Elkilany Aboelyazid, Alwarraky Mohamed, Geisel Dominik, Maaly Mohamed A, Denecke Timm
Department of Diagnostic Medical Imaging and Interventional Radiology, National Liver Institute, Menoufia University, Menoufia, Egypt.
Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Acta Radiol. 2020 Dec;61(12):1591-1599. doi: 10.1177/0284185120911187. Epub 2020 Mar 25.
Considering the limitations in both uncovered self-expandable metallic stents (USEMS) and covered self-expandable metallic stents (CSEMS), it is difficult to make a general recommendation for their application in percutaneous decompression of malignant biliary obstruction (MBO).
To compare percutaneous transhepatic CSEMSs versus USEMSs for the palliative treatment of MBO in terms of technical success, clinical success, stent patency, patient survival, complications, and stent dysfunction.
This prospective randomized study included 66 patients with unresectable MBO. CSEMSs were inserted in 31 patients (26 men, 5 women; mean age = 63.8 ± 7.96 years) and USEMSs were inserted in 35 patients (26 men, 9 women; mean age = 62.3 ± 11.7 years).
Mean primary stent patency duration was 138 ± 92.7 days in CSEMSs versus 150 ± 77.9 days in USEMSs ( = 0.578). Tumor overgrowth occurred exclusively in one patient with CSEMS ( = 0.470) and tumor ingrowth exclusively in two patients with USEMS ( = 0.494). Stent migration occurred in two patients with CSEMSs versus one patient with USEMSs ( = 0.579). Hemobilia occurred in five patients with CSEMSs versus three patients with USEMSs while bile leakage occurred in one patient in each group despite the larger introducer sheath caliber with CSEMSs (9 F vs. 6-7 F). There was no significant difference regarding patient survival ( = 0.969).
In our cohort of patients with rather poor life expectancy, there was no significant difference between covered and uncovered stents for the palliative treatment of MBO. However, considering the higher cost of CSEMs and the larger introducer diameter necessary for their placement, USEMSs can be preferred.
考虑到裸金属自膨式支架(USEMS)和覆膜金属自膨式支架(CSEMS)都存在局限性,很难就其在经皮恶性胆道梗阻(MBO)减压中的应用给出一般性建议。
比较经皮经肝CSEMS与USEMS在MBO姑息治疗中的技术成功率、临床成功率、支架通畅率、患者生存率、并发症及支架功能障碍情况。
这项前瞻性随机研究纳入了66例无法切除的MBO患者。31例患者(26例男性,5例女性;平均年龄=63.8±7.96岁)植入CSEMS,35例患者(26例男性,9例女性;平均年龄=62.3±11.7岁)植入USEMS。
CSEMS的平均初次支架通畅持续时间为138±92.7天,USEMS为150±77.9天(P=0.578)。肿瘤过度生长仅发生在1例植入CSEMS的患者中(P=0.470),肿瘤长入仅发生在2例植入USEMS的患者中(P=0.494)。2例植入CSEMS的患者发生支架移位,1例植入USEMS的患者发生支架移位(P=0.579)。5例植入CSEMS的患者发生胆道出血,3例植入USEMS的患者发生胆道出血,尽管CSEMS的导入鞘管径更大(9F对6-7F),但每组均有1例患者发生胆漏。患者生存率无显著差异(P=0.969)。
在我们预期寿命较短的患者队列中,覆膜支架和裸支架在MBO姑息治疗方面无显著差异。然而,考虑到CSEMs成本较高且放置所需的导入器直径较大,USEMS可能更受青睐。