Prospective multicenter assessment of the impact of EUS-guided gastroenterostomy on patient quality of life in unresectable malignant gastric outlet obstruction.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: EUS-guided gastroenterostomy (EUS-GE) is increasingly used for malignant gastric outlet obstruction (GOO) in inoperable patients. However, the impact of EUS-GE on patient quality of life (QoL) has not been evaluated prospectively. METHODS: Consecutive patients with unresectable malignant GOO who underwent EUS-GE between August 2019 and May 2021 at 4 Spanish centers were prospectively assessed using the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QoL Questionnaire Core 30 at baseline and 1 month after the procedure. Centralized follow-up by telephone calls was undertaken. The Gastric Outlet Obstruction Scoring System (GOOSS) was used to assess oral intake, defining clinical success as a GOOSS ≥2. Differences between baseline and 30-day QoL scores were assessed using a linear mixed model. RESULTS: Sixty-four patients were enrolled, 33 (51.6%) men, with a median age of 77.3 years (interquartile range, 65.5-86.5). The most common diagnoses were pancreatic (35.9%) and gastric (31.3%) adenocarcinoma. Thirty-seven patients (57.9%) presented a 2/3 baseline Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score. Oral intake was restarted within 48 hours in 61 patients (95.3%), and the median postprocedure hospital stay was 3.5 days (interquartile range, 2-5). The 30-day clinical success rate was 83.3%. A clinically significant increase of 21.6 points (95% confidence interval, 11.5-31.7) in the global health status scale was documented, with significant improvements in nausea and vomiting, pain, constipation, and appetite loss. CONCLUSIONS: EUS-GE relieves GOO symptoms in patients with unresectable malignancy, allowing rapid oral intake and hospital discharge. It also provides a clinically relevant increase in QoL scores at 30 days from baseline. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT04660695.).

Contemporary Assessment of Need for Palliative Bypass After Aborted Pancreatoduodenectomy Following Neoadjuvant Therapy.

BACKGROUND: Planned pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) for pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PDAC) can be aborted due to intraoperative findings. There is little guidance regarding the need for prophylactic bypass following an aborted PD to prevent symptomatic biliary obstruction or gastric outlet obstruction (GOO) postoperatively. The aim of this study was to characterize postoperative interventions and postsurgical survival in patients following aborted PD. METHODS: Patients with PDAC treated with neoadjuvant therapy and staging laparoscopy prior to planned PD between 2010 and 2015 were reviewed for aborted PDs. Data on postoperative biliary obstruction, GOO, procedural intervention, and postsurgical survival were analyzed. RESULTS: Of 271 planned PDs, 47 (17.3%) were aborted. Thirty-six patients had ≥ 2 months of follow-up data and were included. Six patients underwent hepaticojejunostomy and nine patients underwent gastrojejunostomy at the time of the aborted PD. Sixteen of 30 patients (53%) without a surgical biliary bypass required endoscopic intervention, but none required palliative surgery. Ten of 27 patients (37%) without an operative gastrojejunostomy required intervention, but none required palliative surgery. Endoscopic or percutaneous therapy was required to treat 13/16 (81%) patients who presented with postoperative biliary obstructions and 6/10 (60%) of GOOs. Median survival following aborted PD was 13.3 months (CI 8.9-17.7). There were no differences in survival when comparing patients who developed a biliary obstruction (p = 0.92) or GOO (p = 0.90) to asymptomatic patients. CONCLUSIONS: Following aborted PD, patients commonly develop obstructive symptoms. However, these symptoms can generally be managed without surgical intervention. In asymptomatic patients, preemptive surgical bypasses are not required at the time of aborted PD.

Optimizing outcomes for EUS-guided gastroenterostomy: results of a Standardized Clinical Assessment and Management Plan (with video).

