Potential of 6-mm-diameter fully covered self-expandable metal stents for unresectable malignant distal biliary obstruction: a propensity score-matched study

Article information

Clin Endosc. 2024;.ce.2024.044
Publication date (electronic) : 2024 July 29
doi : https://doi.org/10.5946/ce.2024.044
1Department of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Oncology, National Cancer Center Hospital, Tokyo, Japan
2Department of Diagnostic Radiology, National Cancer Center Hospital, Tokyo, Japan
3Endoscopy Division, National Cancer Center Hospital, Tokyo, Japan
Correspondence: Susumu Hijioka Department of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Oncology, National Cancer Center Hospital, 5-1-1 Tsukiji, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, Japan E-mail: shijioka@ncc.go.jp
Received 2024 February 23; Revised 2024 March 30; Accepted 2024 April 2.

Abstract

Background/Aims

To date, only thinner-diameter metal stents have been evaluated for unresectable malignant distal biliary obstruction (UR-MDBO). This study investigated the outcomes and optimal cohorts for a 6-mm-diameter fully covered self-expandable metal stent (FCSEMS) compared with those for a 10-mm-diameter FCSEMS.

Methods

This single-center retrospective cohort study included patients who underwent initial transpapillary metal stenting for UR-MDBO. Propensity score matching (1:1) analysis was performed.

Results

Of 133/68 patients who underwent 6-mm/10-mm-diameter FCSEMS deployment, 59 in each group were selected. The median time to recurrent biliary obstruction was not significantly different between the groups (p=0.46). In contrast, use of the 6-mm-diameter FCSEMS resulted in a significantly reduced incidence of stent-related adverse events (AEs) (p=0.016), especially cholecystitis (p=0.032), and patients aged <70 years were particularly affected by this significant reduction. Among the patients in the end-stage cohort who were unable to continue chemotherapy after FCSEMS deployment, the free rate of stent-related events, including recurrent biliary obstruction and stent-related AEs, was significantly higher in the 6-mm group (p=0.027).

Conclusions

For UR-MDBO, a 6-mm-diameter FCSEMS can be an optimal and safe option in the younger cohort with a relatively high risk of AEs and in the end-stage cohort requiring safer drainage without interference from stent-related events during times of poor prognosis.

Graphical abstract

INTRODUCTION

Endoscopic drainage of unresectable malignant distal biliary obstruction (UR-MDBO) improves not only obstructive jaundice and cholangitis but also quality of life, and enables palliative chemotherapy.1-3 Self-expandable metal stents (SEMSs), especially fully covered SEMSs (FCSEMSs), are used as standard treatment for UR-MDBO because their stent patency is longer than that of plastic stents (PSs).4-6 Recently, larger-diameter FCSEMSs, such as 12-mm and 14-mm-diameter FCSEMSs, were developed to extend stent patency in UR-MDBO.7-11

However, clinically, stent-related adverse events (AEs) often occur post-FCSEMS deployment, which is reportedly strongly associated with a high risk of pancreatitis and cholecystitis due to pancreatic and cystic duct orifice (CDO) compression.12-15 Therefore, the use of larger-diameter FCSEMSs will likely increase the incidence of such AEs due to duct orifice overloading. Regarding malignant biliary obstruction drainage, it is important not only to lengthen the time to recurrent biliary obstruction (TRBO), which reflects stent function, but also to develop a safe biliary stent with a low risk of stent-related AEs. Relatively early stent-related AEs can be fatal, especially in pre-terminal patients with low tolerance.16

A randomized controlled trial17 found that 8-mm-diameter FCSEMSs were non-inferior to 10-mm-diameter FCSEMSs for UR-MDBO in terms of TRBO (hazard ratio [HR], 0.90). However, the thinner diameter was not associated with a reduction in AEs, and 10-mm-diameter FCSEMS deployment remains the standard for UR-MDBO.3,18 Nonetheless, this result may support a paradigm shift in future stent development, indicating that not only larger-diameter SEMSs should be considered for UR-MDBO. Given that the deployment of PSs, which are thinner than SEMSs, reduces the incidence of pancreatitis and other AEs in MDBO but has a significantly higher rate of stent occlusion,19-21 the deployment of 6-mm-diameter FCSEMSs could be considered a hybrid drainage method that maintains stent patency because of SEMS-specific expansion and is safer because of their thinner diameter (similar to PSs).

A recent study reported the clinical outcomes of 6-mm-diameter FCSEMS deployment for MDBO, including resectable MDBO.22 However, although TRBO lengthening is required in UR-MDBO and is the development target of larger-diameter FCSEMSs, the impact of thinner stents (namely, 6-mm-diameter FCSEMSs) on TRBO and the safety in UR-MDBO remain unknown. Additionally, in the UR-MDBO cohort, investigations of patients who are more suitable for 6-mm-diameter FCSEMS deployment (i.e., the optimal cohort) are needed. Therefore, we aimed to compare the outcomes of the 6-mm-diameter FCSEMS with those of the more commonly used 10-mm-diameter FCSEMS for UR-MDBO in a propensity score-matched (PSM) cohort and to identify the optimal cohort for 6-mm-diameter FCSEMS deployment.

METHODS

Study patients

This single-center retrospective cohort study enrolled patients with MDBO (≥2 cm below the hepatic bifurcation, including early bifurcation of the right posterior branch) who underwent endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) with initial transpapillary metal stent deployment (including cases in which an FCSEMS was deployed for initial drainage, after PS use, or endoscopic nasobiliary drainage) at the National Cancer Center Hospital between October 2017 and August 2022 (expansion cohort of a previous report22). The exclusion criteria were the deployment of an 8-mm-diameter FCSEMS, deployment above the papilla, concurrent FCSEMS and PS deployment, and surgical resection post-FCSEMS deployment.

