Endoscopic side-by-side uncovered self-expandable metal stent placement for malignant hilar biliary obstruction

Retrospective comparative study of new slim-delivery and conventional large-cell stents for stent-in-stent methods for hilar malignant biliary obstruction

OBJECTIVES

Endoscopic management of unresectable hilar malignant biliary obstruction (HMBO) is technically challenging, and effectiveness of stent-in-stent using large-cell, metal stents was reported. A new, large-cell stent with a 6F tapered delivery system was recently developed. The aim of this study was to compare clinical outcomes of slim-delivery and conventional large-cell stents.

METHODS

This was a multicenter retrospective comparative study of stent-in-stent methods using slim-delivery stents (Niti-S Large Cell SR Slim Delivery [LC slim-delivery]) and conventional stents (Niti-S large-cell D-type; LCD) for unresectable HMBO.

RESULTS

Eighty-three patients with HMBO were included; 31 LC slim-delivery and 52 LCD. Overall technical and clinical success rates were 100% and 90% in LC slim-delivery group and 98% and 88% in LCD group. Use of the LC slim-delivery was associated with shorter stent placement time in the multiple regression analysis, with a stent placement time of 18 and 23 min in LC slim-delivery and LCD groups, respectively. The early adverse event (AE) rate of LC slim-delivery was 10%, with no cholangitis or cholecystitis as compared to 23% in the LCD group. Recurrent biliary obstruction (RBO) rates and time to RBO were comparable between the two groups: 35% and 44%, and 8.5 and 8.0 months in LC slim-delivery and LCD groups, respectively. The major cause of RBO was tumor ingrowth (82%) in the LC slim-delivery group and sludge (43%) and ingrowth (48%) in LCD group.

CONCLUSION

Stent-in-stent methods using LC slim-delivery shortened stent placement time with low early AE rates and comparable time to RBO in patients with HMBO.

A Novel Method of Calculating the Drained Liver Volume Using a 3D Volume Analyzer for Biliary Drainage of Unresectable Malignant Hilar Biliary Obstruction

OBJECTIVES

In patients with unresectable malignant hilar biliary obstruction (UMHBO), drainage of ≥ 50% liver volume correlates with better clinical outcomes. Accurately measuring the liver volume to be drained by biliary stents is required. We aimed to develop a novel method for calculating the drained liver volume (DLV) using a 3D volume analyzer (3D volumetry), and assess the usefulness for drainage in patients with UMHBO.

METHODS

Three-dimensional volumetry comprises the following steps: (1) manual tracing of bile duct using 3D imaging system; (2) 3D reconstruction of bile duct and liver parenchyma; and (3) calculating DLV according to the 3D distribution of bile ducts. Using 3D volumetry, we reviewed data of patients who underwent biliary drainage for UMHBO, calculated the DLV, and determined the association between DLV and biliary drainage outcome.

RESULTS

There were 104 eligible cases. The mean DLV was 708 ± 393 ml (53% ± 21%). and 65 patients (63%) underwent drainage of   ≥50% liver volume. The clinical success rate was significantly higher in patients with DLV ≥ 50% than in patients with DLV < 50% (89% vs. 28%, P < 0.001). The median time to recurrence of biliary obstruction (TRBO) and survival time were significantly longer in patients with DLV ≥ 50% than in patients with DLV < 50% (TRBO, 292 vs. 119 days, P = 0.03; survival, 285 vs. 65days, P = 0.004, log-rank test, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Three-dimensional volumetry, a novel method to calculate DLV accurately according to bile duct distribution was useful for drainage in UMHBO patients.

Endoscopic re-intervention after stent-in-stent versus side-by-side bilateral self-expandable metallic stent deployment

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Endoscopic bilateral self-expandable metallic stent (SEMS) placement for unresectable malignant hilar biliary obstruction (MHBO) is widely performed; however, re-intervention after recurrent biliary obstruction (RBO) is often challenging. We compared stent-in-stent (SIS) and side-by-side (SBS) SEMS placement for MHBO considering re-intervention for RBO.

METHODS

One hundred five consecutive patients with MHBO who underwent endoscopic bilateral SEMS placement in our hospital and its affiliated institutions were enrolled in this study; 75 patients underwent partial SIS deployment between December 2005 and December 2012; and 30 underwent SBS deployment between January 2013 and March 2019. Initial treatments and re-interventions in each group were retrospectively evaluated.

RESULTS

Technical success rate (92% vs 100%, P = 0.179), procedure duration (46 vs 35 min, P = 0.382), functional success rate (97.1% vs 100%, P = 1.00), complication rate (24.6% vs 20.0%, P = 0.797), time to RBO (260 vs 312 days; Gray test, P = 0.815), and rate of RBO (59.4% vs 70.0%, P = 0.371) were not significantly different between the SIS and SBS groups. However, bilateral re-stenting with plastic stents through SEMS was successful in 63.4% of patients in the SIS group compared with 100% of patients in the SBS group (P = 0.0013). Median time to RBO upon first re-stenting with a plastic stent was 75 days (range, 11-195 days).

CONCLUSIONS

Endoscopic re-stenting after RBO was significantly more successful in the SBS group than in the SIS group. SBS method is suitable for MHBO considering revisionary stent placement.