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: EUS-guided gastroenterostomy (EUS-GE) has emerged as an option for managing malignant gastric outlet obstruction (GOO). However, there is currently no standardized technique, and outcomes are variable with inconsistencies both within and across centers. The present study aims to develop and assess outcomes of a Standardized Clinical and Assessment Management Plan (SCAMP) for EUS-GE. METHODS: A SCAMP was created by a multidisciplinary team to develop and optimize a systematic approach for EUS-GE. This is a single-center, prospective cohort study on patients undergoing EUS-GE for GOO, using the developed SCAMP. Baseline demographics, cancer diagnosis and stage, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance score, clinical and technical success, adverse events (AEs), and obstruction recurrence were collected. Primary outcomes included technical and clinical success. Obstruction-free and overall survival were calculated and compared with Kaplan-Meier analysis. RESULTS: Fifty patients underwent EUS-GE in accordance with the SCAMP. Mean age was 67 years, 54% were women, and pancreatic cancer represented the largest cancer type (51%). Technical success was 100% and clinical success 92%. AEs occurred in 2 patients (4%). Recurrent obstruction occurred in 16%, related to distal small-bowel obstruction from carcinomatosis. Estimated mean obstruction-free survival was 217 days. Median overall survival was 230 days among patients with ECOG scores 0 to 2 and 82 days for ECOG scores ≥3 (P = .008). CONCLUSIONS: The standardized technique used was associated with high technical and clinical success and low rates of AEs, morbidity and procedure-related mortality. Adopting a similar uniform systematic approach may improve procedural outcomes and dissemination.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided gastroenterostomy versus open surgical gastrojejunostomy: clinical outcomes and cost effectiveness analysis.

BACKGROUND: Early data suggests that endoscopic ultrasound-guided gastroenterostomy (EUS-GE) is a safe and efficacious option for gastric outlet obstruction (GOO). However, there is a scarcity of data comparing outcomes with open gastrojejunostomy (OGJ). METHODS: Single-center retrospective cohort study of adult patients hospitalized with GOO who underwent EUS-GE or OGJ between January 1, 2014 and February 28, 2020. Primary outcomes were technical and clinical success. RESULTS: Sixty-six patients were included of which 40 (60.0%) underwent EUS-GE and 26 (40.0%) underwent OGJ. Baseline characteristics were similar with respect to age (70.5 vs 69.7, p = 0.81), sex (42.5% vs 42.3% female, p = 0.99), median length of follow-up (98.0 vs 166.5 days, p = 0.8), prior failed intervention for GOO (22.5% vs 26.9%, p = 0.68), and the presence of altered anatomy (12.5% vs 30.8%, p = 0.07) between EUS-GE and OGJ, respectively. Technical success was achieved in 37 (92.5%) of EUS-GE and 26 (100%) of OGJ patients (p = 0.15). EUS-GE was associated with faster resumption of oral intake (1.3 vs 4.7 days, p < 0.001) and shorter length of stay (5 vs 14.5 days, p < 0.001). There were no significant differences in symptom recurrence (17.5% vs 19.2%, HR 1.85, CI 0.52-6.65, p = 0.34), reintervention (20% vs 11.5%, HR 0.82, CI 0.22-3.15, p = 0.78), death within 30 days (12.5% vs 3.8%, HR 0.80, CI 0.09-6.85, p = 0.84), or 30-day readmission (17.5% vs 24.1%, HR 1.69, CI 0.53-5.41, p = 0.37) between EUS-GE and OGJ, respectively. EUS-GE patients initiated chemotherapy sooner (17.7 vs 31.3 days, p = 0.033) and had lower overall costs as compared to OGJ ($49,387 vs $124,192, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: There were no significant differences in technical or clinical success, symptom recurrence, reintervention, 30-day readmission, or 30-day mortality between EUS-GE and OGJ. EUS-GE patients experienced shorter delays to resumption of oral intake and chemotherapy, had shorter lengths of stay, and reduced hospital costs. Further prospective comparative studies are warranted to verify our results.

Malignant gastric outlet obstruction: Which is the best therapeutic option?

