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.

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

Vanella, Giuseppe;Mandarino, Francesco Vito;Dell'Anna, Giuseppe;Arcidiacono, Paolo G;
2022-01-01

Abstract

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.
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11768/135474
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 6
  • Scopus ND
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 8
social impact