Long-term outcomes of duckbill-type anti-reflux metal stents versus conventional covered metal stents in reinterventions after covered biliary metal stent dysfunction in unresectable pancreatic cancer.

BACKGROUND

The use of duckbill-type anti-reflux metal stents (DMS) in reinterventions after covered metal stent (CMS) dysfunction has been reported in patients with distal malignant biliary obstruction (MBO). However, the superiority of DMS over conventional CMS (c-CMS) has not been established. Therefore, we conducted this retrospective study to evaluate the long-term efficacy and safety of DMS as a second stent in comparison with c-CMS.

METHODS

We investigated consecutive patients with distal MBO due to unresectable pancreatic cancer who underwent reintervention after dysfunction of initial biliary CMS at our institution. We compared causes of recurrent biliary obstruction (RBO), time to RBO (TRBO), adverse events (AEs), and reintervention rates of DMS and c-CMS in this stenting.

RESULTS

A total of 76 patients were included (DMS 41 and c-CMS 35). While overall RBO rates were similar between the two groups (46% vs. 63%, p = 0.172), RBO due to non-occlusion cholangitis tended to be less frequent in the DMS group than in the c-CMS group (2% vs. 14%, p = 0.089). Median TRBO was significantly longer in the DMS group (286 days vs. 112 days, p = 0.029). DMS was identified as the only significant risk factor for TRBO (hazard ratio, 0.52; p = 0.044). Overall AE rates were significantly lower in the DMS group (2% vs. 23%, p = 0.010), with non-occlusion cholangitis being the most common AE in the c-CMS group. Endoscopic reintervention was successfully performed in all patients in both groups, despite failed stent removal in 15% of patients in DMS group.

CONCLUSIONS

DMS was associated with a significantly longer TRBO and lower rate of AEs compared with c-CMS in reinterventions after initial CMS dysfunction. DMS may be preferable to c-CMS as a second stent after biliary CMS dysfunction.