Metal stent for the ureteral stricture after surgery and/or radiation treatment for malignancy.

BACKGROUND: To assess the efficacy and safety of self-expanding metal ureteral stent for the stricture following surgery and/or radiation for malignancy. METHODS: We performed 36 metal ureteral stent insertion procedures (32 patients) between May 2019 and June 2020. The main inclusion criterion was the patients with ureteral stricture due to surgery and/or radiation treatment for malignancy. The diagnosis of stricture was ascertained by history and radiographic imaging. The etiologies underlying the strictures were: surgery and/or radiation therapy for cervical and rectal cancer, surgery for ovarian cancer. The primary outcome was the stent patency rate, and the secondary outcomes were the postoperative complications and glomerular filtration rate (GFR). Stent patency was defined as stent in situ without evident migration, unanticipated stent exchange or recurrent ureteral obstruction. Cost analysis was calculated from stent cost, anesthesia cost and operating room fee. RESULTS: The pre-metallic stent GFR was 22.53 ± 6.55 mL/min/1.73 m2. Eight patients were on double-J stents before insertion of metallic stents. The total annual cost of per patient in our study was $10,600.2 US dollars (range $9394.4-$33,527.4 US dollars). During a median follow-up time of 16 months (range 8-21 months), 27 cases (31 sides, 84%) remained stent patency. Twelve patients died from their primary malignancy carrying a patency stent. Stent migration was observed in 4 patients within 10 months after insertion. Ectopic stents were endoscopically removed and replaced successfully. Three stents were occluded, and no encrustation was seen in our study. Three and four patients had postoperative fever and gross hematuria, respectively. Infection was observed in 2 cases, mandating antibiotics therapy. In addition, postoperative volume of hydronephrosis postoperatively was significantly reduced compared with preoperation (54.18 ± 15.42 vs 23.92 ± 8.3, P = 0.019). However, no statistically significant differences regarding GFR, creatinine levels, blood urea nitrogen and hemoglobin existed between preoperation and last follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: The current study demonstrated that metal ureteral stent is effective and safe in the treatment of stricture following surgery and/or radiation therapy for malignant cancer. Patients hydronephrosis could be improved by the stent placement.

Cost-effectiveness of palliative emergent surgery versus endoscopic stenting for acute malignant colonic obstruction.

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic stenting has demonstrated value over emergent surgery as a palliative intervention for patients with acute large bowel obstruction due to advanced colorectal cancer. However, concerns regarding high reintervention rates and the risk of perforation have brought into question its cost-effectiveness. METHODS: A decision tree analysis was performed to analyze costs and survival in patients with unresectable or metastatic colorectal cancer who present with acute large bowel obstruction. The model was designed with two treatment arms: self-expanding metallic stent (SEMS) placement and emergent surgery. Costs were derived from medicare reimbursement rates (US$), while effectiveness was represented by quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). The primary outcome measure was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). The model was tested for validation using one-way, two-way, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: Endoscopic stenting resulted in an average cost of $43,798.06 and 0.68 QALYs. Emergent surgery cost $5865.30 more, while only yielding 0.58 QALYs. This resulted in an ICER of - $58,653.00, indicating that SEMS placement is the dominant strategy. One-way and two-way sensitivity analyses demonstrated that emergent surgery would require an improved survival rate in comparison to endoscopic stenting to become the favored treatment modality. In 100,000 probabilistic simulations, endoscopic stenting was favored 96.3% of the time. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with acute colonic obstruction in the presence of unresectable or metastatic disease, endoscopic stenting is a more cost-effective palliative intervention than emergent surgery. This recommendation would favor surgery over SEMS placement with improved surgical survival, or if the majority of patients undergoing stenting required reintervention.

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.

Versatile use of catheter systems for deployment of the Pipeline embolization device: a comparison of biaxial and triaxial catheter systems.