Malignant gastric outlet obstruction (MGOO) is a clinical condition characterized by the mechanical obstruction of the pylorus or the duodenum due to tumor compression/infiltration, with consequent reduction or impossibility of an adequate oral intake. MGOO is mainly secondary to advanced pancreatic or gastric cancers, and significantly impacts on patients' survival and quality of life. Patients suffering from this condition often present with intractable vomiting and severe malnutrition, which further compromise therapeutic chances. Currently, palliative strategies are based primarily on surgical gastrojejunostomy and endoscopic enteral stenting with self-expanding metal stents. Several studies have shown that surgical approach has the advantage of a more durable relief of symptoms and the need of fewer re-interventions, at the cost of higher procedure-related risks and longer hospital stay. On the other hand, enteral stenting provides rapid clinical improvement, but have the limit of higher stent dysfunction rate due to tumor ingrowth and a subsequent need of frequent re-interventions. Recently, a third way has come from interventional endoscopic ultrasound, through the development of endoscopic ultrasound-guided gastroenterostomy technique with lumen-apposing metal stent. This new technique may ideally encompass the minimal invasiveness of an endoscopic procedure and the long-lasting effect of the surgical gastrojejunostomy, and brought encouraging results so far, even if prospective comparative trial are still lacking. In this Review, we described technical aspects and clinical outcomes of the above-cited therapeutic approaches, and discussed the open questions about the current management of MGOO.

Natural history and cost analysis of surgical bypass versus endoscopic stenting for the palliative management of malignant gastric outlet obstruction.

BACKGROUND: Malignant gastric outlet obstruction (GOO) is managed with palliative surgical bypass or endoscopic stenting. Limited data exist on differences in cost and outcomes. METHODS: Patients with malignant GOO undergoing palliative gastrojejunostomy (GJ) or endoscopic stent (ES) were identified between 2012 and 2015 using the MarketScan® Database. Median costs (payments) for the index procedure and 90-day readmissions and re-intervention were calculated. Frequency of treatment failure-defined as repeat surgery, stenting, or gastrostomy tube-was measured. RESULTS: A total of 327 patients were included: 193 underwent GJ and 134 underwent ES. Compared to GJ, stenting resulted in lower total median payments for the index hospitalization and procedure-related 90-day readmissions ($18,500 ES vs. $37,200 GJ, p = 0.032). For patients treated with ES, 25 (19%) required a re-intervention for treatment-failure, compared to 18 (9%) patients who underwent GJ (p = 0.010). On multivariable analysis, stenting remained significantly associated with need for secondary re-intervention compared to GJ (HR for ES 2.0 [1.1-3.8], p 0.028). CONCLUSION: In patients with malignant GOO, endoscopic stenting results in significant 90-day cost saving, however was associated with twice the rate of secondary intervention. The decision for surgical bypass versus endoscopic stenting should consider patient prognosis, anticipated cost, and likelihood of needing re-intervention.

Patient-generated subjective global assessment versus nutritional risk screening 2002 for gastric cancer in Chinese patients.

Aim: Patient-Generated Subjective Global Assessment (PG-SGA) and Nutritional Risk Screening 2002 (NRS2002) are used to evaluate patients' nutritional status. Materials & methods: The data of 114 gastric cancer patients with pyloric obstruction treated between July 2016 and July 2017 were assessed retrospectively. Results: Based on clinical evaluation, 70.1% had malnutrition, with 61.4% at nutritional risk by NRS2002 and 66.7% by PG-SGA. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.858 for PG-SGA and 0.706 for NRS2002. Sensitivity and specificity were 89 and 85% for PG-SGA and 78 and 76% for NRS2002. In both assessments, patients at risk showed more postoperative complications. Conclusion: PG-SGA was more suitable for evaluating the preoperative nutritional status of gastric cancer patients with pyloric obstruction, with higher diagnostic efficacy.

Symptomatic Stenosis after Laparoscopic Sleeve Gastrectomy - Incidence and Management in a High-Volume Bariatric Surgery Center.

Background: Owing to the increased use of laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) as a metabolic procedure, a rarely associated complication, the Symptomatic Stenosis (SS) will be more often encounter. The objective of this study is to establish a safe and effective management of SS after LSG. Methods: We have analyzed all the patients with SS after LSG treated in Ponderas Academic Hospital from 2011 to 2018. The information was retrospectively extracted from a prospectively maintained database. Laparoscopy and/or endoscopy were used to treat the organic or functional SS. The procedure's outcomes (effectiveness and complications) were analyzed. Results: Out of the 4304 patients with LSG 47 (1.1%) patients were identified with SS after LSG. The incidence is depending on the LSG technique. Other 4 patients referred to our center have been added. Surgery was the first choice in 9 cases with only 33.3% success rate. For the 46 patients referred to endoscopy there have been 79 pneumatic dilation with an average of 1.7+- 1.1 per patient. We have encountered 1 perforation but any hemorrhage or death. Follow-up rate was 93.5%. Over all, the success rate of endoscopic dilatations was 90.7%. Conclusion: The incidence of SS is low. Endoscopic pneumatic dilation is a safe and effective procedure and should be the front line choice in the management of SS after LSG.

The Effects of Pre-Operative Enteral Nutrition from Nasal Feeding Tubes on Gastric Outlet Obstruction.

We examined gastric outlet obstruction (GOO) patients who received two weeks of strengthening pre-operative enteral nutrition therapy (pre-EN) through a nasal-jejenal feeding tube placed under a gastroscope to evaluate the feasibility and potential benefit of pre-EN compared to parenteral nutrition (PN). In this study, 68 patients confirmed to have GOO with upper-gastrointestinal contrast and who accepted the operation were randomized into an EN group and a PN group. The differences in nutritional status, immune function, post-operative complications, weight of patients, first bowel sound and first flatus time, pull tube time, length of hospital stay (LOH), and cost of hospitalization between pre-operation and post-operation were all recorded. Statistical analyses were performed using the chi square test and t-test; statistical significance was defined as p < 0.05. The success rate of the placement was 91.18% (three out of 31 cases). After pre-EN, the levels of weight, albumin (ALB), prealbumin (PA), and transferrin (TNF) in the EN group were significantly increased by pre-operation day compared to admission day, but were not significantly increased in the PN group; the weights in the EN group were significantly increased compared to the PN group by pre-operation day and day of discharge; total protein (TP), ALB, PA, and TNF of the EN group were significantly increased compared to the PN group on pre-operation and post-operative days one and three. The levels of CD3+, CD4+/CD8+, IgA, and IgM in the EN group were higher than those of the PN group at pre-operation and post-operation; the EN group had a significantly lower incidence of poor wound healing, peritoneal cavity infection, pneumonia, and a shorter first bowel sound time, first flatus time, and post-operation hospital stay than the PN group. Pre-EN through a nasal-jejunum feeding tube and placed under a gastroscope in GOO patients was safe, feasible, and beneficial to the nutrition status, immune function, and gastrointestinal function, and sped up recovery, while not increasing the cost of hospitalization.

Complications of dysgerminoma: meeting the health needs of patients in conflict zones.

A symptom of prolonged conflict is the destruction of infrastructure and healthcare systems. While the need for acute trauma services is obvious in conflict zones, patients with chronic diseases also require care. This report describes the clinical course of a young teenage girl with a large mid pelvic tumour originating from the left ovary and reaching the umbilicus. She presented with acute abdominal pain and underwent surgery in a healthcare facility within a conflict zone. She was then transferred to a neighbouring country for continuing care. The tumour is malignant. After further surgery, she required chemotherapy and will need ongoing surveillance. She has since returned to her home country. It is doubtful that she will be able to access all the care she needs. We describe her healthcare needs and discuss the disastrous effects of conflict on meeting the health needs of civilian populations in war zones.

An assessment of radiologically inserted transoral and transgastric gastroduodenal stents to treat malignant gastric outlet obstruction.

