ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01522573.

Background Endoscopic placement of hilar stents is an accepted palliative therapy for patients with advanced, unresectable cholangiocarcinoma. However, whether unilateral versus bilateral stent placement provides optimal relief continues to be a subject of debate. The aim of this study was to compare the technical and clinical outcomes in patients with inoperable cholangiocarcinoma who received unilateral or bilateral self-expanding metal stents (SEMS). MethodsWe conducted a multicenter, international retrospective study of 187 patients with cholangiocarcinoma who received unilateral or bilateral SEMS. Outcomes included, but were not limited to, technical success, clinical success, adverse events, stent occlusion, and survival time.Results were further stratified based on the Bismuth classification.Results Fifty patients received unilateral stents and 137 patients received bilateral stents. All patients achieved technical success. The clinical success rates were 86% for unilateral stents and 82.5% for bilateral stents (P>0.99). Clinical success was not statistically different for either group when stratified by the Bismuth classification (P=0.62 and P=0.72 respectively). There were significantly more adverse events in the bilateral stents group (11.7% vs. 0%, P=0.007). There was no greater risk of stent occlusion when bilateral stents were used (unadjusted P=0.71, adjusted P=0.81). There was a greater risk of death for patients who received bilateral SEMS (hazard ratio 1.78, 95% confidence interval 1.09-2.89; P=0.02).Conclusions Unilateral and bilateral drainage had similar technical and clinical success rates. However, bilateral stents had a higher risk of death and more adverse events. Therefore, unilateral SEMS placement is sufficient for relief of biliary obstruction secondary to cholangiocarcinoma.

Background and Objectives: Endoscopic drainage/debridement of symptomatic walled off necrosis (WON) using lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMS) is both safe and effective. While endoscopic management of WON is the standard approach to treatment, the ideal concomitant medical therapy remains unclear. The purpose of this study was to further elucidate the effect of proton pump inhibitor (PPIs) therapy on the technical and clinical success of endoscopic treatment of WON. Methods: Two hundred and seventy-two patients in 8 centers with WON managed by endoscopic drainage using LAMS were evaluated. Patients were followed for at least 6 months following treatment. The patients were divided into two groups: Those that used PPIs continuously during the therapy and those not on PPIs continuously during the interval of therapy. Outcomes included but were not limited to technical success, clinical success, number of procedures performed, and adverse events. Results: From 2013 to 2016, 272 patients underwent WON drainage with successful transmural LAMS placement. The two groups were split evenly into PPI users and non-PPI users, and matched in regards to demographics, etiology of pancreatitis, WON size, and location. There was no difference in the technical success between the two groups (100% vs. 98.8%, P = 1), or in clinical success rates (78.7% vs. 77.9%). There was a significant difference in the required number of direct endoscopic necrosectomies to achieve clinical success in the PPI vs. non-PPI group (3.2 vs. 4.6 respectively, P < 0.01). There were significantly more cases of stent occlusion in the non-PPI group vs. PPI group (9.5% vs. 20.1% P = 0.012), but all other documented adverse events were not significantly different. Conclusion: Discontinuing PPIs during endoscopic drainage and necrosectomy of symptomatic WON appears to reduce the number of endoscopic procedures required to achieve resolution. Continuous PPI results in higher rates of early stent occlusion.

Background To compare fully covered bi-flanged metal stents (BFMS) and lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMS) for endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided drainage/debridement of pancreatic walled-off necrosis (WON). Methods Patients with WON managed by EUS-guided therapy were divided into those who underwent: 1) drainage using BFMS; and 2) drainage using LAMS and scheduled direct endoscopic necrosectomy (DEN). Clinical success (resolution of the WON), technical success (successful stent placement), and adverse events (AEs) were evaluated. Results 387 patients underwent WON endoscopic drainage, 205 using BFMS and 182 using LAMS. The clinical success in the BFMS or LAMS groups were similar (197 [96.1%] vs. 174 [95.6%]; P=0.81). Median number of procedures required for WON resolution was significantly lower in BFMS compared to LAMS (2 vs. 3, P<0.001). Technical success for stent placement was similar in BFMS and LAMS groups (203 [99%] vs. 180 [99%], P=0.90). Procedure-related AEs were similar in the BFMS and LAMS groups (19 [9.3%] vs. 20 [10.9%], P=0.61). Stent dysfunction with occluding debris was higher in the BFMS group compared to LAMS group (21 [10.2 %] vs. 11 [5.9%], P=0.04). The migration rate was higher in the BFMS group than in the LAMS group (15 [7.3%] vs. 3 [1.6%]; P<0.001). DEN was required in 23 [11.2%] patients in the BFMS group after lack of WON resolution by conservative means. Conclusion BFMS with a “step-up approach” and LAMS with scheduled DEN are both safe and effective for EUS-guided drainage/debridement of WON.