BACKGROUND: A Pipeline embolization device (PED; Medtronic, Dublin, Ireland) can be deployed using either a biaxial or a triaxial catheter delivery system. OBJECTIVE: To compare the use of these two catheter delivery systems for intracranial aneurysm treatment with the PED. METHODS: A retrospective study of patients undergoing PED deployment with biaxial or triaxial catheter systems between 2014 and 2016 was conducted. Experienced neurointerventionalists performed the procedures. Patients who received multiple PEDs or adjunctive coils were excluded. The two groups were compared for PED deployment time, total fluoroscopy time, patient radiation exposure, complications, and cost. RESULTS: Eighty-two patients with 89 intracranial aneurysms were treated with one PED each. In 49 cases, PEDs were deployed using biaxial access; triaxial access was used in 33 cases. Time (min) from guide catheter run to PED deployment was significantly shorter in the biaxial group (24.0±18.7 vs 38.4±31.1, P=0.006) as was fluoroscopy time (28.8±23.0 vs 50.3±27.1, P=0.001). Peak radiation skin exposure (mGy) in the biaxial group was less than in the triaxial group (1243.7±808.2 vs 2074.6±1505.6, P=0.003). No statistically significant differences were observed in transient and permanent complication rates or modified Rankin Scale scores at 30 days. The triaxial access system cost more than the biaxial access system (average $3285 vs $1790, respectively). Occlusion rates at last follow-up (mean 6 months) were similar between the two systems (average 88.1%: biaxial, 89.2%: triaxial). CONCLUSION: Our results indicate near-equivalent safety and effectiveness between biaxial and triaxial approaches. Some reductions in cost and procedure time were noted with the biaxial system.

The economic burden of endoscopic treatment for anastomotic leaks following oncological Ivor Lewis esophagectomy.

BACKGROUND: Complications after surgery for esophageal cancer are associated with significant resource utilization. The aim of this study was to analyze the economic burden of two frequently used endoscopic treatments for anastomotic leak management after esophageal surgery: Treatment with a Self-expanding Metal Stent (SEMS) and Endoscopic Vacuum Therapy (EVT). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between January 2012 and December 2016, we identified 60 German-Diagnosis Related Group (G-DRG) cases of patients who received a SEMS and / or EVT for esophageal anastomotic leaks. Direct costs per case were analyzed according to the Institute for Remuneration System in Hospitals (InEK) cost-accounting approach by comparing DRG payments on the case level, including all extra fees per DRG catalogue. RESULTS: In total, 60 DRG cases were identified. Of these, 15 patients were excluded because they received a combination of SEMS and EVT. Another 6 cases could not be included due to incomplete DRG data. Finally, N = 39 DRG cases were analyzed from a profit-center perspective. A further analysis of the most frequent DRG code -G03- including InEK cost accounting, revealed almost twice the deficit for the EVT group (N = 13 cases, € - 9.282 per average case) compared to that for the SEMS group (N = 9 cases, € - 5.156 per average case). CONCLUSION: Endoscopic treatments with SEMS and EVT for anastomotic leaks following oncological Ivor Lewis esophagectomies are not cost-efficient for German hospitals. Due to longer hospitalization and insufficient reimbursements, EVT is twice as costly as SEMS treatment. An adequate DRG cost compensation is needed for SEMS and EVT.

Analysis of cerebrovascular aneurysm treatment cost: retrospective cohort comparison of clipping, coiling, and flow diversion.

OBJECTIVE With the continuous rise of health care costs, hospitals and health care providers must find ways to reduce costs while maintaining high-quality care. Comparing surgical and endovascular treatment of intracranial aneurysms may offer direction in reducing health care costs. The Value-Driven Outcomes (VDO) database at the University of Utah identifies cost drivers and tracks changes over time. In this study, the authors evaluate specific cost drivers for surgical clipping and endovascular management (i.e., coil embolization and flow diversion) of both ruptured and unruptured intracranial aneurysms using the VDO system. METHODS The authors retrospectively reviewed surgical and endovascular treatment of ruptured and unruptured intracranial aneurysms from July 2011 to January 2017. Total cost (as a percentage of each patient's cost to the system), subcategory costs, and potential cost drivers were evaluated and analyzed. RESULTS A total of 514 aneurysms in 469 patients were treated; 273 aneurysms were surgically clipped, 102 were repaired with coiling, and 139 were addressed with flow diverter placements. Middle cerebral artery aneurysms accounted for the largest portion of cases in the clipping group (29.7%), whereas anterior communicating artery aneurysms were most frequently involved in the coiling group (30.4%) and internal carotid artery aneurysms were the majority in the flow diverter group (63.3%). Coiling (mean total cost 0.25% ± 0.20%) had a higher cost than flow diversion (mean 0.20% ± 0.16%) and clipping (mean 0.17 ± 0.14%; p = 0.0001, 1-way ANOVA). Coiling cases cost 1.5 times as much as clipping and flow diversion costs 1.2 times as much as clipping. Facility costs were the most significant contributor to intracranial clipping costs (60.2%), followed by supplies (18.3%). Supplies were the greatest cost contributor to coiling costs (43.2%), followed by facility (40.0%); similarly, supplies were the greatest portion of costs in flow diversion (57.5%), followed by facility (28.5%). Cost differences for aneurysm location, rupture status, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade, and discharge disposition could be identified, with variability depending on surgical procedure. A multivariate analysis showed that rupture status, surgical procedure type, ASA status, discharge disposition, and year of surgery all significantly affected cost (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS Facility utilization and supplies constitute the majority of total costs in aneurysm treatment strategies, but significant variation exists depending on surgical approach, rupture status, and patient discharge disposition. Developing and implementing approaches and protocols to improve resource utilization are important in reducing costs while maintaining high-quality patient care.

