Covered metal stenting for malignant lower biliary stricture with pancreatic duct obstruction: is endoscopic sphincterotomy needed? Gastroenterol Res Pract. 2013;2013:375613. [PMID: 24324486 PMCID: PMC3845734 DOI: 10.1155/2013/375613]

Endoscopic sphincterotomy to prevent post-ERCP pancreatitis after self-expandable metal stent placement for distal malignant biliary obstruction (SPHINX): a multicentre, randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) with fully covered self-expandable metal stent (FCSEMS) placement is the preferred approach for biliary drainage in patients with suspected distal malignant biliary obstruction (MBO). However, FCSEMS placement is associated with a high risk of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP). Endoscopic sphincterotomy prior to FCSEMS placement may reduce PEP risk.

OBJECTIVE

To compare endoscopic sphincterotomy to no sphincterotomy prior to FCSEMS placement.

DESIGN

This multicentre, randomised, superiority trial was conducted in 17 hospitals and included patients with suspected distal MBO. Patients were randomised during ERCP to receive either endoscopic sphincterotomy (sphincterotomy group) or no sphincterotomy (control group) prior to FCSEMS placement. The primary outcome was PEP within 30 days. Secondary outcomes included procedure-related complications and 30-day mortality. An interim analysis was performed after 50% of patients (n=259) had completed follow-up.

RESULTS

Between May 2016 and June 2023, 297 patients were included in the intention-to-treat analysis, with 156 in the sphincterotomy group and 141 in the control group. After the interim analysis, the study was terminated prematurely due to futility. PEP did not differ between groups, occurring in 26 patients (17%) in the sphincterotomy group compared with 30 patients (21%) in the control group (relative risk 0.78, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.26, p=0.37). There were no significant differences in bleeding, perforation, cholangitis, cholecystitis or 30-day mortality.

CONCLUSION

This trial found that endoscopic sphincterotomy was not superior to no sphincterotomy in reducing PEP in patients with distal MBO. Therefore, there was insufficient evidence to recommend routine endoscopic sphincterotomy prior to FCEMS placement.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NL5130.

Efficacy and complications of inoperable malignant distal biliary obstruction treatment by metallic stents: fully covered or uncovered?

Obstructive jaundice caused by malignant distal biliary obstruction is a common clinical symptom in patients with inoperable biliary-pancreatic cancer. Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP)-guided stent implantation is an effective treatment for obstructive jaundice. Internal stent drainage is more physiologic and associated with a better quality of life than external stent drainage methods such as percutaneous transhepatic gallbladder drainage or percutaneous transhepatic cholangiodrainage. Self-expanding metallic stents, which may be covered and uncovered, are commonly used. However, some uncertainties remain regarding the selection of metallic stents, including drainage patency time, clinical effect, stent migration, and post-operative complications such as pancreatitis, bleeding, and cholecystitis. This review aims to summarize the current progress and controversies surrounding the use of covered or uncovered metallic stents in inoperable common biliary obstruction via ERCP.

Does endoscopic sphincterotomy contribute to the prevention of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis after endoscopic biliary stenting for malignant biliary obstruction? A multicenter prospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

There is no consensus on the necessity of endoscopic sphincterotomy (ES) to prevent post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis (PEP) after endoscopic stenting in patients with malignant biliary obstruction. We investigated the incidence of PEP after endoscopic biliary stenting for malignant biliary obstruction with or without ES in a multicenter prospective cohort study.

METHODS

We enrolled 807 patients who underwent endoscopic biliary stenting for malignant biliary obstruction with a native papilla at 36 hospitals between April 2017 and March 2018. The incidence of PEP in patients with or without ES was compared for subgroups based on stent type, placement method, and patient background. Univariate and multivariate analysis was performed to investigate the incidence of PEP in all stenting patients.

RESULTS

Plastic and metal stents (MS) were inserted in 598 and 209 patients, respectively. The incidence of PEP in patients with or without ES was 7.9% and 7.4%, respectively among all stenting patients. The incidences of PEP with or without ES in plastic stent insertion patients, patients with MS insertion, stent insertions across the papilla, stent insertions across the papilla in patients without main pancreatic duct obstruction, and fully covered MS insertions across the papilla were compared. There was no overall significant difference in the incidence of PEP between those with or without ES. Multivariate logistic regression analysis for the incidence of PEP in all stenting patients revealed obstruction of the main pancreatic duct at the pancreatic head and epinephrine spraying on the papilla were significant factors; there was no significant difference in the incidence of PEP between patients with or without ES.

