Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2021 Jul;70(7):1244-1252.
doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2020-320775. Epub 2020 Nov 22.

Endoscopic placement of covered versus uncovered self-expandable metal stents for palliation of malignant gastric outlet obstruction

Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

Endoscopic placement of covered versus uncovered self-expandable metal stents for palliation of malignant gastric outlet obstruction

Kentaro Yamao et al. Gut. 2021 Jul.

Abstract

Objective: Stenting is an established endoscopic therapy for malignant gastric outlet obstruction (mGOO). The choice of stent (covered vs uncovered) has been examined in prior randomised studies without clear results.

Design: In a multicentre randomised prospective study, we compared covered (CSEMS) with uncovered self-expandable metal stents (UCSEMS) in patients with mGOO; main outcomes were stent dysfunction and patient survival, with subgroup analyses of patients with extrinsic and intrinsic tumours.

Results: Overall survival was poor with no difference between groups (probability at 3 months 49.7% for covered vs 48.4% for uncovered stents; log-rank for overall survival p=0.26). Within that setting of short survival, the proportion of stent dysfunction was significantly higher for uncovered stents (35.2% vs 23.4%, p=0.01) with significantly shorter time to stent dysfunction. This was mainly relevant for patients with extrinsic tumours (stent dysfunction rates for uncovered stents 35.6% vs 17.5%, p<0.01). Subgrouping was also relevant with respect to tumour ingrowth (lower with covered stents for intrinsic tumours; 1.6% vs 27.7%, p<0.01) and stent migration (higher with covered stents for extrinsic tumours: 15.3% vs 2.5%, p<0.01).

Conclusions: Due to poor patient survival, minor differences between covered and uncovered stents may be less relevant even if statistically significant; however, subgroup analysis would suggest to use covered stents for intrinsic and uncovered stents for extrinsic malignancies.

Keywords: gastrointesinal endoscopy; stents.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: None declared.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Covered and uncovered self-expandable metallic stent (SEMS) used in this study. (A) The covered SEMS has an antimigration system at both ends (proximal uncovered flare and distal uncovered area). (B) The uncovered SEMS is straight and contains no membrane.
Figure 2
Figure 2
CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) flow diagram of patient enrolment. CSEMS, covered self-expandable metal stent; GOO, gastric outlet obstruction; UCSEMS, uncovered self-expandable metal stent.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Kaplan-Meier curves for patient survival. The survival probability at 1, 2 and 3 months was 85.1%, 66.6% and 49.7% in the covered self-expandable metal stent (CSEMS) group and 85.8%, 64.5% and 48.4% in the uncovered self-expandable metal stent (UCSEMS) group, respectively (log-rank p=0.26).
Figure 4
Figure 4
Kaplan-Meier curves for stent dysfunction (SD). (A) Kaplan-Meier curves for SD among overall patients. The probability of no SD at 1, 2 and 3 months was 83.3%, 75.6% and 69.1% in the CSEMS group and 92.2%, 88.3% and 83.7% in the UCSEMS group, respectively (log-rank p<0.01). (B) Kaplan-Meier curves for SD among patients with extrinsic tumours. The probability of no SD at 1, 2 and 3 months was 84.1%, 76.2% and 70.4% in the CSEMS group and 92.3%, 88.2% and 85.9% in the UCSEMS group, respectively (log-rank p<0.01). (C) Kaplan-Meier curves for SD among patients with intrinsic tumours. The probability of no SD at 1, 2 and 3 months was 82.1%, 74.5% and 67.1% in the CSEMS group and 92.2%, 88.6% and 81.1% in the UCSEMS group, respectively (log-rank p=0.14).

References

    1. Mehta S, Hindmarsh A, Cheong E, et al. . Prospective randomized trial of laparoscopic gastrojejunostomy versus duodenal stenting for malignant gastric outflow obstruction. Surg Endosc 2006;20:239–42. 10.1007/s00464-005-0130-9 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Chandrasegaram MD, Eslick GD, Mansfield CO, et al. . Endoscopic stenting versus operative gastrojejunostomy for malignant gastric outlet obstruction. Surg Endosc 2012;26:323–9. 10.1007/s00464-011-1870-3 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Jeurnink SM, Steyerberg EW, Hof G van 't, Hof G, et al. . Gastrojejunostomy versus stent placement in patients with malignant gastric outlet obstruction: a comparison in 95 patients. J Surg Oncol 2007;96:389–96. 10.1002/jso.20828 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Jeurnink SM, Steyerberg EW, van Hooft JE, et al. . Surgical gastrojejunostomy or endoscopic stent placement for the palliation of malignant gastric outlet obstruction (SUSTENT study): a multicenter randomized trial. Gastrointest Endosc 2010;71:490–9. 10.1016/j.gie.2009.09.042 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Hamada T, Hakuta R, Takahara N, et al. . Covered versus uncovered metal stents for malignant gastric outlet obstruction: systematic review and meta-analysis. Dig Endosc 2017;29:259–71. 10.1111/den.12786 - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms