Skip Navigation
Skip to contents

Clin Endosc : Clinical Endoscopy

Search
Advanced Search
OPEN ACCESS
mobile search button mobile menu button

Articles

Page Path
HOME > Clin Endosc > Volume 58(5); 2025 > Article
Original Article Efficacy of multi-hole self‑expandable metallic stents versus partially covered self‑expandable metallic stents in patients with malignant distal biliary obstruction caused by unresectable pancreatic cancer: a retrospective comparative cohort study in Japan
Shohei Asada1orcid, Koh Kitagawa1orcid, Fumimasa Tomooka1orcid, Jun-ichi Hanatani1orcid, Yuki Motokawa1orcid, Yui Osaki1orcid, Tomihiro Iwata1orcid, Kosuke Kaji1orcid, Akira Mitoro2orcid, Hitoshi Yoshiji1orcid
Clinical Endoscopy 2025;58(5):744-756.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5946/ce.2024.340
Published online: August 26, 2025

1Department of Gastroenterology, Nara Medical University, Nara, Japan

2Division of Endoscopy, Nara Medical University, Nara, Japan

Correspondence: Koh Kitagawa Department of Gastroenterology, Nara Medical University, 840 Shijo-cho, Kashihara 634-8522, Nara, Japan E-mail: kitagawa@naramed-u.ac.jp
• Received: December 11, 2024   • Revised: March 20, 2025   • Accepted: April 24, 2025

© 2025 Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

  • 3,039 Views
  • 98 Download
  • 2 Web of Science
  • 4 Crossref
  • 2 Scopus
prev next
Full Article