CONCLUSION

Endoscopic sphincterotomy may not contribute to the prevention of PEP after endoscopic biliary stenting for malignant biliary obstruction, even in cases of insertion with a fully covered MS across the papilla.

Risk of Pancreatitis Following Biliary Stenting With/Without Endoscopic Sphincterotomy: A Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND & AIMS

The efficacy of endoscopic sphincterotomy (ES) before endoscopic transpapillary biliary drainage in preventing post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis (PEP) has not been established. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of performing ES before biliary stent/tube placement on the occurrence of PEP.

METHODS

Three hundred seventy patients with biliary stricture requiring endoscopic biliary stenting were enrolled and randomly allocated to the ES group (n = 185) or non-ES group (n = 185). All participants were followed up for 30 days after the procedure. The data and occurrence of adverse events were prospectively collected. The primary outcome measure of this study was the incidence of PEP within 2 days of initial transpapillary biliary drainage. Secondary outcome measures were the incidence of other adverse events related to biliary stent/tube placement.

RESULTS

PEP occurred in 36 patients (20.6%) in the non-ES group and in 7 patients (3.9%) in the ES group (P < .001). The difference in the incidence of PEP between the 2 groups in the per-protocol population was 16.7% (95% confidence interval, 10.1%-23.3%), which was not within the noninferiority margin of 6%. Except for bleeding, the incidences of other adverse events were not significantly different between the groups.

CONCLUSION

ES before endoscopic biliary stenting could have the preventive effect on the occurrence of PEP in patients with biliary stricture. University Hospital Medical Information Network Number, UMIN000025727.University Hospital Medical Information Network Clinical Trial Registry URL: https://www.umin.ac.jp/ctr/index.htm.

Prevention of pancreatitis after stent implantation for distal malignant biliary strictures: systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Biliary stent placement remains a palliative treatment for patients with unresectable distal malignant biliary strictures (DMBS). The incidence of post-ERCP-pancreatitis (PEP) significantly increases in patients receiving fully covered self-expandable metal stents (FCSEMS) who undergo endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP).

AREAS COVERED

This review provides an overview of prevention of PEP after stent implantation for DMBSs. The following operational variables were evaluated: (1) stent type (plastic or metal stent); (2) stent location (above or across the sphincter of Oddi); (3) prophylactic pancreatic duct stent placement; (4) endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST). PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane database were searched to identify eligible studies up to October 2021. The odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were pooled using fixed- or random- effects models.

EXPERT OPINION

1. PEP occurs more frequently in DMBS patients with self-expandable metal stents (SEMS) compared to that plastic stent (PS). 2. The PEP incidence is higher in covered stents than that in uncovered self-expandable metal stents (USEMS), but not significantly. 3. PEP incidence increases in patients receiving transpapillary FCSEMS placement, particularly when there is an absence of pancreatic duct dilation, and prophylactic pancreatic stenting is recommended for these patients. 4. Limited studies with small sample indicate that there is no significant difference in PEP incidence between transpapillary and suprapapillary stents placement for DMBS. 5. Limited studies indicate that EST does not significantly affect the incidence of pancreatitis in DMBS patients.

Inutility of endoscopic sphincterotomy to prevent pancreatitis after biliary metal stent placement in the patients without pancreatic duct obstruction

Background: The incidence of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) has been reported to be significantly higher in patients without main pancreatic duct (MPD) obstruction who undergo transpapillary biliary metal stent (MS) placement than in those with ordinary ERCP setting.Objective: To evaluate the benefit of endoscopic sphincterotomy (ES) prior to MS placement in preventing PEP in patients with distal malignant biliary obstruction (MBO) without MPD obstruction.Materials and methods: In total, 160 patients who underwent initial MS placement for MBO were enrolled. Eighty-two patients underwent ES immediately prior to MS placement, whereas 78 underwent MS placement without ES. An inverse probability of treatment weighting method was adopted to adjust the differences of the patients' characteristics. The primary outcome was the incidence of PEP. The secondary outcomes included the incidence of other adverse events (bleeding, cholangitis, perforation and stent dislocation) and time to recurrent biliary obstruction.Results: The incidence of PEP was 26.8% in the ES and 23.1% in the non-ES (unadjusted odds ratio [OR] [95%CI]: 1.22, [0.60-2.51], adjusted OR [95%CI]: 1.23, [0.53-2.81], p = .63). Logistic-regression analysis revealed no factors that could be attributed to the occurrence of PEP. The incidence of other adverse events was not different between the groups. The median time to recurrent biliary obstruction was 131 (2-465) days and 200 (4-864) days in the ES and non-ES, respectively (p = .215).Conclusions: ES prior to MS placement for patients with distal MBO without MPD obstruction does not reduce the incidence of PEP.

