Klinik und Poliklinik für Innere Medizin II, Klinikum rechts der Isar der Technischen Universität München, Ismaninger Straße 22, Munich 81675, Germany.
Medizinische Klinik II, Krankenhaus Landshut-Achdorf, Academic Teaching Hospital, Technische Universität München, Achdorferweg 3, Landshut 84036, Germany.
Hepatobiliary Pancreat Dis Int. 2018 Feb;17(1):49-54. doi: 10.1016/j.hbpd.2018.01.016. Epub 2018 Jan 31.
Occlusion of self-expanding metal stents (SEMS) in malignant biliary obstruction occurs in up to 40% of patients. This study aimed to compare the different techniques to resolve stent occlusion in our collective of patients.
Patients with malignant biliary obstruction and occlusion of biliary metal stent at a tertiary referral endoscopic center were retrospectively identified between April 1, 1994 and May 31, 2014. The clinical records were further analyzed regarding the characteristics of patients, malignant strictures, SEMS, management strategies, stent patency, subsequent interventions, survival time and case charges.
A total of 108 patients with biliary metal stent occlusion were identified. Seventy-nine of these patients were eligible for further analysis. Favored management was plastic stent insertion in 73.4% patients. Second SEMS were inserted in 12.7% patients. Percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage and mechanical cleansing were conducted in a minority of patients. Further analysis showed no statistically significant difference in median overall secondary stent patency (88 vs. 143 days, P = 0.069), median survival time (95 vs. 192 days, P = 0.116), median subsequent intervention rate (53.4% vs. 40.0%, P = 0.501) and median case charge (€5145 vs. €3473, P = 0.803) for the treatment with a second metal stent insertion compared to plastic stent insertion. In patients with survival time of more than three months, significantly more patients treated with plastic stents needed re-interventions than patients treated with second SEMS (93.3% vs. 57.1%, P = 0.037).
In malignant biliary strictures, both plastic and metal stent insertions are feasible strategies for the treatment of occluded SEMS. Our data suggest that in palliative biliary stenting, patients especially those with longer expected survival might benefit from second SEMS insertion. Careful patient selection is important to ensure a proper decision for either management strategy.
在恶性胆道梗阻患者中,多达 40%的患者会出现自膨式金属支架(SEMS)阻塞。本研究旨在比较我们的患者群体中解决支架阻塞的不同技术。
1994 年 4 月 1 日至 2014 年 5 月 31 日,在一家三级转诊内镜中心回顾性确定患有恶性胆道梗阻和胆道金属支架阻塞的患者。进一步分析了患者、恶性狭窄、SEMS、管理策略、支架通畅性、后续干预、生存时间和病例费用的临床记录。
共确定 108 例胆道金属支架阻塞患者,其中 79 例符合进一步分析条件。在 73.4%的患者中,首选治疗方法是塑料支架置入术。12.7%的患者再次插入 SEMS。少数患者接受了经皮经肝胆道引流和机械清洗。进一步分析显示,第二次 SEMS 插入的中位总支架再通时间(88 天 vs. 143 天,P=0.069)、中位生存时间(95 天 vs. 192 天,P=0.116)、中位后续干预率(53.4% vs. 40.0%,P=0.501)和中位病例费用(€5145 欧元 vs. €3473 欧元,P=0.803)无统计学显著差异。在生存时间超过三个月的患者中,接受塑料支架治疗的患者需要再次干预的比例明显高于接受第二次 SEMS 治疗的患者(93.3% vs. 57.1%,P=0.037)。
在恶性胆道狭窄中,塑料支架和金属支架插入都是治疗 SEMS 阻塞的可行策略。我们的数据表明,在姑息性胆道支架置入术中,尤其是那些预期生存时间较长的患者,可能会受益于第二次 SEMS 置入术。仔细选择患者非常重要,以确保为这两种治疗策略做出适当的决策。