INTRODUCTION: Self-expanding metallic stents (SEMS) are used to palliate malignant gastric outlet obstruction (GOO) and are useful in patients with limited life expectancy or severe medical comorbidity, which would preclude surgery. Stenting can be performed transorally or by a percutaneous transgastric technique. Our goal was to review the outcome of patients who underwent radiological SEMS insertion performed by a single consultant interventional radiologist. METHODS: Patients were identified from a prospectively collected database held by one consultant radiologist. Data were retrieved from radiological reports, multidisciplinary team meetings, and the patients' case notes. Univariate survival analysis was performed. RESULTS: Between December 2000 and January 2011, 100 patients (63 males, 37 females) had 110 gastroduodenal stenting procedures. Median age was 73 (range 39-89) years. SEMS were inserted transorally (n = 66) or transgastrically (n = 44). Site of obstruction was the stomach (n = 37), duodenum (n = 50), gastric pull-up (n = 10), or gastroenterostomy (n = 13). Seven patients required biliary stents. Technical success was 86.4 %: 83.3 % for transoral insertion, 90.9 % for transgastric insertion. Eleven patients developed complications. Median GOO severity score: 1 pre-stenting, 2 post-stenting (p = 0.0001). Median survival was 54 (range 1-624) days. Post-stenting GOO severity score was predictive of survival (p = 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: The technical success rate for insertion of palliative SEMS is high. Insertional technique can be tailored to the individual depending on the location of the tumor and whether it is possible to access the stomach percutaneously. Patients who have successful stenting and return to eating a soft/normal diet have a statistically significant increase in survival.

Treatment of malignant gastric outlet obstruction with metallic stents: assessment of whether gastrointestinal position alters efficacy.

OBJECTIVES: Gastric outlet obstruction (GOO) is a late complication of advanced gastric, pancreatic, and duodenal cancer. Palliative treatment of the obstruction is the main aim of therapy for these patients. Self-expandable metal stents are used for treating GOO. From our experience, the placement of the stent across the pylorus is easier and makes the curve of stent better than when the stent is placed within the duodenal area. The purposes of this study were to assess the efficacy of stents placed in either the duodenal area or across the pyloric valve in relieving GOO symptoms and to evaluate whether the location of the stent affects treatment outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a retrospective single-site study of 44 patients with malignant GOO. Expanding metal stents were placed either across the pyloric valve (n = 22; group A) or in the duodenum area (n = 22; group B). Improvement in oral intake was monitored using the Gastric Outlet Obstruction Scoring System (GOOSS). The end of the study was death of the last enrolled patient or 6 months after enrollment of the last patient, or whatever came first. RESULTS: Stent implantation similarly improved the patients' tolerance for food intake from baseline for both groups A and B (median [interquartile range]; 2 [2-3] and 2 [2-3], respectively). Patients in group B who received adjunctive chemotherapy had greater improvement in GOOSS and survival than patients in group B who did not have chemotherapy or any group A patients (P < 0.05). Stent patency was not affected by stent position or chemotherapy. CONCLUSION: Palliative treatment of GOO with placement of an expandable metal stent improved the tolerability of food intake. The location of stent across the pyloric valve or within the duodenum did not affect the efficacy of the procedure or stent patency.

Stenting versus gastrojejunostomy for management of malignant gastric outlet obstruction: comparison of clinical outcomes and costs.

