Risk factors for dysfunction of preoperative endoscopic biliary drainage for malignant hilar biliary obstruction

Endoscopic nasobiliary drainage versus endoscopic biliary stenting for preoperative biliary drainage in patients with malignant hilar biliary obstruction: Propensity score-matched multicenter comparative study

OBJECTIVES

For preoperative biliary drainage (PBD) of malignant hilar biliary obstruction (MHBO), current guidelines recommend endoscopic nasobiliary drainage (ENBD) due to the higher risk of cholangitis after endoscopic biliary stenting (EBS) during the waiting period before surgery. However, few studies have supported this finding. Therefore, we aimed to compare the outcomes of preoperative ENBD and EBS in patients with MHBO.

METHODS

Patients with MHBO who underwent laparotomy for radical surgery after ENBD or EBS were included from retrospectively collected data from 13 centers (January 2014 to December 2018). We performed a 1:1 propensity score matching between the ENBD and EBS groups. These patients were compared for the following: cholangitis and all adverse events (AEs) after endoscopic biliary drainage (EBD) until surgery, time to cholangitis development after EBD, postsurgical AEs, and in-hospital death after surgery.

RESULTS

Of the 414 patients identified, 355 were analyzed in this study (226 for ENBD and 129 for EBS). The matched cohort included 63 patients from each group. The proportion of cholangitis after EBD was similar between the two groups (20.6% vs. 25.4%, P = 0.67), and no significant difference was observed in the time to cholangitis development. The proportions of surgical site infections, bile leaks, and in-hospital mortality rates were similar between the groups.

CONCLUSION

For PBD of MHBO, the proportion of AEs, including cholangitis, after EBD until surgery was similar when either ENBD or EBS was used.

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography drainage for palliation of malignant hilar biliary obstruction — stent-in-stent or side-by-side? A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Biliary drainage, either by the stent-in-stent (SIS) or side-by-side (SBS) technique, is often required when treating a malignant hilar biliary obstruction (MHBO). Both methods differ from each other and have distinct advantages.

AIM

To compare both techniques regarding their efficacy and safety in achieving drainage of MHBO.

METHODS

A comprehensive search of multiple electronic databases (MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, BIREME, Cochrane) was conducted and grey literature from their inception until December 2020 with no restrictions regarding the year of publication or language, since there was at least an abstract in English. The included studies compared SIS and SBS techniques through endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. Outcomes analyzed included technical and clinical success, early and late adverse events (AEs), stent patency, reintervention, and procedure-related mortality.

RESULTS

Four cohort studies and one randomized controlled trial evaluating a total of 250 patients (127 in the SIS group and 123 in the SBS group) were included in this study. There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups concerning the evaluated outcomes, except for stent patency, which was higher in the SIS compared with the SBS technique [mean difference (d) = 33.31; 95% confidence interval: 9.73 to 56.90, I² = 45%, P = 0.006].

CONCLUSION

The SIS method showed superior stent patency when compared to SBS for achieving bilateral drainage in MHBO. Both techniques are equivalent in terms of technical success, clinical success, rates of both early and late AEs, reintervention, and procedure-related mortality.

Comparison of plastic stent versus metal stent in preoperative biliary drainage for pancreatic head cancer with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy

BACKGROUND

While neoadjuvant chemotherapy and chemoradiotherapy (NACRT) for pancreatic head cancer are effective, preoperative endoscopic biliary drainage (EBD) is necessary for managing obstructive jaundice and cholangitis during the preoperative waiting period. Nevertheless, ideal choice of stent type is unclear. We compared plastic stents (PS) and metal stents (MS) in these situations.

METHODS

We retrospectively studied 43 patients who successfully underwent preoperative EBD prior to NACRT for pancreatic head cancer at a single institution. We divided patients into PS (n = 22) and MS (n = 21) groups. The primary outcome was the rate of re-interventional drainage rate before surgery. Secondary outcomes were rates of EBD-associated and postoperative complications and total costs in the pre- and perioperative periods.

RESULTS

The re-intervention rate was significantly greater in the PS group than in the MS group (95% vs 4.8%, respectively, P < 0.05). EBD-associated and postoperative complications were significantly less common in the MS group (P < 0.05). The average total preoperative medical costs were significantly lower in the MS group (PS vs MS: 528,597 vs 395,891 JPY, P = 0.004).

CONCLUSIONS

MS can be the first choice for EBD in patients undergoing NACRT for pancreatic head cancer. MS may be less costly overall.