Clinical and technical outcomes of patients undergoing endoscopic ultrasound-guided gastroenterostomy using 20-mm vs. 15-mm lumen-apposing metal stents.
Journal
Endoscopy
ISSN: 1438-8812
Titre abrégé: Endoscopy
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 0215166
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
07 2022
07 2022
Historique:
aheadofprint:
27
09
2021
pubmed:
28
9
2021
medline:
1
7
2022
entrez:
27
9
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Most studies on endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided gastroenterostomy (EUS-GE) for palliation of malignant gastric outlet obstruction (GOO) utilized a 15-mm lumen-apposing metal stent (LAMS). More recently, a 20-mm LAMS has become available. This study aimed to compare rates of technical and clinical success and adverse events (AEs) in patients undergoing EUS-GE using a 20-mm vs. 15-mm LAMS. Patients who underwent EUS-GE with 15-mm or 20-mm LAMS for malignant GOO during the period from January 2018 to October 2020 were included. The primary outcome was clinical success, defined as an increase in the gastric outlet obstruction score (GOOS) by at least 1 point during follow-up. Secondary outcomes were technical success, maximum tolerated diet, re-intervention rate, and rate/severity of AEs. 267 patients (mean age 67 years, 43 % women) with malignant GOO from 19 centers underwent EUS-GE. Clinical success rates were similar for the 15-mm and 20-mm stents (89.2 % [95 %CI 84.2 %-94.2 %] vs. 84.1 % [77.4%-90.6 %], respectively). However, a significantly higher proportion of patients in the 20-mm group tolerated a soft solid/complete diet at the end of follow-up (91.2 % [84.4 %-95.7 %] vs. 81.2 % [73.9 %-87.2 %], The 20-mm and 15-mm LAMS show similar safety and efficacy for patients undergoing EUS-GE for malignant GOO. The 20-mm LAMS allows a more advanced diet and is, thus preferred for EUS-GE.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Most studies on endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided gastroenterostomy (EUS-GE) for palliation of malignant gastric outlet obstruction (GOO) utilized a 15-mm lumen-apposing metal stent (LAMS). More recently, a 20-mm LAMS has become available. This study aimed to compare rates of technical and clinical success and adverse events (AEs) in patients undergoing EUS-GE using a 20-mm vs. 15-mm LAMS.
METHODS
Patients who underwent EUS-GE with 15-mm or 20-mm LAMS for malignant GOO during the period from January 2018 to October 2020 were included. The primary outcome was clinical success, defined as an increase in the gastric outlet obstruction score (GOOS) by at least 1 point during follow-up. Secondary outcomes were technical success, maximum tolerated diet, re-intervention rate, and rate/severity of AEs.
RESULTS
267 patients (mean age 67 years, 43 % women) with malignant GOO from 19 centers underwent EUS-GE. Clinical success rates were similar for the 15-mm and 20-mm stents (89.2 % [95 %CI 84.2 %-94.2 %] vs. 84.1 % [77.4%-90.6 %], respectively). However, a significantly higher proportion of patients in the 20-mm group tolerated a soft solid/complete diet at the end of follow-up (91.2 % [84.4 %-95.7 %] vs. 81.2 % [73.9 %-87.2 %],
CONCLUSIONS
The 20-mm and 15-mm LAMS show similar safety and efficacy for patients undergoing EUS-GE for malignant GOO. The 20-mm LAMS allows a more advanced diet and is, thus preferred for EUS-GE.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
680-687Investigateurs
Sandra Peralta
(S)
Jose Ramon Aparicio
(JR)
Donevan Westerveld
(D)
Jona Bernabe
(J)
Chris Hamerski
(C)
Andrew Nett
(A)
Kenneth Binmoeller
(K)
David Loren
(D)
Alexander Schlachterman
(A)
Anand Kumar
(A)
Austin Chiang
(A)
Muhammad Bashir
(M)
Ian Holmes
(I)
Arvind J Trindade
(AJ)
Divysh V Sejpal
(DV)
Bharat Paranandi
(B)
Helmut Messmann
(H)
Jonathan M Buscaglia
(JM)
Alessandro Fugazza
(A)
Umair Iqbal
(U)
Bradley Confer
(B)
David L Diehl
(DL)
Saad Alrajhi
(S)
Cecilia Binda
(C)
Christopher J DiMaio
(CJ)
Swati Pawa
(S)
Omid Sanaei
(O)
Shruti Mony
(S)
Commentaires et corrections
Type : ErratumIn
Informations de copyright
Thieme. All rights reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
A. Anderloni is a consultant for Boston Scientific, Medtronic and Olympus. J.R. Aparicio is a consultant for Boston Scientific. J.M. Buscaglia is a consultant for Abbvie. B. Confer is a consultant for Boston Scientific. D.L. Diehl is a consultant for Boston Scientific. C.J. DiMaio is a consultant for Boston Scientific, Covidien, and SafeHeal; and a speaker for AbbVie, Mauna Kea, and STERIS. A. Fugazza is a consultant for Boston Scientific and Olympus. M.T. Huggett is a consultant for Boston Scientific, Olympus America, and Cook Medical. M.A. Khashab is a consultant for Boston Scientific, Olympus, Medtronic, GI Supply, MicroTech, and Apollo. H.S. Khara is a consultant for Boston Scientific. T.E. Kowalski is a consultant for Boston Scientific and Medtronic. N.A. Kumta is a consultant for Boston Scientific, Apollo Endosurgery, Intuitive Surgery, Medtronic, and Olympus. D. Loren is a consultant for Boston Scientific, Olympus, and Pinnacle Biologics; and receives research support from Medtronic. J.M. Nieto is a consultant for Boston Scientific. B. Paranandi is a consultant for Boston Scientific and Olympus America. K. D-C. Pham is a consultant for Boston Scientific; he is a speaker for Boston Scientific, Cook Medical, Olympus America and Taewoong Medical; and he is on on the advisory board of Ambu. D.K. Pleskow is a consultant for Boston Scientific, Olympus America, and FujiFilm. D.V. Sejpal is a consultant for Boston Scientific and Olympus America. R.Z. Sharaiha is a consultant for Boston Scientific, Cook Medical, Olympus, and Lumendi. A.J. Trindade is a consultant for Pentax Medical and Olympus America. R.R. Watson is a consultant for Boston Scientific. The remaining authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.