Partially covered versus uncovered pyloro‐duodenal stents for unresectable malignant gastric outlet obstruction: Randomized controlled study

Objectives: The aim of the current study was to compare the efficacy of partially covered duodenal stent (PCDS) vs. uncovered duodenal stent (UCDS) in patients suffering from unresectable primary malignant gastric outlet obstruction (GOO). Methods: This was a prospective international randomized controlled study conducted in 10 high-volume institutions. Consecutive patients suffering from malignant GOO were recruited. The primary outcome measurement was the reintervention rate. Secondary outcomes included technical and clinical success, 30-day adverse events, 30-day mortality, causes of stent dysfunction, and the duration of stent patency. Results: Between March 2017 and October 2020, 115 patients (59 PCDS, 56 UCDS) were recruited. The 1-year reintervention was not significantly different (PCDS vs. UDCS = 12/59, 20.3% vs. 14/56, 25%, P = 0.84). There was a trend to fewer patients with tumor ingrowth in the PCDS group (6/59 [10.2%]) vs. 13/56 [23.2%], P = 0.07). There were no significan...

Objectives: The aim of the current study was to compare the efficacy of partially covered duodenal stent (PCDS) vs. uncovered duodenal stent (UCDS) in patients suffering from unresectable primary malignant gastric outlet obstruction (GOO). Methods: This was a prospective international randomized controlled study conducted in 10 high-volume institutions. Consecutive patients suffering from malignant GOO were recruited. The primary outcome measurement was the reintervention rate. Secondary outcomes included technical and clinical success, 30-day adverse events, 30-day mortality, causes of stent dysfunction, and the duration of stent patency. Results: Between March 2017 and October 2020, 115 patients (59 PCDS, 56 UCDS) were recruited. The 1-year reintervention was not significantly different (PCDS vs. UDCS = 12/59, 20.3% vs. 14/56, 25%, P = 0.84). There was a trend to fewer patients with tumor ingrowth in the PCDS group (6/59 [10.2%]) vs. 13/56 [23.2%], P = 0.07). There were no significant differences in the technical success (100% vs. 100%, P = 1), clinical success (91.5% vs. 98.2%, P = 0.21), procedural time (21.5 [interquartile range [IQR] 17–30] vs. 20.0 [IQR 15–34.75], P = 0.62), hospital stay (4 [IQR 3–12] vs. 5 [IQR 3–8] days, P = 0.81), 30-day adverse events (18.6% vs. 14.3%, P = 0.62), or 30-day mortality (6.8% vs. 5.2%, P = 1.00). Conclusion: The use of PCDS was associated with a lower risk of tumor ingrowth but did not improve on reintervention rates or stent patency. Both kinds of stents could be used in this group of patients.