Equipment and procedures

ERCP was performed using a therapeutic duodenoscope (JF260 and TJF260; Olympus Medical Systems). The FCSEMSs were deployed transpapillarily after endoscopic sphincterotomy with a moderate-sized incision in all cases. The selected stent was sufficiently long to pass through the stenotic site and deployed across the papilla under fluoroscopic guidance. A 10-mm-diameter stent (BONASTENT; Standard Sci-Tech) was used between October 2017 and August 2019, and a 6-mm-diameter stent (HANAROSTENT [Boston Scientific] and EGIS biliary stent [Sumitomo Bakelite]) were used after September 2019. Both the 6-mm and 10-mm-diameter stents were braided-type FCSEMSs (Fig. 1). The use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) for the prevention of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) was determined by physicians. Aggressive periprocedural hydration to prevent PEP was not performed in all patients.

Fig. 1.

Deployment of 6-mm vs. 10-mm-diameter fully covered self-expandable metal stent (FCSEMSs). Endoscopic and fluoroscopic radiographs of (A, C) 6-mm and (B, D) 10-mm-diameter FCSEMS deployment for unresectable malignant distal biliary obstruction. Arrows indicate stenotic sites.

Clinical outcomes and definitions

Clinical success was defined as a normalized or 50% decrease in total bilirubin level within 14 days. TRBO was defined as the time from the stent deployment to the occurrence of RBO. RBO was defined as re-dilatation of the intrahepatic bile duct accompanied by an increase in biliary enzyme levels. When bile duct dilatation was confirmed by imaging, endoscopy or percutaneous intervention was urgently performed for RBO due to stent occlusion and stent migration (excluding gallbladder drainage for cholecystitis). AEs post-FCSEMS deployment were distinguished from RBO and defined as stent-related AEs; these included pancreatitis, cholecystitis, non-occlusion cholangitis, bleeding, and perforation, per the Tokyo Criteria 2014.23 AEs were graded according to the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy lexicon.24 AEs were divided into early (occurring <30 days) and late (occurring ≥31 days) events.

We also analyzed stent-related events, defined as a combination of RBO and stent-related AEs.25,26 Pancreatitis and cholecystitis were diagnosed according to the Cotton criteria27 and the Tokyo Guidelines,28 respectively. Tumor involvement in the CDO and pancreaticobiliary maljunction was evaluated using computed tomography, magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography, and ERCP. Tumor involvement in the duodenal papillary region was diagnosed by endoscopy. The end-stage cohort included patients who did not receive active therapy, such as chemotherapy or radiation, and only received supportive care for advanced cancer after FCSEMS deployment, either because of personal preferences or non-feasibility due to general status, terminal stage, or other reasons.

Statistical analyses

Continuous variables are expressed as medians (interquartile ranges) and categorical variables as numbers (percentages). Qualitative and quantitative differences between groups were evaluated using the χ2 or Fisher exact test for categorical parameters and the Mann-Whitney U test for continuous variables. TRBO and the time to stent migration, stent occlusion, and stent-related events were calculated as the time from FCSEMS deployment to each event (death was censored) using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared between groups using the log-rank test. Univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression analyses were performed to calculate the HRs and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for potential factors of RBO. Additionally, binary logistic regression was used to calculate odds ratios (ORs) with 95% CIs for potential factors of stent-related AEs. All reported p-values were two-sided, and a p-value of <0.05 was considered statistically significant.

PSM was conducted to minimize bias between groups. The propensity score was estimated using multiple logistic regression analysis based on age, sex, primary disease, metastatic status, prior PS deployment, prior endoscopic sphincterotomy, prior cholecystectomy, total bilirubin level, amylase level, tumor invasion to the duodenal papilla, and tumor invasion to the CDO. Using caliper matching, pairs (6-mm and 10-mm FCSEMS groups) on the propensity score logit were matched 1:1 within a range of 0.2 standard deviations.29 Propensity score logit distributions are shown in Supplementary Fig. 1. The covariate balance was assessed using standardized differences; >10% of the absolute value was considered significantly imbalanced. Data were analyzed using IBM SPSS ver. 27.0 (IBM Corp.).

Ethical statements

This study was approved by our institutional review board of the National Cancer Center Hospital on February 26, 2018 (approval no. 2018-149). The requirement for informed consent was waived owing to the retrospective design of the study.

RESULTS

Entire cohort

Of the 352 patients who underwent initial metal stenting for MDBO at our hospital, 133 and 68 were enrolled in the 6-mm and 10-mm groups (before PSM), respectively, after applying the exclusion criteria (Supplementary Fig. 2).

The baseline and treatment characteristics of the cohort are shown in Tables 1 and 2, respectively. Clinical success (94.7% vs. 95.6%, p=1.0) and the median TRBO (HR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.59–1.61, stratified by log-rank test: p=0.913) (Fig. 2A) were not significantly different between the groups. The incidence of stent-related AE was significantly lower in the 6-mm group than in the 10-mm group (12.0% vs. 30.9%, p=0.001), and each component event was lower in the 6-mm group without significant differences (Table 3).

Baseline characteristics of the entire and matched cohorts

Procedure details of the entire and matched cohorts

Fig. 2.

Kaplan-Meier curves for TRBO (6- vs. 10-mm-diameter FCSEMSs). Comparison of TRBO between 6-mm and 10-mm-diameter FCSEMS deployments in the (A) entire and (B) matched cohorts using the log-rank test. TRBO, time to recurrent biliary obstruction; FCSEMS, fully covered self-expandable metal stent; HR, hazard ratio; CI, confidence interval.

