Skip Navigation
Skip to contents

Clin Endosc : Clinical Endoscopy

OPEN ACCESS

Articles

Page Path
HOME > Clin Endosc > Volume 55(3); 2022 > Article
Editorial Covered self-expandable metal stents for distal biliary obstruction from pancreatic carcinoma: what type of stent is preferred?
Hideyuki Shiomi,orcid, Ryota Nakanoorcid, Shogo Otaorcid
Clinical Endoscopy 2022;55(3):369-371.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5946/ce.2022.122
Published online: May 11, 2022

Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Diseases, Department of Internal Medicine, Hyogo Medical University, Hyogo, Japan

Correspondence: Hideyuki Shiomi Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Diseases, Department of Internal Medicine, Hyogo Medical University, 1-1, Mukogawa-Cho, Nishinomiya, Hyogo 663-8501, Japan E-mail: hideshio0403@gmail.com
• Received: April 6, 2022   • Revised: April 12, 2022   • Accepted: April 13, 2022

Copyright © 2022 Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

  • 2,190 Views
  • 135 Download
  • 2 Web of Science
  • 2 Crossref
  • 2 Scopus
prev next
See the article "Laser-cut-type versus braided-type covered self-expandable metallic stents for distal biliary obstruction caused by pancreatic carcinoma: a retrospective comparative cohort study" on page 434.
Endoscopic transpapillary stenting is recommended as the first-line approach to biliary drainage for malignant distal biliary obstruction (MDBO). The stents used for endoscopic biliary drainage include plastic stents (PS) and self-expandable metal stents (SEMS). SEMS are superior to PS in terms of occlusion rate and patency and are preferred for unresectable MDBO, owing to their cost-effectiveness.1 There are two types of SEMS: uncovered SEMS (UMS) and covered SEMS (CMS). Previous randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from Japan have shown that CMS have a longer patency period than UMS due to their ability to prevent ingrowth.2,3 In contrast, RCTs from overseas did not show a difference in stent patency for both types of SEMS, but stent migration was significantly more frequent in CMS.4,5 Therefore, the relative superiority of CMS versus UMS remains inconclusive.
The migration of CMS is an unresolved issue. Various CMS have been developed with different stent mesh structures and anti-migration systems. However, few studies have compared the differences between these CMS designs.
In the current issue of Clinical Endoscopy, Kitagawa et al.6 reported the results of a retrospective study that compared the efficacy and safety of laser-cut and braided CMS with anti-migration systems for MDBO. This study showed that the adverse event rate and median overall survival were not significantly different between the CMS groups. However, the time to recurrent biliary obstruction (TRBO) was significantly longer in the braided CMS group than in the laser-cut CMS group (p=0.0008). The leading cause of stent dysfunction in both groups was stent migration, which occurred in 37.5% (9/24) of patients in the laser-cut CMS group and 13.0% (3/23) of patients in the braided CMS group. The authors hypothesized that the difference in stent migration rates may have been related to TRBO. The migration rate in the braided CMS group was comparable to that of Kogure et al.7 (8%), who used the same braided CMS. However, the migration rate in the laser-cut CMS group was considerably higher than that of Isayama et al.8 (13%), who used the same laser-cut CMS. It is difficult to account for this difference based on heterogeneity between the two studies of the laser-cut CMS.6,8 Although it is unknown whether Isayama et al.8 used chemotherapy after deploying the CMS, the use of chemotherapy by Kitagawa et al.6 may help account for the difference in stent migration rates. It is also possible that the reliability of the results reported by Kitagawa et al.6 were limited by the small sample size of the study. Therefore, validation of their results by studies with larger sample sizes is appropriate.
The primary goal of using SEMS is to avoid recurrent biliary obstruction and establish long-term patency. It is important to select a stent that has sufficient expansion force and low migration risk and can be appropriately placed to adapt to the individual bile duct. The WallFlex CMS used in the Kitagawa et al.6 study are braided cross-wired stents with a high radial force (RF), which provides a strong expansion force. It also has a strong axial force (AF) that tends to straighten the stent, causing bile duct obstruction due to kinking of the bile duct, cholecystitis, and acute pancreatitis. Therefore, we recommend that a longer stent be deployed such that the proximal end is located near the hilar region. Moreover, since these CMS have a shortening rate between 30% and 40%, it is necessary to anticipate this in stent deployment. However, these CMS can be easily removed and replaced with new SEMS in the event of stent occlusion. In contrast, laser-cut Zeostent CMS have a lower RF than the braided CMS, and since the AF is also lower, the stent is unaffected by bile duct flexion, and there is no risk of bile duct obstruction due to kinking. Moreover, stent placement is relatively easy because the stent is rarely shortened during the procedure. However, stent removal is not as straightforward compared with the braided CMS, and re-intervention methods should be carefully considered in the event of stent occlusion. Recently, knitted CMS (with hook and cross-wired structures) have been developed as a form of braided CMS. Knitted CMS have low AF and shortening rates while maintaining a strong RF due to the hook and cross-wired weave ratio. In a study of knitted CMS deployed for MDBO, Yamao et al.9 reported a longer median TRBO of 536 days and low stent migration rate of 5%. Therefore, it is important to understand the different characteristics of various CMS and tailor them appropriately to different patients.
The results of the Kitagawa et al.6 study demonstrate that stent migration remains a significant challenge associated with CMS. A lower migration rate results in a longer stent patency duration. In a multicenter retrospective analysis of risk factors for migration of CMS in MDBO, Nakai et al.10 reported that the use of chemotherapy (subdistribution hazard ratio [SHR] 4.46, p=0.01), use of CMS with RF ≤4.00 N (SHR 2.23, p=0.03), and presence of duodenal invasion (SHR 2.25, p=0.02) were significant risk factors for early stent migration. The reason for increased stent migration in patients with duodenal invasion is unclear. However, the associations between increased stent migration rates and chemotherapy and low RF are unsurprising. The prognosis of pancreatic cancer has been improved by the development of newer and more effective chemotherapeutic agents, but stent migration rates may increase due to the resolution of biliary stricture as a result of tumor shrinkage. Therefore, the development of antimigration systems for CMS is important in extending the TRBO. Antimigration systems include partially covered, anchoring, flare-end, and dumbbell designs, although it remains unclear which design is superior. CMS with high RF, low AF, and reliable antimigration systems are ideal for achieving a longer TRBO and reducing stent-related complications in MDBO.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors have no potential conflicts of interest.

