Cancers · 2024
Palliation of Gastric Outlet Obstruction in Case of Biliary Obstruction-A Retrospective, Multicenter Study: The B-GOOD Study.
СтатьяНазвание 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.
Fugazza Alessandro, Andreozzi Marta, Binda Cecilia, Lisotti Andrea, Tarantino Ilaria, Vila Juan J, Robles Medranda Carlos, Amato Arnaldo, Larghi Alberto, Perez Cuadrado Robles Enrique, Aragona Giovanni, Di Matteo Francesco, Badas Roberta, Hassan Cesare, Barbera Carmelo, Mangiavillano Benedetto, Crinò Stefano, Colombo Matteo, Fabbri Carlo, Fusaroli Pietro, Facciorusso Antonio, Anderloni Andrea, Spadaccini Marco, Repici Alessandro
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: EUS-guided gastroenterostomy (EUS-GE) is a novel and effective procedure for the management of malignant gastric outlet obstruction (GOO) with more durable results when compared to enteral stenting (ES). However, data comparing EUS-GE to ES in patients already treated with EUS-guided choledocoduodenostomy (EUS-CDS) for distal malignant biliary obstruction (DMBO) are lacking. We aimed to compare outcomes of EUS-GE and ES for the palliation of GOO in this specific population of patients.
METHODS: A multicenter, retrospective analysis of patients with DMBO treated by EUS-CDS and subsequent GOO treated by EUS-GE or ES from 2016 to 2021 was conducted. Primary outcomes were overall AEs rate and dysfunction of the EUS-CDS after GOO treatment. Secondary outcomes included clinical success, technical success, procedure duration, length of hospital stay and relapse of GOO symptoms.
RESULTS: A total of 77 consecutive patients were included in the study: 25 patients underwent EUS-GE and 52 underwent ES. AEs rate and patency outcomes of the EUS-CDS after GOO treatment were comparable between the two groups (12.5% vs. 17.3%; p = 0.74). No recurrence of GOO symptoms was registered in the EUS-GE group while 11.5% of ES patients had symptoms recurrence, even if not statistically significant (p = 0.16), after a mean follow-up period of 63.5 days.
CONCLUSION: EUS-GE and ES are both effective and safe for the palliation of GOO in patients already treated by EUS-CDS for DMBO with no difference in the biliary stent dysfunction rate and overall AEs. EUS-GE is associated with less recurrence of GOO symptoms.
METHODS: A multicenter, retrospective analysis of patients with DMBO treated by EUS-CDS and subsequent GOO treated by EUS-GE or ES from 2016 to 2021 was conducted. Primary outcomes were overall AEs rate and dysfunction of the EUS-CDS after GOO treatment. Secondary outcomes included clinical success, technical success, procedure duration, length of hospital stay and relapse of GOO symptoms.
RESULTS: A total of 77 consecutive patients were included in the study: 25 patients underwent EUS-GE and 52 underwent ES. AEs rate and patency outcomes of the EUS-CDS after GOO treatment were comparable between the two groups (12.5% vs. 17.3%; p = 0.74). No recurrence of GOO symptoms was registered in the EUS-GE group while 11.5% of ES patients had symptoms recurrence, even if not statistically significant (p = 0.16), after a mean follow-up period of 63.5 days.
CONCLUSION: EUS-GE and ES are both effective and safe for the palliation of GOO in patients already treated by EUS-CDS for DMBO with no difference in the biliary stent dysfunction rate and overall AEs. EUS-GE is associated with less recurrence of GOO symptoms.