Clinical outcomes of the entire and matched cohorts

Matched cohort

The PSM allocated 59 patients to each group (n=118). No significant differences in baseline characteristics were found between the two groups (Table 1). However, NSAID use for PEP prevention was more frequent in the 6-mm group than in the 10-mm group (86.4% vs. 67.8%, p=0.016), owing to clinical differences during the time gap, and the lengths of the 6-mm and 10-mm-diameter FCSEMSs were different (Table 2). The median TRBO was not significantly different between the 6-mm (287 days; 95% CI, 108–466 days) and 10-mm groups (286 days; 95% CI, 183–389 days) (HR, 1.28; 95% CI, 0.67–2.46; p=0.458), and the multivariate adjusted HR was 1.28 (95% CI, 0.66–2.48; p=0.463) (Fig. 2B, Table 4). The cumulative incidence of RBO due to stent occlusion was not significantly different between the groups (log-rank test, p=0.236), although the incidence due to stent migration was significantly higher in the 6-mm group than in the 10-mm group (log-rank test, p=0.003) (Supplementary Fig. 3A). No AEs due to migrated stents, such as perforations, were observed. However, RBO due to stent migration was not observed in the 6-mm group of the end-stage cohort (0/18 cases) (Supplementary Fig. 3B). The incidence of stent-related AEs was significantly lower in the 6-mm group than in the 10-mm group (13.6% vs. 32.2%, p=0.016), especially cholecystitis (1.7% vs. 13.6%, p=0.032). Pancreatitis and non-obstructive cholangitis were also less common in the 6-mm group, although the differences were not significant (p=0.717 and 1.00, respectively) (Fig. 3A). Multivariate analysis of stent-related AEs revealed age <70 years (OR, 5.20; 95% CI, 1.71–15.8; p=0.004) and guidewire to the pancreatic duct (OR, 3.41; 95% CI, 1.12–10.4; p=0.031) as risk factors, and 6-mm-diameter FCSEMS deployment (OR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.11–0.86; p=0.024) was a risk suppressor compared with 10-mm-diameter FCSEMS (Table 5).

Factors associated with recurrent biliary obstruction determined by Cox proportional hazards regression analysis (propensity score-matched cohort)

Fig. 3.

Stent-related adverse events (AEs) (other than recurrent biliary obstruction). Comparisons of the incidences of AEs between 6-mm and 10-mm-diameter FCSEMS deployments in the (A) matched cohort and two subgroups according to age (B) <70 years and (C) ≥70 years in the matched cohort. FCSEMS, fully covered self-expandable metal stent.

Adjusted relative risk of stent-related adverse events (other than RBO) in 6-mm-diameter compared with 10-mm-diameter FCSEMS deployment

High-risk cohort

The area under the curve for age in predicting stent-related AEs was 0.73 (95% CI, 0.62–0.84). Patients were allocated to one of two age groups using an optimal cutoff value of 70 years (Supplementary Fig. 4). In the high-risk cohort of patients aged <70 years (67 cases), there was no significant difference in TRBO between the groups (HR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.35–1.92; p=0.638). However, the stent-related AE rate was significantly lower in the 6-mm group than in the 10-mm group (18.2% vs. 47.1%, p=0.012), and the incidence of each component event was similar or lower in the 6-mm group, without significant differences (Fig. 3B). In contrast, in the cohort of patients aged ≥70 years (51 patients), the TRBO (HR, 1.93; 95% CI, 0.69–5.40; p=0.204) and stent-related AE incidences did not differ significantly between the groups (7.7% vs. 12.0%, p=0.668) (Fig. 3C).

Free rate of stent-related events

The crude free rates of stent-related events in the entire cohort were 69.8% and 65.1% at 90 days in the 6-mm and 10-mm groups, respectively (HR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.45–1.04; p=0.072). Among the 47 patients in the end-stage cohort, the crude free rates of stent-related events at 30 days were 90.2% and 57.3% in the 6-mm and 10-mm groups, respectively (HR, 0.25; 95% CI, 0.07–0.81; p=0.013) (Supplementary Fig. 5).

In the matched cohort, the adjusted free rates of stent-related events were 59.2% and 64.8% at 90 days in the 6-mm and 10-mm groups, respectively (HR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.52–1.50; p=0.632). Among the 32 patients in the end-stage cohort, the adjusted free rates of stent-related events at 30 days were 94.4% and 57.3% in the 6-mm and 10-mm groups, respectively. The free stent-related event rate was significantly higher in the 6-mm group than in the 10-mm group (HR, 0.19; 95% CI, 0.04–0.97; p=0.027) (Fig. 4).

Fig. 4.

Free rates of stent-related events (6-mm vs. 10-mm-diameter FCSEMSs). Comparisons of stent-related events between 6-mm and 10-mm-diameter FCSEMS deployments in the (A) matched and (B) end-stage cohorts using the log-rank test. FCSEMS, fully covered self-expandable metal stent; CI, confidence interval; HR, hazard ratio.

DISCUSSION

Herein, we not only confirmed the outcomes and AEs of 6-mm and 10-mm-diameter FCSEMS deployment for UR-MDBO, but also investigated the optimal cohort for 6-mm-diameter FCSEMS deployment. The 6-mm-diameter FCSEMS deployment was associated with a slight increase in total RBO due to an increase in stent migration; however, the stent-related AE incidence was significantly lower with 6-mm-diameter FCSEMS deployment than with 10-mm-diameter FCSEMS deployment. In addition, a 6-mm-diameter FCSEMS was a potentially safer option, particularly for (1) the younger cohort with a relatively high risk of stent-related AEs and (2) the end-stage cohort with less tolerance. These new perspectives may lead to better outcomes for patients with UR-MDBO.