Endoscopic Sphincterotomy before Fully Covered Metal Stent Placement Is Not Required for Distal Malignant Biliary Stricture due to a Pancreatic Head Tumor

Background/Aims

Endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) is often performed before fully covered self-expandable metal stent (FCSEMS) placement in order to prevent pancreatitis. However, it is not clear whether EST prevents pancreatitis or affects other adverse events (AEs). This study is conducted to evaluate the necessity of EST before FCSEMS placement for distal malignant biliary strictures due to a pancreatic head tumor.

Methods

This study included 68 patients who underwent FCSEMS placement for distal malignant biliary stricture due to a pancreatic head tumor. Treatment outcomes and AEs were retrospectively compared between 32 patients with EST before FCSEMS placement (EST group) and 36 patients without EST (non-EST group).

Results

The success rates of drainage for the EST and non-EST groups were 100% and 97.2%, respectively (P = 0.95). The incidence of pancreatitis in the EST and non-EST groups was 3.1% and 0%, respectively (P = 0.95). The incidence of hyperamylasemia in the EST and non-EST groups was 12.5% and 13.9%, respectively (P = 0.85). The incidence of all AEs in the EST and non-EST groups was 15.6% (pancreatitis: 1, cholecystitis: 2, and stent migration: 2) and 13.9% (cholecystitis: 3, stent migration: 2), respectively (P = 0.89).

Conclusions

EST before FCSEMS placement for distal malignant biliary stricture due to a pancreatic head tumor does not affect the successful drainage and incidence of adverse events. The necessity of EST to prevent pancreatitis before FCSEMS placement was deemed low.

Endoscopic biliary self-expandable metallic stent in malignant biliary obstruction with or without sphincterotomy: systematic review and meta-analysis

Background and aim  To assess the rate of adverse events and the technical success rate of biliary stenting with or without EBS.  Methods  A literature search up to February 2017 was performed. Studies assessing adverse events (AEs) and technical success rates of stenting with or without EBS were considered. Results  Seven studies (870 patients; 12 treatment arms) were included. Early AEs, i. e. those occurring within 30 days, were significantly lower in no-EBS vs. EBS-group (11 % vs . 20.1 %; OR: 0.36, 95 %CI: 0.13 - 1.00). Rates of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis were not significantly different in the two groups (no-EBS vs . EBS: 6.1 % vs 5 %; OR: 1.33, 95 %CI: 0.68 - 2.59). The rate of bleeding was significantly lower in patients without EBS (no-EBS vs EBS: 0 % vs 5 %; OR: 0.12, 95 % CI: 0.03 - 0.45). Rates of cholangitis were significantly lower in patients without EBS (no-EBS vs . EBS: 3.3 % vs. 7.4 %; OR: 0.38, 95 %CI: 0.17 - 0.83). Both late AEs and mortality rates did not significantly differ between no-EBS and EBS patients (19.9 % vs. 18.9 %; OR: 0.93, 95 %CI: 0.56 - 1.53, and 2.5 % vs. 2.9 %; OR: 1.18, 95 %CI: 0.22 - 6.29, respectively). The technical success rate for stent insertion also did not differ (98 % vs. 97.6 %; OR: 1.05, 95 %CI: 0.42 - 2.63). Conclusion  EBS seems to be associated, in the first 30 days after the procedure, with an increased risk of cholangitis and bleeding. No difference was observed in the rate of post-ERCP pancreatitis.

Rectal Indomethacin Reduces Pancreatitis in High- and Low-Risk Patients Undergoing Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Rectal indomethacin reduces the risk of pancreatitis after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). Most studies of its efficacy included high-risk cohorts and excluded low-risk patients, including those with malignant biliary obstruction. We investigated the potential of rectal indomethacin to prevent post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) in a variety of patients.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective cohort study of 4017 patients who underwent ERCP at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, from 2009 and 2015, including 823 patients with malignant biliary obstruction. After June 2012, with a few exceptions, patients received indomethacin after their procedure. We collected data from patients' records on demographic and clinical features, procedures, and development of PEP. PEP was defined by consensus criteria. Multivariable logistic regression was used to determine adjusted odds ratios (ORs) for the association between indomethacin and PEP.

