Effectiveness and Safety of Lumen-Apposing Metal Stents in Endoscopic Interventions for Off-Label Indications.

BACKGROUND

Although released only for drainage of pseudocyst and walled-off necrosis (WON) with ≤ 30% solid debris, the utilization of lumen-apposing metal stent (LAMS) in "real-world" practice has deviated from approved indications. We evaluated the contemporary use of LAMS and associated clinical, procedural outcomes in the setting of a tertiary referral center in the USA.

METHODS

Data from 303 consecutive patients who underwent LAMS placement were analyzed. Outcomes included technical and clinical success rates and adverse events.

RESULTS

Of 303 patients, 190 (62.7%) received LAMS for off-label indications. The latter included gallbladder drainage (n = 56, 18.5%), gastroenterostomy (n = 52, 17.2%), treatment of gastrointestinal strictures (n = 37, 12.2%), biliary drainage (n = 20, 6.6%), temporary gastric access for endoscopy (n = 13, 4.3%), symptomatic WON with > 30% solid debris (n = 8, 2.6%), and miscellaneous (n = 4, 1.3%). Technical success rates in the on- and off-label arm were 98.2% and 95.8%, respectively (P = .331; 95% CI 0.08 to 1.96). Clinical success rates in the on- and off-label arm were 89.4% and 83.2%, respectively (P = .137; 95% CI 0.28 to 1.19). The rate of adverse events was 20.5% (n = 39) in the off-label arm and 16.8% (n = 19) in the on-label arm (P = .242; 95% CI 0.69 to 2.34).

CONCLUSION

Off-label use of LAMS out-numbered on-label use in our practice. The safety profile between the groups was similar and with the exception of refractory stricture treatment, efficacy was comparable.