Owing to the recent trend toward the deployment of larger-diameter metal stents, there are few reports on the use of thinner-diameter stents, especially 6-mm-diameter SEMSs, for MDBO. Reportedly, stent patency at 3 months was significantly higher with 6-mm-diameter FCSEMSs (83.5%) than with PSs (45.3%) for preoperative MDBO (p=0.021).30 Another study found that the stent occlusion rate was significantly higher for 6-mm-diameter uncovered SEMSs than for 10-mm-diameter uncovered SEMSs (p=0.02).31 The stent occlusion rate was lower in this study than in previous studies because of the use of 6-mm-diameter “fully covered” SEMSs. Accordingly, there was no significant difference in the stent occlusion rate between the 6-mm and 10-mm groups; however, RBO due to stent migration was greater in the 6-mm group. This may be explained by the deployment of thinner FCSEMSs and chemotherapy-induced biliary stenosis relief.32 However, the HR for TRBO was only 1.28 for 6-mm-diameter FCSEMSs. Furthermore, the reduced incidence of stent-related AEs may outweigh the disadvantages associated with increased stent migration.

Risk factors for post-deployment pancreatitis include SEMS (vs. PS) deployment33 due to pressure on the pancreatic duct orifice by SEMS expansion.12,14,15 Thus, the pancreatitis risk is reduced if the pressure on the pancreatic duct orifice is reduced using thinner-diameter SEMSs.20 In this study, the incidence of pancreatitis was lower with 6-mm-diameter FCSEMS deployment than with 10-mm-diameter FCSEMS deployment in the entire and matched cohorts, although the differences were not significant. However, there was a significant difference in the use of NSAIDs even in the matching cohort, owing to clinical differences arising during the time gap in this comparison, emphasizing the importance of considering this factor when interpreting the results. Rather, the risk of cholecystitis was reduced the most by 6-mm-diameter FCSEMS deployment, despite the use of longer stents (leading to deployment across the CDO) in the 6-mm group. Previously reported risk factors for cholecystitis after SEMS deployment include pressure on the CDO by SEMS expansion.13,16,34 Thus, the etiology of the main stent-related AEs overlaps with overloading of the orifice of the two ducts due to stronger SEMS expansion, and 6-mm-diameter FCSEMS use, with less pressure on the two ducts, may reduce the risk of these two events. Consistent with this, the 6-mm-diameter FCSEMS deployment significantly reduced the overall incidence of stent-related AEs and was also identified as a risk suppressor in the multivariate analysis. Therefore, it is suggested to be a safer biliary stent for UR-MDBO.

Age <70 years and a guidewire to the pancreatic duct (cannulation method) were risk factors for stent-related AEs. We hypothesized that the reduced risk of stent-related AEs in the younger cohort could be attributed to several factors. Reportedly, the risk of developing PEP decreases with age due to factors such as decreased pancreatic exocrine function, and younger patients are at a higher risk of pancreatitis.35-37 Furthermore, the incidence of post-deployment cholecystitis was lower in the older cohort than in the younger cohort, likely because the risk of cholecystitis after stent deployment increased because of gallstone retention, which is common in middle-aged patients,16 and a history of cholecystectomy was more common in the older cohort. Additionally, another study reported a higher percentage of post-ERCP AEs in patients aged <80 years.36 These results suggest that younger patients are at a higher risk of stent-related AEs than older patients. Therefore, we further analyzed the usefulness of the 6-mm-diameter FCSEMS in this high-risk cohort (age <70 years) and found a larger risk reduction in stent-related AEs with the 6-mm-diameter FCSEMS deployment in the younger cohort than in the older cohort, whereas TRBO was not significantly different. Thus, patients aged <70 years may be the optimal cohort for 6-mm-diameter FCSEMS deployment, benefiting from the safety advantages of thinner diameters.

In the end-stage cohort, for whom the drainage period is limited and patients are less tolerant, safer drainage without interference from stent-related events during the time of poor prognosis is more important than prolonged TRBO. Therefore, we defined RBO- and stent-related AEs as stent-related events based on previous reports25,26 and analyzed the event-free rates in the end-stage cohort. The event-free rate was significantly higher in the 6-mm group than in the 10-mm group before and after PSM because 6-mm-diameter FCSEMS deployment reduced not only the risk of stent-related AEs but also that of RBO due to stent migration. The stent migration risk was likely reduced in the end-stage cohort because the patients did not undergo chemotherapy and consequent stenosis relief, which has been reported as a risk factor for stent migration.32 In fact, stent migration was not observed during the observation period in the 6-mm group of the end-stage cohort, although mortality was a competing risk. These results suggest that 6-mm-diameter FCSEMS deployment is the more optimal drainage method for the end-stage cohort, with both a low risk of stent migration, which is a disadvantage of 6-mm-diameter FCSEMS, and a low incidence of stent-related AEs, which are relatively early events. However, reducing stent migration in the entire cohort has been challenging, and the development of new stents such as 6-mm-diameter partially bare stents, double bare stents, and laser-cut covered stents is expected in the future.

This study had some limitations. First, the 10-mm group included patients historically observed from October 2017 to August 2019, resulting in clinical differences during this time gap. Therefore, we used PSM and adjusted the data to minimize bias. Although the stent length was different between the two groups in the matching cohort, its difference could not be completely adjusted only by an ≥8 cm or <8 cm length on the univariate analysis. Second, we analyzed the time to event (RBO, stent-related events, and migration) using the Kaplan-Meier method and Cox regression analysis. However, overassessment may have occurred because other events and death were competing risks. Therefore, we confirmed the same significant trend in all analyses using the Gray test and Fine-Gray hazard model. Third, the data of this analysis partly overlap with those of a previous report.22 Nevertheless, the safety profile of 6-mm-diameter FCSEMS for UR-MDBO needs to be confirmed using PSM analysis in terms of sensitivity analysis, and this study provides new perspectives on the optimal indications for UR-MDBO. Finally, this study was retrospective in nature, which raises the possibility of unmeasured confounders. Thus, a prospective randomized controlled trial comparing the 6-mm and 10-mm-diameter FCSEMSs is necessary.