Management of occluded self-expanding biliary metal stents in malignant biliary disease.

BACKGROUND: 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. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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). CONCLUSIONS: 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.

Self-expanding metallic stent as a bridge to surgery in the treatment of left colon cancer obstruction: Cost-benefit analysis and oncologic results. / Stents metálicos autoexpandibles como puente a la cirugía en el tratamiento del cáncer de colon izquierdo en oclusión. Análisis coste-beneficio y resultados oncológicos.

INTRODUCTION: The use of a self-expanding metallic stent as a bridge to surgery in acute malignant left colonic obstruction has been suggested as an alternative treatment to emergency surgery. The aim of the present study was to compare the morbi-mortality, cost-benefit and long-term oncological outcomes of both therapeutic options. METHODS: This is a prospective, comparative, controlled, non-randomized study (2005-2010) performed in a specialized unit. The study included 82 patients with left colon cancer obstruction treated by stent as a bridge to surgery (n=27) or emergency surgery (n=55) operated with local curative intention. The main outcome measures (postoperative morbi-mortaliy, cost-benefit, stoma rate and long-term oncological outcomes) were compared based on an "intention-to-treat" analysis. RESULTS: There were no significant statistical differences between the two groups in terms of preoperative data and tumor characteristics. The technically successful stenting rate was 88.9% (11.1% perforation during stent placement) and clinical success was 81.4%. No difference was observed in postoperative morbi-mortality rates. The primary anastomosis rate was higher in the bridge to surgery group compared to the emergency surgery group (77.8% vs. 56.4%; P=.05). The mean costs in the emergency surgery group resulted to be €1,391.9 more expensive per patient than in the bridge to surgery group. There was no significant statistical difference in oncological long-term outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: The use of self-expanding metalllic stents as a bridge to surgery is a safe option in the urgent treatment of obstructive left colon cancer, with similar short and long-term results compared to direct surgery, inferior mean costs and a higher rate of primary anastomosis.

Cost-effectiveness and clinical efficacy of biliary stents in patients undergoing neoadjuvant therapy for pancreatic adenocarcinoma in a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The optimal type of stent for the palliation of malignant biliary obstruction in patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma undergoing neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy with curative intent is unknown. We performed a prospective trial comparing 3 types of biliary stents-fully covered self-expandable metal (fcSEMS), uncovered self-expandable metal (uSEMS), and plastic-to determine which best optimized cost-effectiveness and important clinical outcomes. METHODS: In this prospective randomized trial, consecutive patients with malignant biliary obstruction from newly diagnosed pancreatic adenocarcinoma who were to start neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy were randomized to receive fcSEMSs, uSEMSs, or plastic stents during the index ERCP. The primary outcomes were time to stent occlusion, attempted surgical resection, or death after the initiation of neoadjuvant therapy, and the secondary outcomes were total patient costs associated with the stent, including the index ERCP cost, downstream hospitalization cost due to stent occlusion, and the cost associated with procedural adverse event. RESULTS: Fifty-four patients were randomized and reached the primary end point: 16 in the fcSEMS group, 17 in the uSEMS group, and 21 in the plastic stent group. No baseline demographic or tumor characteristic differences were noted among the groups. The fcSEMSs had a longer time to stent occlusion compared with uSEMSs and plastic stents (220 vs 74 and 76 days, P < .01), although the groups had equivalent rates of stent occlusion, attempted surgical resection, and death. Although SEMS placement cost more during the index ERCP (uSEMS = $24,874 and fcSEMS = $22,729 vs plastic = $18,701; P < .01), they resulted in higher procedural AE costs per patient (uSEMS = $5522 and fcSEMS = $12,701 vs plastic = $0; P < .01). Conversely, plastic stents resulted in an $11,458 hospitalization cost per patient due to stent occlusion compared with $2301 for uSEMSs and $0 for fcSEMSs (P < .01). CONCLUSIONS: In a prospective trial comparing fcSEMSs, uSEMSs, and plastic stents for malignant biliary obstruction in patients undergoing neoadjuvant therapy with curative intent for pancreatic adenocarcinoma, no stent type was superior in optimizing cost-effectiveness, although fcSEMSs resulted in fewer days of neoadjuvant treatment delay and a longer time to stent occlusion. (Clincial trial registration number: NCT01038713.).