BACKGROUND: Although endoscopic stenting is increasingly performed, surgical gastrojejunostomy (GJ) is still considered the gold standard for relief of malignant gastric outlet obstruction (GOO). The aim of this study is to compare clinical outcomes and hospital costs between patients undergoing GJ or stenting for management of malignant GOO. METHODS: A retrospective claims analysis of the Medicare (MedPAR) database was conducted to identify all inpatient hospitalizations for GJ or endoscopic stenting for malignant GOO during 2007-2008. The main outcome measure evaluated using the MedPAR database was a comparison of the total length of hospital stay (LOS) and costs associated with both techniques. As MedPAR is a claims database that does not provide outcomes at patient level, a single-institution retrospective study was conducted to compare the rates of technical and treatment success, post-procedure LOS, and delayed complications per patient between the two techniques. RESULTS: The MedPAR claims data evaluated 425 stenting and 339 GJ hospitalizations. Compared with GJ, median LOS (8 vs. 16 days; p < 0.0001) and median cost (US $15,366 vs. US $27,391; p < 0.0001) per claim were both significantly lower for stenting. Stenting was more commonly performed at urban versus rural hospitals (89 % vs. 11 %; p < 0.0001), teaching versus non-teaching hospitals (59 % vs. 41 %, p = 0.0005), and academic institutions (56 % vs. 44 %; p = 0.0157). The institutional patient data analysis included 29 patients who underwent stenting and 75 who underwent surgical GJ. While both modalities were technically successful and relieved gastric outlet obstruction in all cases, compared with surgical GJ, the median post-procedure LOS was significantly lower for enteral stenting (1.5 vs. 10.7 days, p < 0.0001). There was no difference in rates of delayed complications between stenting and surgical GJ (13.8 % vs. 6.7 %; p = 0.26). CONCLUSIONS: While the technical and clinical outcomes of surgical GJ and endoscopic stenting appear comparable, stent placement is less costly and is associated with shorter length of hospital stay. Dissemination of endoscopic stenting beyond teaching, academic hospitals located in urban areas as a treatment for malignant GOO is important given its implications for patient care and resource utilization.

Endoscopic stenting versus gastrojejunostomy for palliation of malignant gastric outlet obstruction.

The aim of the present study was to analyze endoscopic stenting versus gastrojejunostomy of malignant gastric outlet obstruction (GOO). A systematic review of the literature was undertaken to analyze clinical trials on GOO. Six studies were eligible for analysis (three randomized control trials and three controlled clinical trials). Technical success (OR [95% CI]: 0.10 [0.02, 0.47]; I(2) = 0%; P = 0.003) and minor complications (OR [95% CI]: 0.28 [0.10, 0.83]; I(2) = 49%; P = 0.02). Time to oral intake and length of survival were also shorter in the endoscopic stenting (ES) group. There was no statistically significant difference in clinical success, length of survival, mortality and major complications. The present review demonstrated potentially improved quality of life in the ES group. ES is a safe and effective, minimally invasive and cost-effective option for palliation of malignant gastric outlet obstruction. The present review provides supportive evidence that ES should be considered as the gold standard treatment for malignant GOO.

Enteral stents for malignant gastric outlet obstruction.

Malignant gastric outlet obstruction (GOO) is a commonly encountered entity, defined as the inability of the stomach to empty because of mechanical obstruction at the level of either the stomach or the proximal small bowel. In this article, current literature on GOO is reviewed with a focus on enteral stents to include symptoms and diagnosis, stent and nonstent treatment, types of enteral stents, indications and contraindications to stent placement, and technical and clinical success rates. In comparison with gastrojejunostomy, enteral stent placement is better suited for patients with a shorter life expectancy and/or those who are poor surgical candidates.

Risk assessment for adverse outcome in term and late preterm neonates with bilirubin values of 20 mg/dL or more.

The aim of this study is to identify clinical, etiologic, and laboratory factors that potentiate adverse outcome of hyperbilirubinemia among term and late preterm neonates in logistic regression analysis. A retrospective cohort of infants with total serum bilirubin (TSB) ≥ 20 mg/dL from 1995 to 2007 was surveyed. Eighteen infants had adverse outcome. Controls were 270 infants without sequelae. Risks were significantly higher in infants with six etiologies causing hyperbilirubinemia: sepsis (odds ratio [OR] = 161.7, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 11.7 to 2242.8), gastrointestinal obstruction (OR = 39.2, 95% CI = 2.7 to 567.3), Rh incompatibility (OR = 31.0, 95% CI = 5.1 to 188.9), hereditary spherocytosis (OR = 19.6, 95% CI = 1.6 to 235.5), ABO incompatibility (OR = 5.1, 95% CI = 1.3 to 19.7), and glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase deficiency (OR = 4.7, 95% CI = 1.3 to 16.7). Infants with acute bilirubin encephalopathy were more likely to have adverse outcome than subjects without acute bilirubin encephalopathy (OR = 281.7, 95% CI = 25.8 to 3076.7). Adverse outcome was more common in infants with a positive direct Coombs test (OR = 4.5, 95% CI = 1.3 to 15.4). Infants with hemoglobin < 10 g/dL tended to have adverse outcome more often than those with hemoglobin ≥ 13 g/dL (OR = 11.8, 95% CI = 3.3 to 42.9). Infants with TSB of 35 mg/dL or more (OR = 472.5, 95% CI = 47.8 to 4668.8) and of 30 to 34.9 mg/dL (OR = 9.5, 95% CI = 1.6 to 57.9) carry greater risks as compared with those with TSB of 20 to 24.9 mg/dL. In conclusion, this study quantitatively verified the potential risks for adverse outcome of neonatal hyperbilirubinemia.