In conclusion, we found that 6-mm-diameter FCSEMSs are safer than 10-mm-diameter FCSEMSs for UR-MDBO while maintaining stent patency. Patients aged <70 years and the end-stage cohort may be the optimal cohorts for 6-mm-diameter FCSEMS deployment. However, further studies are required to validate these results.

Supplementary Material

Supplementary Fig. 1. Distribution of propensity scores in unmatched (left) and matched (right) cohorts.

ce-2024-044-Supplementary-Fig-1.pdf

Supplementary Fig. 2. Study flowchart.

ce-2024-044-Supplementary-Fig-2.pdf

Supplementary Fig. 3. Adjusted cumulative incidences of stent migration. Comparisons of (A) stent migration and (B) stent migration risk stratification using the log-rank test.

ce-2024-044-Supplementary-Fig-3.pdf

Supplementary Fig. 4. Relationship between age and stent-related adverse events (AEs) (other than recurrent biliary obstruction). (A) The AUC for age in predicting stent-related AEs was 0.73 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.62–0.84). (B) Analysis of AEs in patients aged <70 and ≥70 years.

ce-2024-044-Supplementary-Fig-4.pdf

Supplementary Fig. 5. Crude free rates for stent-related events (6- vs. 10-mm-diameter FCSEMSs). Comparisons of stent-related events between 6-mm and 10-mm-diameter FCSEMS deployments in the (A) entire and (B) end-stage cohorts using the log-rank test.

ce-2024-044-Supplementary-Fig-5.pdf

Supplementary materials related to this article can be found online at https://doi.org/10.5946/ce.2024.044.

Notes

Conflicts of Interest

The authors have no potential conflicts of interest.

Funding

This work was supported by The National Cancer Center Research and Development Fund (2022-A-16).

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the members of the Endoscopy Team of the Department of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Oncology, National Cancer Center Hospital, for their support of this research.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization: DY, SH; Data curation: DY, SH; Formal analysis: DY; Funding acquisition: SH; Investigation: DY, SH; Methodology: DY, SH; Project administration: SH; Resources: SH, YN, YM; Software: DY; Supervision: SH, YS, TO; Validation: all authors; Visualization: DY; Writing–original draft: DY, SH; Writing–review & editing: all authors.

