Long-term efficacy of metal versus plastic stents in inoperable perihilar cholangiocarcinoma; a multicenter retrospective propensity score matched comparison.

BACKGROUND: For palliative drainage of inoperable perihilar cholangiocarcinoma (pCCA) uncovered metal stents are preferred over plastic stents. However, there is a lack of data on re-interventions at the long-term. The aim is to evaluate the potential difference in the number of re-interventions in patients surviving at least 6 months. METHODS: Retrospective study including patients with pCCA who underwent plastic stent placement(s) or had metal stent(s) in situ for at least 6 months. The primary outcome was the number of re-interventions per patient-year. A propensity score matching (1:1) analysis was performed using age, Bismuth classification, reason for inoperability, pathological confirmation, systemic therapy and initial approach (endoscopic vs percutaneous). RESULTS: Patients in the metal stent group (n = 87) underwent fewer re-interventions compared with the plastic stent group (n = 40) (3.0 vs. 4.7 per patient-year; IRR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.47 to 0.88). When only non-elective re-interventions were included, there was no significant difference (2.1 vs. 2.7; IRR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.55 to 1.08). Results were similar in the propensity score-matched dataset. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that, also in patients with inoperable pCCA who survive at least 6 months, placement of metal stent(s) leads to fewer re-interventions in comparison with plastic stents.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided gastroenterostomy versus duodenal stenting for malignant gastric outlet obstruction: an international, multicenter, propensity score-matched comparison.

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic duodenal stenting is the current standard treatment for malignant gastric outlet obstruction (GOO) in patients with limited life expectancy. However, duodenal stenting is prone to stent dysfunction. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided gastroenterostomy (EUS-GE) is a novel technique with potentially superior stent patency. We compared clinical success, safety, and stent dysfunction of EUS-GE and duodenal stenting in patients with malignant GOO using propensity score matching. METHODS: This international, multicenter, retrospective study analyzed consecutive patients undergoing EUS-GE or duodenal stenting for GOO between 2015 and 2021 in three European centers. Primary outcomes were clinical success (GOO scoring system [GOOSS] ≥ 2) and stent dysfunction (GOOSS ≤ 1 after initial clinical success). A propensity score matching (1:1) analysis was performed using age, sex, underlying disease, disease stage, ascites, and peritoneal carcinomatosis as variables. RESULTS: 214 patients underwent EUS-GE (n = 107) or duodenal stenting (n = 107). After propensity score matching, 176 patients were matched and compared. Technical success rates for EUS-GE and duodenal stenting were 94 % (95 %CI 89 %-99 %) vs. 98 % (95 %CI 95 %-100 %), respectively (P = 0.44). Clinical success rates were 91 % (95 %CI 85 %-97 %) vs. 75 % (95 %CI 66 %-84 %; P = 0.008). Stent dysfunction occurred in 1 % (95 %CI 0-4 %) vs. 26 % (95 %CI 15 %-37 %) of patients (P < 0.001). Adverse event rate was 10 % (95 %CI 4 %-17 %) vs. 21 % (95 %CI 12 %-29 %; P = 0.09). CONCLUSION: EUS-GE had higher clinical success and lower stent dysfunction, with similar safety, compared with duodenal stenting, suggesting that EUS-GE may be preferred over duodenal stenting in patients with malignant GOO.