Digestive endoscopy : official journal of the Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society · 2025
Suprapapillary Stent-By-Stent Deployment With Slim-Fully Covered Versus Uncovered Metal Stents for Malignant Hilar Biliary Obstruction: A Multicenter Comparative Study (With Video).
СтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеСравнительное исследованиеVideo-Audio MediaНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Inoue Tadahisa, Yoshida Michihiro, Yamada Naoaki, Kitano Rena, Kitada Tomoya, Futagami Shun, Kachi Kenta, Okumura Fumihiro, Naitoh Itaru
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Bilateral uncovered metal stent (UMS) placement is recommended for unresectable malignant hilar biliary obstructions (MHBO). However, recent improvements in antitumor therapies and patient survival have led to an increasing number of patients outliving UMS patency, necessitating more frequent reinterventions. This study evaluated the efficacy of novel suprapapillary stent-by-stent (SBS) placement using slim fully covered metal stents (FCMS) and compared them with UMS.
METHODS: A total of 254 patients were included. Technical and clinical success, adverse events (AEs) including recurrent biliary obstruction (RBO), and reintervention were compared between the FCMS and UMS groups. Propensity score matching was performed to adjust for between-group differences.
RESULTS: Technical and clinical success rates and early and late AE rates were not significantly different between the groups. The FCMS group demonstrated a significantly lower RBO incidence rate (32.0% vs. 60.8%; p = 0.005) and a significantly longer time to RBO (median, NA vs. 204 days; p = 0.048). However, in the FCMS group, 4.0% of patients required stent removal because of suspected branch occlusion. The technical success rates of reintervention were 100% and 83.3% in the FCMS and UMS groups (p = 0.147), respectively. Compared to the UMS group, the FCMS group demonstrated a significantly shorter reintervention procedure time (median, 20 vs. 31 min; p = 0.005) and a significantly lower number of reinterventions (p = 0.029) and requirement for repeat reinterventions (p = 0.003).
CONCLUSIONS: Suprapapillary slim FCMS SBS placement may be a promising treatment option for patients with unresectable MHBO. However, early and unique events requiring stent removal should be carefully considered.
METHODS: A total of 254 patients were included. Technical and clinical success, adverse events (AEs) including recurrent biliary obstruction (RBO), and reintervention were compared between the FCMS and UMS groups. Propensity score matching was performed to adjust for between-group differences.
RESULTS: Technical and clinical success rates and early and late AE rates were not significantly different between the groups. The FCMS group demonstrated a significantly lower RBO incidence rate (32.0% vs. 60.8%; p = 0.005) and a significantly longer time to RBO (median, NA vs. 204 days; p = 0.048). However, in the FCMS group, 4.0% of patients required stent removal because of suspected branch occlusion. The technical success rates of reintervention were 100% and 83.3% in the FCMS and UMS groups (p = 0.147), respectively. Compared to the UMS group, the FCMS group demonstrated a significantly shorter reintervention procedure time (median, 20 vs. 31 min; p = 0.005) and a significantly lower number of reinterventions (p = 0.029) and requirement for repeat reinterventions (p = 0.003).
CONCLUSIONS: Suprapapillary slim FCMS SBS placement may be a promising treatment option for patients with unresectable MHBO. However, early and unique events requiring stent removal should be carefully considered.