Endoscopic Bilateral Stent-in-Stent Versus Stent-by-Stent Deployment in Advanced Malignant Hilar Obstruction: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review

BACKGROUND AND AIM

There is no clear data to compare the effectiveness and safety of bilateral stent-in-stent (SIS) or stent-by-stent (SBS) deployment for advanced malignant hilar obstruction (MHO). This meta-analysis was done to investigate clinical outcomes of these deployment methods.

METHODS

We did a literature search to identify studies that reported the clinical outcomes of bilateral metal stents in patients with advanced MHO. Weighed pooled rates (WPR) along with 95% confidence interval (95% CI) were calculated in order to compare outcomes including technical and clinical success, adverse events, and stent occlusion between the two groups. We conducted a meta-analysis using a random-effects model.

RESULTS

Five comparative studies with 250 patients, and 20 single-arm studies for the SIS or SBS method were eligible for the meta-analysis and systematic review. The bilateral SIS deployment had a significantly higher technical success rate than did SBS deployment (OR 6.43; 95% CI 1.08-38.09). There was no difference in the clinical success (OR 1.23; 95% CI 0.45-3.38), overall adverse events rates (OR 0.42; 95% CI 0.15-1.18), or overall occlusion rate (OR 1.55; 95% CI 0.89-2.70). As a single-armed group, WPR of technical success of the SIS and SBS groups was 96.4% and 89.6%, respectively. Clinical success was 97.5% and 98.3%. Overall, adverse events were 35.9% and 22.6%. Occlusion rates were 27.7% and 37.7%.

CONCLUSIONS

Although there was a lack of quality data and heterogeneity, bilateral SIS deployment had a higher technical feasibility than did the SBS method in patients with advanced MHO, without differences in terms of clinical success, adverse events, or occlusion rates.

Use of endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage as a rescue of re-intervention after the placement of multiple metallic stents for malignant hilar biliary obstruction

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE

Endoscopic transpapillary re-intervention (ETP-RI) after multiple self-expandable metallic stent (SEMS) placement for unresectable malignant hilar biliary obstruction (MHBO) is challenging, but endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) could be an alternative following failed ETP-RI. We investigated appropriate re-intervention (RI) methods in MHBO after multiple SEMS placement and evaluated RI with EUS-BD (EUS-RI) benefits following ETP-RI failure.

METHODS

Patients requiring RI after multiple SEMS placement for MHBO between October 2017 and April 2021 were enrolled. Patients' characteristics, metallic-stent type, stent-placement configuration, overall survival, stent patency, re-intervention results, and re-intervention technical and clinical success rates were reviewed.

RESULTS

Forty-nine patients underwent ETP-RI for MHBO. ETP-RI's technical success rate was 69.4%. Of 15 failed ETP-RI cases, all underwent EUS-RI, achieving technical and clinical success rates of 86.7% and 100%, respectively. Time to recurrent biliary obstruction (TRBO) after RI was significantly different between EUS-RI and ETP-RI (212 vs 84 days; P = .01). On multivariate analysis, EUS-RI was the only factor associated with TRBO (odds ratio: 4.48; 95% confidence interval: 1.01-19.91; P = .04). Acute pancreatitis and bile peritonitis were present in 6.1% of ETP-RI and 13.3% of EUS-RI cases, respectively; both improved conservatively.

CONCLUSIONS

EUS-RI was effective and safe in difficult ETP-RI cases after multiple SEMS placement for MHBO.

Multi-center study of endoscopic revision after side-by-side metal stent placement for malignant hilar biliary obstruction

BACKGROUND

The recent development of ultra-thin delivery systems, which enable simultaneous insertion of two metal stents, has encouraged wider adoption of side-by-side (SBS) stent placement for malignant hilar biliary obstruction (MHBO). However, the management of stent occlusion after SBS placement has not been well-characterized. This study aimed to examine the outcomes of endoscopic reintervention (E-RI) after SBS placement in patients with MHBO.

METHODS

Sixty-seven patients who underwent E-RI for stent occlusion after SBS placement between 2013 and 2020 at three tertiary-care referral centers were investigated. We evaluated the technical success, clinical success, recurrent biliary obstruction (RBO), and adverse events other than RBO rates associated with E-RI. Furthermore, the factors associated with successful E-RI were also evaluated.

RESULTS

The technical success and clinical success rates were 79.1% (53/67) and 76.1% (51/67), respectively. Early adverse events other than RBO occurred in 4.5% (3/67) and late events in 3.9% (2/51). The RBO rate after E-RI was 52.9% (27/51), and the median time to RBO after E-RI was 85 days. Common bile duct (CBD) diameter (odds ratio 2.62; 95% confidence interval, 1.37-5.01; P = 0.003) and metastatic disease (odds ratio, 0.11; 95% confidence interval, 0.02-0.64; P = 0.015) were independently correlated with E-RI success in the multivariate analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrated that E-RI after SBS placement is technically feasible and safe, but the success rate was significantly lower in patients with narrow CBDs and metastatic diseases. These factors may be useful for the selection of the initial stenting method.