Comparison of outcomes among secondary covered metallic, uncovered metallic, and plastic biliary stents in treating occluded primary metallic stents in malignant distal biliary obstruction
- 224 Downloads
The self-expandable metallic stent (SEMS) has been widely used for unresectable malignant biliary obstruction but eventually becomes occluded by tumor ingrowth/overgrowth and sludge. Therefore, we aimed to determine the therapeutic effectiveness of secondary stents and to find differences according to various combinations of the first and second stents for the management of occluded SEMSs in patients with malignant distal biliary obstruction.
Between 1999 and November 2008, 77 patients with malignant biliary obstruction underwent secondary biliary stent placement as “stent-in-stent” at three university hospitals in Korea (40 covered, 26 uncovered, and 11 plastic stents). The membrane of the covered SEMS was regarded as the barrier against tumor ingrowth. We categorized the patients into three groups based on whether the covered SEMS was either the first or the second stent: membrane-SEMS (18 covered–covered; 9 covered–uncovered; 22 uncovered–covered SEMS), bare-SEMS (17 uncovered–uncovered SEMS), and plastic stent (3 covered-plastic; 8 uncovered-plastic).
The median patency of second stents was 138, 109, and 88 days (covered, uncovered, and plastic stents). The second covered SEMSs had a significantly longer patency than plastic stents (p = 0.047). In a multivariate analysis including membrane-SEMS, bare-SEMS, and plastic stent groups, the bare-SEMS had a worse cumulative stent patency (HR = 2.04, CI = 1.08–3.86) and survival time (HR = 2.37, CI = 1.25–4.49) than the membrane-SEMS. Patients with ampulla of Vater cancer had better stent patency (HR = 0.27, CI = 0.08–0.98) and survival (HR = 0.17, CI = 0.04–0.77) than those with other pancreatobiliary malignancies. In addition, antitumor treatment prolonged survival time (HR = 0.50, CI = 0.26–0.99).
The placement of additional biliary stents using the “stent-in-stent” method is an effective treatment for an occluded metallic primary stent. In addition, double biliary SEMS placement using at least one covered SEMS (in the primary and/or secondary procedure) might provide longer cumulative stent patency and survival than using uncovered SEMSs in both procedures.
KeywordsMalignant biliary obstruction Self-expandable metallic stent Plastic stent Occlusion Stent patency Survival
- 1.Isayama H, Komatsu Y, Tsujino T, Sasahira N, Hirano K, Toda N, Nakai Y, Yamamoto N, Tada M, Yoshida H, Shiratori Y, Kawabe T, Omata M (2004) A prospective randomised study of “covered” versus “uncovered” diamond stents for the management of distal malignant biliary obstruction. Gut 53:729–734CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 2.Togawa O, Kawabe T, Isayama H, Nakai Y, Sasaki T, Arizumi T, Matsubara S, Ito Y, Yamamoto N, Sasahira N, Hirano K, Tsujino T, Toda N, Tada M, Yoshida H, Omata M (2008) Management of occluded uncovered metallic stents in patients with malignant distal biliary obstructions using covered metallic stents. J Clin Gastroenterol 42:546–549CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 3.Castano R, Lopes TL, Alvarez O, Calvo V, Luz LP, Artifon EL (2010) Nitinol biliary stent versus surgery for palliation of distal malignant biliary obstruction. Surg Endosc. doi:10.1007/s00464-010-0903-7
- 12.Yoon WJ, Ryu JK, Yang KY, Paik WH, Lee JK, Woo SM, Park JK, Kim YT, Yoon YB (2009) A comparison of metal and plastic stents for the relief of jaundice in unresectable malignant biliary obstruction in Korea: an emphasis on cost-effectiveness in a country with a low ERCP cost. Gastrointest Endosc 70:284–289CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 14.Ridtitid W, Rerknimitr R, Janchai A, Kongkam P, Treeprasertsuk S, Kullavanijaya P (2010) Outcome of second interventions for occluded metallic stents in patients with malignant biliary obstruction. Surg Endosc. doi:10.1007/s00464-010-0931-3