References

1. Davids PH, Groen AK, Rauws EA, et al. Randomised trial of self-expanding metal stents versus polyethylene stents for distal malignant biliary obstruction. Lancet 1992;340:1488–1492.
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.
3. Isayama H, Mukai T, Itoi T, et al. Comparison of partially covered nitinol stents with partially covered stainless stents as a historical control in a multicenter study of distal malignant biliary obstruction: the WATCH study. Gastrointest Endosc 2012;76:84–92.
4. Knyrim K, Wagner HJ, Pausch J, et al. A prospective, randomized, controlled trial of metal stents for malignant obstruction of the common bile duct. Endoscopy 1993;25:207–212.
5. Kaassis M, Boyer J, Dumas R, et al. Plastic or metal stents for malignant stricture of the common bile duct?: results of a randomized prospective study. Gastrointest Endosc 2003;57:178–182.
6. Yeoh KG, Zimmerman MJ, Cunningham JT, et al. Comparative costs of metal versus plastic biliary stent strategies for malignant obstructive jaundice by decision analysis. Gastrointest Endosc 1999;49(4 Pt 1):466–471.
7. Satoh T, Ishiwatari H, Kawaguchi S, et al. Comparing the 14-mm uncovered and 10-mm covered metal stents in patients with distal biliary obstruction caused by unresectable pancreatic cancer: a multicenter retrospective study. Surg Endosc 2022;36:736–744.
8. Mukai T, Yasuda I, Isayama H, et al. Pilot study of a novel, large-bore, fully covered self-expandable metallic stent for unresectable distal biliary malignancies. Dig Endosc 2016;28:671–679.
9. Kikuyama M, Shirane N, Kawaguchi S, et al. New 14-mm diameter Niti-S biliary uncovered metal stent for unresectable distal biliary malignant obstruction. World J Gastrointest Endosc 2018;10:16–22.
10. Nakaoka K, Hashimoto S, Kawabe N, et al. Evaluation of a 12-mm diameter covered self-expandable end bare metal stent for malignant biliary obstruction. Endosc Int Open 2018;6:E1164–E1170.
11. Chikugo K, Hayashi T, Tanaka K, et al. Re-intervention with 10-mm vs 12-mm covered self-expandable metallic stent for recurrent unresectable distal biliary obstruction in patients with previous stent implantation. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci 2023;30:542–549.
12. Takeda T, Sasaki T, Mie T, et al. Novel risk factors for recurrent biliary obstruction and pancreatitis after metallic stent placement in pancreatic cancer. Endosc Int Open 2020;8:E1603–E1610.
13. Nakai Y, Isayama H, Kawakubo K, et al. Metallic stent with high axial force as a risk factor for cholecystitis in distal malignant biliary obstruction. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2014;29:1557–1562.
14. Kawakubo K, Isayama H, Nakai Y, et al. Risk factors for pancreatitis following transpapillary self-expandable metal stent placement. Surg Endosc 2012;26:771–776.
15. Toyonaga H, Hayashi T, Yamazaki H, et al. Efficacy of pancreatic duct stenting to prevent postendoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis after covered self-expandable metal stent deployment. Dig Endosc 2023;35:369–376.
16. Suk KT, Kim HS, Kim JW, et al. Risk factors for cholecystitis after metal stent placement in malignant biliary obstruction. Gastrointest Endosc 2006;64:522–529.
17. Kawashima H, Hashimoto S, Ohno E, et al. Comparison of 8- and 10-mm diameter fully covered self-expandable metal stents: a multicenter prospective study in patients with distal malignant biliary obstruction. Dig Endosc 2019;31:439–447.
18. 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.
19. Soderlund C, Linder S. Covered metal versus plastic stents for malignant common bile duct stenosis: a prospective, randomized, controlled trial. Gastrointest Endosc 2006;63:986–995.
20. Jang S, Stevens T, Parsi MA, et al. Superiority of self-expandable metallic stents over plastic stents in treatment of malignant distal biliary strictures. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2022;20:e182–e195.
21. Song TJ, Lee JH, Lee SS, et al. Metal versus plastic stents for drainage of malignant biliary obstruction before primary surgical resection. Gastrointest Endosc 2016;84:814–821.
22. Harai S, Hijioka S, Nagashio Y, et al. Comparison of 6-mm and 10-mm-diameter, fully-covered, self-expandable metallic stents for distal malignant biliary obstruction. Endosc Int Open 2023;11:E340–E348.
23. Isayama H, Hamada T, Yasuda I, et al. TOKYO criteria 2014 for transpapillary biliary stenting. Dig Endosc 2015;27:259–264.
24. Cotton PB, Eisen GM, Aabakken L, et al. A lexicon for endoscopic adverse events: report of an ASGE workshop. Gastrointest Endosc 2010;71:446–454.
25. Tol JA, van Hooft JE, Timmer R, et al. Metal or plastic stents for preoperative biliary drainage in resectable pancreatic cancer. Gut 2016;65:1981–1987.
26. van der Gaag NA, Rauws EA, van Eijck CH, et al. Preoperative biliary drainage for cancer of the head of the pancreas. N Engl J Med 2010;362:129–137.
27. Cotton PB, Lehman G, Vennes J, et al. Endoscopic sphincterotomy complications and their management: an attempt at consensus. Gastrointest Endosc 1991;37:383–393.
28. Miura F, Takada T, Kawarada Y, et al. Flowcharts for the diagnosis and treatment of acute cholangitis and cholecystitis: Tokyo Guidelines. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Surg 2007;14:27–34.
29. D’Agostino RB Jr. Propensity score methods for bias reduction in the comparison of a treatment to a non-randomized control group. Stat Med 1998;17:2265–2281.
30. Kataoka F, Inoue D, Watanabe M, et al. Efficacy of 6-mm diameter fully covered self-expandable metallic stents in preoperative biliary drainage for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. DEN Open 2021;2e55.
31. Loew BJ, Howell DA, Sanders MK, et al. Comparative performance of uncoated, self-expanding metal biliary stents of different designs in 2 diameters: final results of an international multicenter, randomized, controlled trial. Gastrointest Endosc 2009;70:445–453.
32. 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.
33. Coté GA, Kumar N, Ansstas M, et al. Risk of post-ERCP pancreatitis with placement of self-expandable metallic stents. Gastrointest Endosc 2010;72:748–754.
34. Shimizu S, Naitoh I, Nakazawa T, et al. Predictive factors for pancreatitis and cholecystitis in endoscopic covered metal stenting for distal malignant biliary obstruction. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2013;28:68–72.
35. Cheng CL, Sherman S, Watkins JL, et al. Risk factors for post-ERCP pancreatitis: a prospective multicenter study. Am J Gastroenterol 2006;101:139–147.
36. Finkelmeier F, Tal A, Ajouaou M, et al. ERCP in elderly patients: increased risk of sedation adverse events but low frequency of post-ERCP pancreatitis. Gastrointest Endosc 2015;82:1051–1059.
37. Old O, Hardy T, Hewin D, et al. Risk of post-ERCP pancreatitis declines with age. Gastrointest Endosc 2016;83:1307–1308.

Article information Continued

Fig. 1.

Deployment of 6-mm vs. 10-mm-diameter fully covered self-expandable metal stent (FCSEMSs). Endoscopic and fluoroscopic radiographs of (A, C) 6-mm and (B, D) 10-mm-diameter FCSEMS deployment for unresectable malignant distal biliary obstruction. Arrows indicate stenotic sites.

Fig. 2.

Kaplan-Meier curves for TRBO (6- vs. 10-mm-diameter FCSEMSs). Comparison of TRBO between 6-mm and 10-mm-diameter FCSEMS deployments in the (A) entire and (B) matched cohorts using the log-rank test. TRBO, time to recurrent biliary obstruction; FCSEMS, fully covered self-expandable metal stent; HR, hazard ratio; CI, confidence interval.

Fig. 3.

Stent-related adverse events (AEs) (other than recurrent biliary obstruction). Comparisons of the incidences of AEs between 6-mm and 10-mm-diameter FCSEMS deployments in the (A) matched cohort and two subgroups according to age (B) <70 years and (C) ≥70 years in the matched cohort. FCSEMS, fully covered self-expandable metal stent.

Fig. 4.

Free rates of stent-related events (6-mm vs. 10-mm-diameter FCSEMSs). Comparisons of stent-related events between 6-mm and 10-mm-diameter FCSEMS deployments in the (A) matched and (B) end-stage cohorts using the log-rank test. FCSEMS, fully covered self-expandable metal stent; CI, confidence interval; HR, hazard ratio.

Table 1.