Self-expandable metallic stents for malignant gastric outlet obstruction.

Duodenal self-expandable metal stents (SEMS) are designed for palliation and prompt relief of malignant gastric outlet obstruction (GOO). This mini-invasive endoscopic treatment is preferable to surgery due to its lower morbidity and mortality, shorter hospitalization, and earlier symptoms relief; furthermore endoscopic enteral stenting can be performed under conscious sedation, reducing the risk of general anesthesia in these already fragile patients. The stent placement technique is well established and should be performed in referral centers with adequate materials and equipment. Duodenal stents can be covered and uncovered. Nitinol stents have almost replaced other materials, being more flexible with a satisfactory axial and radial force. Common duodenal SEMS-related complications are recurrence of GOO symptoms due to stent clogging (tissue ingrowth/overgrowth and food impaction) and stent migration. These complications can be usually managed endoscopically. Perforation and bleeding are the most severe, but rare, complications. After stent placement, malignant GOO patients usually have improvement of the GOO symptoms with good resumption of fluids and solids. Choosing the most appropriate type of stent is arduous and should be done mainly in relation to the morphological aspects of the stricture. Endoscopic duodenal SEMS placement is indicated in symptomatic GOO patients suffering from unresectable malignancy or those inoperable due to advanced age or comorbidities. The absence of peritoneal carcinomatosis and multiple small bowel strictures is a key point for the clinical success of duodenal SEMS. Almost all symptomatic malignant GOO patients are candidates for the duodenal SEMS procedure; resolution of GOO, avoiding the need for a permanent naso-gastric or percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tube, significantly improves the patients' quality of life and dignity, even if life expectancy is short. Endoscopic duodenal SEMS insertion, after an adequate training, is a reproducible, simple, safe, and cost-effective procedure.

A systematic review of methods to palliate malignant gastric outlet obstruction.

BACKGROUND: The traditional approach to palliating patients with malignant gastric outlet obstruction (GOO) has been open gastrojejunostomy (OGJ). More recently endoscopic stenting (ES) and laparoscopic gastrojejunostomy (LGJ) have been introduced as alternatives, and some studies have suggested improved outcomes with ES. The aim of this review is to compare ES with OGJ and LGJ in terms of clinical outcome. METHOD: A systematic literature search and review was performed for the period January 1990 to May 2008. Original comparative studies were included where ES was compared with either LGJ or OGJ or both, for the palliation of malignant GOO. RESULTS: Thirteen studies met the inclusion criteria (10 retrospective cohort studies, two randomised controlled trials and one prospective study). Compared with OGJ, ES resulted in an increased likelihood of tolerating an oral intake [odds ratio (OR) 2.6, p = 0.02], a shorter time to tolerating an oral intake (mean difference 6.9 days, p < 0.001) and a shorter post-procedural hospital stay (mean difference 11.8 days, p < 0.001). There were no significant differences between 30-day mortality, complication rates or survival. There were an inadequate number of cases to quantitatively compare ES with LGJ. CONCLUSION: This review demonstrates improved clinical outcomes with ES over OGJ for patients with malignant GOO. However, there is insufficient data to adequately compare ES with LGJ, which is the current standard for operative management. As these conclusions are based on observational studies only, future large well-designed randomised controlled trials (RCTs) would be required to ensure the estimates of the relative efficacy of these interventions are valid.