RESULTS

Rectal indomethacin reduced the odds of PEP by 65% (OR, 0.35; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.24-0.51; P < .001) and moderate-to-severe PEP by 83% (OR, 0.17; 95% CI, 0.09-0.32; P < .001). In patients with malignant obstruction, rectal indomethacin reduced the risk of PEP by 64% (OR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.17-0.75; P < .001) and moderate-to-severe PEP by 80% (OR, 0.20; 95% CI, 0.07-0.63; P < .001). Among patients with malignant obstruction, rectal indomethacin provided the greatest benefit to patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma: 2.31% of these patients who received rectal indomethacin developed PEP vs 7.53% who did not receive rectal indomethacin (P < .001) and 0.59% of these patients who received rectal indomethacin developed moderate-to-severe PEP vs 4.32% who did not receive rectal indomethacin (P = .001).

CONCLUSIONS

In a large retrospective cohort study of patients undergoing ERCP that included low-risk patients and patients with malignant biliary obstruction, rectal indomethacin was associated with a significant decrease in the absolute rate and severity of pancreatitis.

Does endoscopic sphincterotomy reduce the risk of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis after biliary stenting? A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Endoscopic biliary sphincterotomy (ES) is often carried out prior to placement of a biliary stent apparently to reduce the risk of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP). However, the protective effect of ES prior to biliary stenting is controversial. The objective of this meta-analysis is to compare the risk of PEP and other complications after the placement of biliary stent with or without ES in patients with biliary obstruction and bile leak.

METHODS

We carried out a systematic search in several electronic databases for randomized controlled trials (RCT) and observational studies (OS) comparing the risk of PEP after biliary stenting with or without ES. The Mantel-Haenszel method was used to pool data of adverse outcomes into fixed or random effect model meta-analyses.

RESULTS

Seventeen studies (five RCT and 12 OS) with a total of 2710 patients met the inclusion criteria. No significant difference was observed in the risk of PEP with biliary stenting with and without ES (RD -0.01; 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.03, 0.01). In a subgroup analysis of stenting for biliary obstruction, no difference in the risk of PEP was observed with or without ES. However, ES was associated with lower risk of PEP in patients undergoing biliary stenting for bile leak (RD -0.05; CI -0.10, -0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

ES shows risk reduction in prevention of PEP in patients undergoing endoscopic stenting for bile leak. However, placement of biliary stent without ES is not associated with an increased risk of PEP in patients with distal bile duct obstruction with involvement of pancreatic duct.

Endoscopic treatment of malignant biliary strictures

Endoscopic stenting is a widely accepted strategy for providing effective drainage in both extrahepatic and intrahepatic malignant strictures. In patients with extrahepatic malignancies, uncovered self-expanding metal stents (SEMS) provide excellent palliation. Hilar malignancies are probably best palliated by placement of uncovered SEMS although some disagreement exists among experts regarding the type and number of stents for optimal palliation. Preoperative biliary drainage (PBD) is commonly performed although a higher risk of complications and the lack of clear benefit raise questions about this practice. Certain groups of patients such as those with markedly elevated bilirubin levels, and in those in whom neoadjuvant therapy is planned, are good candidates for PBD. Considerable controversy exists regarding the optimal method as well as type of stent for PBD in patients with hilar malignancies. Novel endoscopic therapies, including photodynamic therapy and radiofrequency ablation, have emerged as potential adjuvant therapies in the management of malignant bile duct strictures but need further long-term evaluation to establish survival benefit. This review focuses on the current status of endoscopic therapies for malignant biliary obstructions.

Biliary stenting with or without sphincterotomy for malignant biliary obstruction: a meta-analysis

AIM

To investigate the benefits of endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST) before stent placement by meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

METHODS

PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Science Citation Index databases up to March 2014 were searched. The primary outcome was incidence of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP) and successful stent insertion rate. The secondary outcomes were the incidence of post-ERCP bleeding, stent migration and occlusion. The free software Review Manager was used to perform the meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Three studies (n = 338 patients, 170 in the EST group and 168 in the non-EST group) were included. All three studies described a comparison of baseline patient characteristics and showed that there were no statistically significant differences between the two groups. Three RCTs, including 338 patients, were included in this meta-analysis. Most of the analyzed outcomes were similar between the groups. Although EST reduced the incidence of PEP, it also led to a higher incidence of post-ERCP bleeding (OR = 0.34, 95%CI: 0.12-0.93, P = 0.04; OR = 9.70, 95%CI: 1.21-77.75, P = 0.03, respectively).

CONCLUSION

EST before stent placement may be useful in reducing the incidence of PEP. However, EST-related complications, such as bleeding and perforation, may offset this effect.