Baseline characteristics of the entire and matched cohorts

Baseline characteristic Entire cohort
p-value Matched cohort
p-value
All patients (n=201) 6-mm (n=133) 10-mm (n=68) 6-mm (n=59) 10-mm (n=59)
 Age (yr) 66.5 (57–74) 67.0 (57–75) 66.0 (56.5–72.5) 0.832 68.0 (57.5–75) 67.0 (57.5–73.5) 0.622
 Sex (male) 116 (57.7) 77 (57.9) 39 (57.4) 0.941 34 (57.6) 36 (61.0) 0.708
 Primary disease
  Pancreatic cancer 138 (68.7) 89 (66.9) 49 (72.1) 0.457 42 (71.2) 42 (71.2) 1.000
  Biliary tract cancer 14 (7.0) 11 (8.3) 3 (4.4) 0.391 3 (5.1) 3 (5.1) 1.000
  Other cancers 49 (24.4) 33 (24.8) 16 (23.5) 0.841 14 (23.7) 14 (23.7) 1.000
 Disease stage status
  Local invasion 74 (36.8) 46 (34.6) 28 (41.2) 0.359 22 (37.3) 24 (40.7) 0.706
  Metastasis 127 (63.2) 87 (65.4) 40 (58.8) - 37 (62.7) 35 (59.3) -
 Prior drainage 79 (39.3) 49 (36.8) 30 (44.1) 0.318 26 (44.1) 23 (39.0) 0.575
   EST history 46 (22.9) 32 (24.1) 14 (20.6) 0.579 16 (27.1) 14 (23.7) 0.672
 Cholecystectomy history 15 (7.5) 10 (7.5) 5 (7.4) 0.966 6 (10.2) 3 (5.1) 0.490
 Baseline data
  Total bilirubin (mg/dL) 2.4 (1.15–5.1) 3.05 (1.3–5.85) 1.65 (0.95–3.95) 0.004 2.5 (1.15–5.4) 1.7 (1.0–4.45) 0.418
  Amylase (U/L) 64.5 (43–109) 64.0 (42–114) 67.5 (45.5–101) 0.877 73 (42.5–113) 75.0 (48.5–104) 0.985
 Tumor invasion
  Duodenal papilla 15 (7.5) 10 (7.6) 5 (7.4) 0.966 4 (6.8) 4 (6.8) 1.000
  Cystic duct orifice 30 (14.9) 25 (18.8) 5 (7.4) 0.031 4 (6.8) 5 (8.5) 1.000
 Pancreaticobiliary maljunction 1 (0.5) 1 (0.8) 0 (0) 1.000 0 (0) 0 (0) -
Cancer therapy
  Chemotherapy 169 (84.1) 112 (84.2) 57 (83.8) 0.943 44 (74.6) 49 (83.1) 0.244
  Radiation 5 (2.5) 3 (2.3) 2 (1.5) 0.771 2 (3.4) 1 (1.7) 1.000
  Best supportive care 27 (13.4) 18 (13.5) 9 (13.2) 0.953 13 (22.0) 9 (15.3) 0.478
 Follow-up duration (day) 182 (77–353) 164 (90–264) 272 (108–540) <0.001 198 (90–391) 222 (80–432) 0.320

Values are presented as median (interquartile range) or number (%).

EST, endoscopic sphincterotomy.

Table 2.

Procedure details of the entire and matched cohorts

Procedure details Entire cohort
p-value Matched cohort
p-value
All patients (n=201) 6-mm (n=133) 10-mm (n=68) 6-mm (n=59) 10-mm (n=59)
NSAIDs as preventive medicine 167 (83.1) 121 (91.0) 46 (67.6) <0.001 51 (86.4) 40 (67.8) 0.016
Cannulation details
 Guidewire to the pancreatic duct 45 (22.4) 30 (22.6) 15 (22.1) 0.936 11 (18.6) 14 (23.7) 0.499
 Contrast to the pancreatic duct 30 (14.9) 27 (20.3) 3 (4.4) 0.003 9 (15.3) 3 (5.1) 0.068
 Pre-cut 9 (4.5) 7 (5.3) 2 (2.9) 0.721 3 (5.1) 2 (3.4) 1.000
 Rendezvous technique 1 (0.5) 0 (0) 1 (1.5) 0.338 0 (0) 1 (1.7) 1.000
EST performed 194 (96.5) 129 (97.0) 65 (95.6) 0.691 57 (96.6) 56 (94.9) 1.000
Pancreatic duct stenting 12 (6.0) 10 (7.5) 2 (2.9) 0.345 4 (6.8) 2 (3.4) 0.679
FCSEMS length
 5 cm 3 (1.5) 0 (0) 3 (4.4) 0.038 0 (0) 3 (5.1) 0.244
 6 cm 47 (23.4) 5 (3.8) 42 (61.8) <0.001 3 (5.1) 34 (57.6) <0.001
 7 cm 13 (6.5) 0 (0) 13 (19.1) <0.001 0 (0) 12 (20.3) <0.001
 8 cm 121 (60.2) 111 (83.5) 10 (14.7) <0.001 50 (84.7) 10 (16.9) <0.001
 10 cm 16 (8.0) 16 (12.0) 0 (0) 0.003 5 (8.5) 0 (0) 0.057
 12 cm 1 (0.5) 1 (0.8) 0 (0) 1.000 1 (1.7) 0 (0) 1.000

Values are presented as number (%).

NSAID, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug; EST, endoscopic sphincterotomy; FCSEMS, fully covered self-expandable metal stent.

Table 3.