[Cost-effectiveness trial of self-expandable metal stents and plastic biliary stents in malignant biliary obstruction]. / A fém- és muanyag stentek költséghatékonysága malignus epeúti szukületek esetében - összehasonlító vizsgálat.

INTRODUCTION: Self-expandable metal and plastic stents can be applied in the palliative endoscopic treatment of patients with unresectable malignant biliary obstruction. The use of metal stentsis recommended if the patient's life expectancy is more than four months. AIM: To compare the therapeutic efficacy and cost-effectiveness of metal and plastic stents in the treatment of malignant biliary obstruction. METHOD: The authors retrospectively enrolled patients who received metal (37 patients) or plastic stent (37 patients). The complication rate, stent patency and cumulative cost of treatment were assessed in the two groups. RESULTS: The complication rate of metal stents was lower (37.84% vs. 56.76%), but the stent patency was higher compared with plastic stents (19.11 vs. 8.29 weeks; p = 0.0041). In the plastic stent group the frequency of hospitalization of patients in context with stent complications (1.18 vs. 2.32; p = 0.05) and the necessity of reintervention for stent dysfunction (17 vs. 27; p = 0.033) were substantially higher. In this group multiple stent implantation raised the stent patency from 7.68 to 10.75 weeks. There was no difference in the total cost of treatment of malignant biliary obstruction between the two groups (p = 0.848). CONCLUSIONS: Considering the cost of treatment and the burden of patients the authors recommend self-expandable metal sten timplantation if the life expectancy of patients is more than two months. In short survival cases multiple plastic stent implantation is recommended.

Partially covered self-expandable metal stents versus polyethylene stents for malignant biliary obstruction: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

UNLABELLED: BACKGROUND/ OBJECTIVE: Partially covered self-expandable metal stents (SEMS) and polyethylene stents (PES) are both commonly used in the palliation of malignant biliary obstruction. Although SEMS are significantly more expensive, they are more efficacious than PES. Accordingly, a cost-effectiveness analysis was performed. METHODS: A cost-effectiveness analysis compared the approach of initial placement of PES versus SEMS for the study population. Patients with malignant biliary obstruction underwent an endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography to insert the initial stent. If the insertion failed, a percutaneous transhepatic cholangiogram was performed. If stent occlusion occurred, a PES was inserted at repeat endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, either in an outpatient setting or after admission to hospital if cholangitis was present. A third-party payer perspective was adopted. Effectiveness was expressed as the likelihood of no occlusion over the one-year adopted time horizon. Probabilities were based on a contemporary randomized clinical trial, and costs were issued from national references. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: A PES-first strategy was both more expensive and less efficacious than an SEMS-first approach. The mean per-patient costs were US$6,701 for initial SEMS and US$20,671 for initial PES, which were associated with effectiveness probabilities of 65.6% and 13.9%, respectively. Sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of these results. CONCLUSION: At the time of initial endoscopic drainage for patients with malignant biliary obstruction undergoing palliative stenting, an initial SEMS insertion approach was both more effective and less costly than a PES-first strategy.

Esophageal stents for the treatment of malignant dysphagia in patients with esophageal cancer.

Self-expanding metal stents (SEMS) are the current standard for relief of malignant esophageal dysphagia. Self-expanding plastic stents (SEPS) are also used for relief of malignant esophageal dysphagia and as neoadjuvant therapy due to their relative ease of removability. The innovations in design of both SEMS and SEPS have made their use more prevalent in patients with malignant dysphagia. We review the current literature on esophageal stents, including general concepts, indications, contraindications, SEMS and SEPS models, complications and their management, implications of tumor location, cost-effectiveness of stents in comparison with other modalities, and quality of life after stent placement.