Surgical gastrojejunostomy or endoscopic stent placement for the palliation of malignant gastric outlet obstruction (SUSTENT study): a multicenter randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Both gastrojejunostomy (GJJ) and stent placement are commonly used palliative treatments of obstructive symptoms caused by malignant gastric outlet obstruction (GOO). OBJECTIVE: Compare GJJ and stent placement. DESIGN: Multicenter, randomized trial. SETTING: Twenty-one centers in The Netherlands. PATIENTS: Patients with GOO. INTERVENTIONS: GJJ and stent placement. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Outcomes were medical effects, quality of life, and costs. Analysis was by intent to treat. RESULTS: Eighteen patients were randomized to GJJ and 21 to stent placement. Food intake improved more rapidly after stent placement than after GJJ (GOO Scoring System score > or = 2: median 5 vs 8 days, respectively; P < .01) but long-term relief was better after GJJ, with more patients living more days with a GOO Scoring System score of 2 or more than after stent placement (72 vs 50 days, respectively; P = .05). More major complications (stent: 6 in 4 patients vs GJJ: 0; P = .02), recurrent obstructive symptoms (stent: 8 in 5 patients vs GJJ: 1 in 1 patient; P = .02), and reinterventions (stent: 10 in 7 patients vs GJJ: 2 in 2 patients; P < .01) were observed after stent placement compared with GJJ. When stent obstruction was not regarded as a major complication, no differences in complications were found (P = .4). There were also no differences in median survival (stent: 56 days vs GJJ: 78 days) and quality of life. Mean total costs of GJJ were higher compared with stent placement ($16,535 vs $11,720, respectively; P = .049 [comparing medians]). Because of the small study population, only initial hospital costs would have been statistically significant if the Bonferroni correction for multiple testing had been applied. LIMITATIONS: Relatively small patient population. CONCLUSIONS: Despite slow initial symptom improvement, GJJ was associated with better long-term results and is therefore the treatment of choice in patients with a life expectancy of 2 months or longer. Because stent placement was associated with better short-term outcomes, this treatment is preferable for patients expected to live less than 2 months. ( CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN 06702358.).

Cost comparison of gastrojejunostomy versus duodenal stent placement for malignant gastric outlet obstruction.

BACKGROUND: Gastrojejunostomy (GJJ) and stent placement are the most commonly used palliative treatments for malignant gastric outlet obstruction (GOO). In a recent randomized trial, stent placement was preferred in patients with a relatively short survival and GJJ in patients with a longer survival. As health economic aspects have only been studied in general terms, we estimated the cost of GJJ and that of stent placement in such patients. METHODS: In the SUSTENT study, patients were randomized to GJJ (n = 18) or stent placement (n = 21). Pancreatic cancer was the most common cause of GOO. We compared initial costs and costs during follow-up. For cost-effectiveness, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was calculated. RESULTS: Food intake improved more rapidly after stent placement than after GJJ, but long-term relief of obstructive symptoms was better after GJJ. More major complications (P = 0.02) occurred and more reinterventions were performed (P < 0.01) after stent placement than after GJJ. Initial costs were higher for GJJ compared to stent placement (euro8315 vs. euro4820, P < 0.001). We found no difference in follow-up costs. Total costs per patient were higher for GJJ compared to stent placement (euro12433 vs. euro8819, P = 0.049). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of GJJ compared to stent placement was euro164 per extra day with a gastric outlet obstruction scoring system (GOOSS) >or=2 adjusted for survival. CONCLUSIONS: Medical effects were better after GJJ, although GJJ had higher total costs. Since the cost difference between the two treatments was only small, cost should not play a predominant role when deciding on the type of treatment assigned to patients with malignant GOO (ISRCTN 06702358).