Clinical outcomes of the entire and matched cohorts

Outcome Entire cohort
p-value Matched cohort
p-value
All patients (n=201) 6-mm (n=133) 10-mm (n=68) 6-mm (n=59) 10-mm (n=59)
Clinical success 191 (95.0) 126 (94.7) 65 (95.6) 1.000 54 (91.5) 57 (96.6) 0.439
RBO 63 (31.3) 36 (37.1) 27 (39.7) 0.068 17 (28.8) 21 (35.6) 0.431
 Occlusion 41 (20.4) 19 (14.3) 22 (32.4) 0.003 7 (11.9) 18 (30.5) 0.013
 Migration 22 (10.9) 17 (12.8) 5 (7.4) 0.243 10 (16.9) 3 (5.1) 0.040
Total adverse events (other than RBO) 37 (18.4) 16 (12.0) 21 (30.9) 0.001 8 (13.6) 19 (32.2) 0.016
Early events (<30 days) 30 (14.9) 15 (11.3) 15 (22.1) 0.042 7 (11.9) 14 (23.7) 0.092
Late events (≥31 days) 7 (3.5) 1 (0.8) 6 (8.8) 0.007 1 (1.7) 5 (8.5) 0.207
Grade (mild/moderate/severe) 11/25/1 5/11/0 6/14/1 0.674 5/3/0 5/13/1 0.190
 Pancreatitis 10 (5.0) 4 (3.0) 6 (8.8) 0.091 3 (5.1) 5 (8.5) 0.717
 Cholecystitis 14 (7.0) 6 (4.5) 8 (11.8) 0.077 1 (1.7) 8 (13.6) 0.032
 Non-occlusion cholangitis 9 (4.5)a) 5 (3.8) 4 (5.9) 0.490 3 (5.1) 4 (6.8) 1.000
 Liver abscess 5 (2.5)a) 2 (1.5) 3 (4.4) 0.338 2 (3.4) 2 (3.4) 1.000
Treatment plan after deployment
 Palliative chemotherapy 154 (76.6) 100 (75.2) 54 (79.4) 0.503 41 (69.5) 45 (76.3) 0.408
 Best supportive care 47 (23.4) 33 (24.8) 14 (20.6) 18 (30.5) 14 (23.7)

Values are presented as number (%).

RBO, recurrent biliary obstruction

a)

Duplicate numbers.

Table 4.

Factors associated with recurrent biliary obstruction determined by Cox proportional hazards regression analysis (propensity score-matched cohort)

Variable Matched cohort (n=118)
Univariate (HR, 95% CI) p-value Multivariate (aHR, 95% CI) p-value
Baseline characteristics
 Age (yr) 0.992 (0.968–1.016) 0.519
 Sex (male) 0.737 (0.390–1.394) 0.348
 Pancreatic cancer 0.821 (0.383–1.760) 0.612
 Biliary tract cancer 1.068 (0.254–4.486) 0.928
 Metastasis (vs. local invasion) 1.108 (0.564–2.174) 0.767 1.044 (0.525–2.079) 0.902
 Prior drainage 0.844 (0.440–1.618) 0.609
  EST history 0.692 (0.317–1.512) 0.356
 Cholecystectomy history 0.505 (0.120–2.119) 0.351
 Tumor invasion
  Duodenal papilla 0.628 (0.151–2.615) 0.523 0.636 (0.148–2.726) 0.542
  Cystic duct orifice 2.348 (0.818–6.736) 0.113
ERCP procedure details
 EST performed 22.57 (0.067–7629) 0.294
 Pancreatic duct stenting 0.986 (0.237–4.110) 0.984
 FCSEMS length (≥8 cm) 0.939 (0.487–1.811) 0.850
6-mm-diameter FCSEMS 1.279 (0.666–2.458) 0.460 1.280 (0.662–2.476) 0.463

HR, hazard ratio; CI, confidence interval; aHR, adjusted HR; EST, endoscopic sphincterotomy; ERCP, endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography; FCSEMS, fully covered self-expandable metal stent.

Table 5.

Adjusted relative risk of stent-related adverse events (other than RBO) in 6-mm-diameter compared with 10-mm-diameter FCSEMS deployment

Variable Matched cohort (n=118)
Univariate (OR, 95% CI) p-value Multivariate (aOR, 95% CI) p-value
Baseline characteristics
 Age (per year) 0.929 (0.893–0.966) <0.001
  Age <70 years 4.498 (1.567–12.91) 0.005 5.201 (1.711–15.81) 0.004
 Sex (Male) 0.673 (0.283–1.599) 0.370
 Pancreatic cancer 1.205 (0.456–3.183) 0.706
 Biliary tract cancer 1.740 (0.301–10.06) 0.536
 Metastasis (vs. local invasion) 1.113 (0.458–2.701) 0.813
 Prior drainage 1.168 (0.491–2.778) 0.726
  EST history 1.667 (0.653–4.254) 0.285
 Cholecystectomy history 2.991 (0.743–12.05) 0.123
 Tumor invasion
  Duodenal papilla 0.462 (0.054–3.927) 0.479
  Cystic duct orifice 1.771 (0.412–7.610) 0.442 1.242 (0.256–6.02) 0.788
ERCP procedure details
 NSAIDs as preventive medicine 1.050 (0.375–2.941) 0.926 1.928 (0.576–6.452) 0.287
 Cannulation details
  Guidewire to the pancreatic duct 2.980 (1.144–7.764) 0.025 3.411 (1.122–10.37) 0.031
  Contrast to the pancreatic duct 1.804 (0.499–6.529) 0.368
  Pre-cut NA NA
 EST performed 1.195 (0.128–11.17) 0.876
 Pancreatic duct stenting 0.662 (0.074–5.919) 0.712
 FCSEMS length (≥8 cm) 0.548 (0.230–1.304) 0.174
6-mm-diameter FCSEMS 0.330 (0.131–0.832) 0.019 0.311 (0.113–0.857) 0.024

RBO, recurrent biliary obstruction; OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval; aOR, adjusted OR; EST, endoscopic sphincterotomy; ERCP, endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography; NSAID, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug; NA, not available; FCSEMS, fully covered self-expandable metal stent.