary Obstruction: A Multicenter Comparative Study (With Video).","authors":"Tadahisa Inoue, Michihiro Yoshida, Naoaki Yamada, Rena Kitano, Tomoya Kitada, Shun Futagami, Kenta Kachi, Fumihiro Okumura, Itaru Naitoh","doi":"10.1111/den.70031","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Bilateral uncovered metal stent (UMS) placement is recommended for unresectable malignant hilar biliary obstructions (MHBO). However, recent improvements in antitumor therapies and patient survival have led to an increasing number of patients outliving UMS patency, necessitating more frequent reinterventions. This study evaluated the efficacy of novel suprapapillary stent-by-stent (SBS) placement using slim fully covered metal stents (FCMS) and compared them with UMS.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A total of 254 patients were included. Technical and clinical success, adverse events (AEs) including recurrent biliary obstruction (RBO), and reintervention were compared between the FCMS and UMS groups. Propensity score matching was performed to adjust for between-group differences.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Technical and clinical success rates and early and late AE rates were not significantly different between the groups. The FCMS group demonstrated a significantly lower RBO incidence rate (32.0% vs. 60.8%; p = 0.005) and a significantly longer time to RBO (median, NA vs. 204 days; p = 0.048). However, in the FCMS group, 4.0% of patients required stent removal because of suspected branch occlusion. The technical success rates of reintervention were 100% and 83.3% in the FCMS and UMS groups (p = 0.147), respectively. Compared to the UMS group, the FCMS group demonstrated a significantly shorter reintervention procedure time (median, 20 vs. 31 min; p = 0.005) and a significantly lower number of reinterventions (p = 0.029) and requirement for repeat reinterventions (p = 0.003).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Suprapapillary slim FCMS SBS placement may be a promising treatment option for patients with unresectable MHBO. However, early and unique events requiring stent removal should be carefully considered.</p>","PeriodicalId":72813,"journal":{"name":"Digestive endoscopy : official journal of the Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Digestive endoscopy : official journal of the Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/den.70031","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Bilateral uncovered metal stent (UMS) placement is recommended for unresectable malignant hilar biliary obstructions (MHBO). However, recent improvements in antitumor therapies and patient survival have led to an increasing number of patients outliving UMS patency, necessitating more frequent reinterventions. This study evaluated the efficacy of novel suprapapillary stent-by-stent (SBS) placement using slim fully covered metal stents (FCMS) and compared them with UMS.

Methods: A total of 254 patients were included. Technical and clinical success, adverse events (AEs) including recurrent biliary obstruction (RBO), and reintervention were compared between the FCMS and UMS groups. Propensity score matching was performed to adjust for between-group differences.

Results: Technical and clinical success rates and early and late AE rates were not significantly different between the groups. The FCMS group demonstrated a significantly lower RBO incidence rate (32.0% vs. 60.8%; p = 0.005) and a significantly longer time to RBO (median, NA vs. 204 days; p = 0.048). However, in the FCMS group, 4.0% of patients required stent removal because of suspected branch occlusion. The technical success rates of reintervention were 100% and 83.3% in the FCMS and UMS groups (p = 0.147), respectively. Compared to the UMS group, the FCMS group demonstrated a significantly shorter reintervention procedure time (median, 20 vs. 31 min; p = 0.005) and a significantly lower number of reinterventions (p = 0.029) and requirement for repeat reinterventions (p = 0.003).

Conclusions: Suprapapillary slim FCMS SBS placement may be a promising treatment option for patients with unresectable MHBO. However, early and unique events requiring stent removal should be carefully considered.

小覆盖金属支架与未覆盖金属支架在恶性肝门胆道梗阻中的应用:多中心对比研究(附视频)。
背景:双侧无盖金属支架(UMS)是不可切除的恶性肝门胆道梗阻(MHBO)的推荐植入术。然而,最近抗肿瘤治疗和患者生存的改善导致越来越多的患者超过了UMS通畅,需要更频繁的再干预。本研究评估了新型冠状动脉支架-支架(SBS)置入的效果,并将其与全覆盖金属支架(FCMS)进行比较。方法:共纳入254例患者。比较FCMS组和UMS组的技术和临床成功、不良事件(ae)(包括复发性胆道梗阻(RBO))和再干预。进行倾向评分匹配以调整组间差异。结果:两组间技术成功率、临床成功率及早期、晚期AE发生率无显著性差异。FCMS组RBO发生率显著降低(32.0% vs. 60.8%, p = 0.005), RBO发生时间显著延长(中位NA vs. 204天,p = 0.048)。然而,在FCMS组中,4.0%的患者因怀疑分支闭塞而需要移除支架。FCMS组和UMS组再干预技术成功率分别为100%和83.3% (p = 0.147)。与UMS组相比,FCMS组的再干预时间显著缩短(中位数20分钟vs. 31分钟;p = 0.005),再干预次数显著减少(p = 0.029),重复再干预的需求显著减少(p = 0.003)。结论:对于无法切除的MHBO患者,在乳头上放置纤细的FCMS SBS可能是一种很有希望的治疗选择。然而,需要移除支架的早期和特殊事件应仔细考虑。
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
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信