Funding

This work was supported by JSPS KAKENHI (Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research), Grant no. 21K07913 (HS).

Author Contributions

Conceptualization: HS; Data curation: HS; Writing-original draft: HS; Writing-review & editing: HS, RN, SO.

  • 1. Moss AC, Morris E, Leyden J, et al. Do the benefits of metal stents justify the costs? A systematic review and meta-analysis of trials comparing endoscopic stents for malignant biliary obstruction. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2007;19:1119–1124.ArticlePubMed
  • 2. Isayama H, Komatsu Y, Tsujino T, et al. A prospective randomised study of “covered” versus “uncovered” diamond stents for the management of distal malignant biliary obstruction. Gut 2004;53:729–734.ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 3. Kitano M, Yamashita Y, Tanaka K, et al. Covered self-expandable metal stents with an anti-migration system improve patency duration without increased complications compared with uncovered stents for distal biliary obstruction caused by pancreatic carcinoma: a randomized multicenter trial. Am J Gastroenterol 2013;108:1713–1722.ArticlePubMed
  • 4. Telford JJ, Carr-Locke DL, Baron TH, et al. A randomized trial comparing uncovered and partially covered self-expandable metal stents in the palliation of distal malignant biliary obstruction. Gastrointest Endosc 2010;72:907–914.ArticlePubMed
  • 5. Kullman E, Frozanpor F, Söderlund C, et al. Covered versus uncovered self-expandable nitinol stents in the palliative treatment of malignant distal biliary obstruction: results from a randomized, multicenter study. Gastrointest Endosc 2010;72:915–923.ArticlePubMed
  • 6. Kitagawa K, Mitoro A, Ozutsumi T, et al. Laser-cut-type versus braided-type covered self-expandable metallic stents for distal biliary obstruction caused by pancreatic carcinoma: a retrospective comparative cohort study. Clin Endosc 2022;55:434–442.ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 7. Kogure H, Ryozawa S, Maetani I, et al. A prospective multicenter study of a fully covered metal stent in patients with distal malignant biliary obstruction: WATCH-2 study. Dig Dis Sci 2018;63:2466–2473.ArticlePubMed
  • 8. Isayama H, Kawakubo K, Nakai Y, et al. A novel, fully covered laser-cut nitinol stent with antimigration properties for nonresectable distal malignant biliary obstruction: a multicenter feasibility study. Gut Liver 2013;7:725–730.ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 9. Yamao K, Takenaka M, Ogura T, et al. Utility and safety of a novel fully covered metal stent in unresectable distal malignant biliary obstruction. Dig Dis Sci 2020;65:3702–3709.ArticlePubMed
  • 10. Nakai Y, Isayama H, Kogure H, et al. Risk factors for covered metallic stent migration in patients with distal malignant biliary obstruction due to pancreatic cancer. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2014;29:1744–1749.ArticlePubMed

Figure & Data

REFERENCES

    Citations

    Citations to this article as recorded by  
    • A case of delayed pancreatic fistula after covered self-expandable metallic stent deployment for pancreatic head cancer
      Shogo Ota, Hideyuki Shiomi, Ryota Nakano, Takashi Nishimura, Hirayuki Enomoto, Hiroko Iijima
      Clinical Journal of Gastroenterology.2023; 16(2): 303.     CrossRef
    • Endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage for distal malignant biliary obstruction: a prospective 3-year multicenter Egyptian study
      K.M. Ragab, M Abdel-Hameed, M Gouda, H Katamish, A Madkour, H Atalla, H Hamed, G.E. Shiha, O Abdallah, R.H. Agwa, E Ghoneem
      Acta Gastro Enterologica Belgica.2023; 86(1): 26.     CrossRef

    • PubReader PubReader
    • ePub LinkePub Link
    • Cite
      CITE
      export Copy Download
      Close
      Download Citation
      Download a citation file in RIS format that can be imported by all major citation management software, including EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and Reference Manager.

      Format:
      • RIS — For EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and most other reference management software
      • BibTeX — For JabRef, BibDesk, and other BibTeX-specific software
      Include:
      • Citation for the content below
      Covered self-expandable metal stents for distal biliary obstruction from pancreatic carcinoma: what type of stent is preferred?
      Clin Endosc. 2022;55(3):369-371.   Published online May 11, 2022
      Close
    • XML DownloadXML Download
    Related articles
    Covered self-expandable metal stents for distal biliary obstruction from pancreatic carcinoma: what type of stent is preferred?
    Covered self-expandable metal stents for distal biliary obstruction from pancreatic carcinoma: what type of stent is preferred?

    Clin Endosc : Clinical Endoscopy Twitter Facebook
    Close layer
    TOP