Download PDF Download PDF

See letter "Advancements in stent strategies for malignant distal biliary obstruction: defining the clinical role of multi-hole self-expandable metal stents" in Volume 58 on page 698.
  • Background/Aims
    This study aimed to compare the stent patency between the novel multi-hole self-expandable metallic stent (MH-SEMS) and conventional partially covered SEMS (PC-SEMS) for malignant distal biliary obstruction (MDBO) in patients with pancreatic carcinoma.
  • Methods
    This retrospective study compared stent patency between patients with MH-SEMS (n=43) and those with PC-SEMS (n=94). Secondary outcomes were overall survival (OS), incidence of recurrent biliary obstruction (RBO), causes of RBO, and adverse events (AEs).
  • Results
    The median time to RBO did not differ significantly between the MH-SEMS and PC-SEMS groups (318 vs. 460 days, p=0.17). Furthermore, the two groups did not differ significantly in terms of OS and incidence rate of AEs, including RBO and cholecystitis. RBO caused by tumor ingrowth was slightly more common in the MH-SEMS group (p=0.089). The MH-SEMS group had a slightly lower 12-month non-obstruction rate than the PC-SEMS group (33.9% vs. 60.9%). In the MH-SEMS group, stent removal was successful in all seven patients in whom it was attempted.
  • Conclusions
    The clinical outcomes of MH-SEMS and PC-SEMS were similar in patients with MDBO caused by pancreatic carcinoma were similar.
  • Keywords: Adverse effects; Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography; Obstructive jaundice; Pancreatic neoplasms; Self-expandable metallic stents
Malignant distal biliary obstruction (MDBO) is a common complication of pancreatic carcinoma (PC). Biliary drainage using endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is widely performed to treat MDBO-induced obstructive jaundice.1 With respect to long-term patency, various studies and guidelines recommend the use of self-expandable metallic stents (SEMSs) over plastic stents for biliary drainage in patients with MDBO. Furthermore, covered SEMSs (C-SEMSs) can prevent stent occlusion due to tumor ingrowth.2-4 However, C-SEMSs can migrate if the tumor shrinks, specifically with strong chemotherapy; conversely, recurrent biliary obstruction (RBO) increases.5
Recent studies have reported the usefulness of a partially covered SEMS (PC-SEMS), in which both ends of the stent are bare, in preventing C-SEMS migration.6,7 However, in terms of disadvantages, PC-SEMS is challenging to remove as the mucosa of the bile duct is embedded in the bare portion at both stent ends. Furthermore, the development of acute cholecystitis due to cystic duct obstruction in C-SEMS implantation is an important issue that cannot be neglected.8-10 Several meta-analyses have attempted to compare the benefits of C-SEMSs with those of uncovered SEMS in patients with MDBO; however, these remain unidentified.11,12 Thus, the best SEMS for drainage in patients with MDBO caused by PC remains debatable.
Conversely, previous studies reported that the novel multi-hole SEMS (MH-SEMS) is effective.13,14 This stent has the longest patency with a lower risk of stent migration and tumor ingrowth.14 Nonetheless, no studies have directly compared this novel MH-SEMS with PC-SEMS, and there are no reports on the efficacy of MH-SEMS in patients with unresectable PC. Therefore, a retrospective comparative study was conducted to determine the clinical efficacy of MH-SEMS and PC-SEMS in patients with MDBO caused by unresectable PC.
Study design
This was a single-center, retrospective, comparative cohort study. Figure 1 shows a flowchart of this study. A total of 157 patients underwent initial SEMS placement for MDBO caused by PC between April 2017 and March 2024 at our institution, whereas 110 patients underwent PC-SEMS placement between April 2017 and December 2022. Sixteen patients who underwent surgery after stent placement were excluded. Moreover, 47 patients who underwent MH-SEMS placement between January 2023 and March 2024, and four patients who underwent surgery after stent placement were excluded from the analysis. Finally, 137 patients (MH-SEMS group, n=43; PC-SEMS group, n=94) were enrolled. MDBO was diagnosed based on pathological and/or radiological findings and/or clinical courses. Moreover, data on patient characteristics, PC status, chemotherapy regimens, and therapeutic effects were analyzed. Clinical stages of PC were evaluated using the Union for International Cancer Control TNM classification.15 Patients unable to undergo surgical resection due to factors, such as advanced age or poor performance status, were also included in the study, even if their imaging findings corresponded to stage I–II. Therapeutic effects were determined using computed tomography (CT) 2 to 3 months after the SEMS placement. Patients who died within 2 months of stent placement were considered to have a progressive disease. Therapeutic efficacy was evaluated using the revised Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors guidelines.16 After discharge, the patient was cautiously followed up via imaging, and blood tests were performed as needed until death. For patients whose hospital visits were interrupted early, the transferring medical institution was contacted via phone or writing to investigate the prognosis as much as possible.
The MH-SEMS and PC-SEMS manufactured by M.I. Tech (HANAROSTENT Biliary Multi-hole NEO) and Boston Scientific (WallFlex Biliary RX Partially Covered Stent System) were used in this study (Fig. 2). Both the C-SEMSs were structured using a similar woven nitinol wire with a silicone-covered membrane. However, the MH-SEMS was structured with a woven hook and cross-wire, whereas the PC-SEMS was structured with only a woven cross-wire.
ERCP
All patients provided written informed consent before undergoing ERCP. A side-viewing endoscope (JF-260V, TJF-260V, or TJF-Q290V; Olympus Medical) was used. Alternatively, a balloon-assisted enteroscope (EI-580BT; Fujifilm Medical) was used in patients with a surgically altered anatomy (except those undergoing Billroth I gastrectomy). Selective bile duct cannulation was performed using a standard ERCP catheter (MTW Endoskopie) with wire-guided cannulation and contrast medium injection. After selective bile duct cannulation, cholangiography was performed, and bile duct stricture length was measured. Thereafter, the SEMSs were placed in the biliary stricture during ERCP. The stent length was examined based on the length of the biliary stricture in the bile duct. The stent diameter was 10 mm in all patients. The distal end of the C-SEMS was positioned below the papilla in all patients. None of the patients received rectal indomethacin during the peri-procedural period.
Outcomes and definition
The primary outcome was median time to RBO (TRBO). Secondary outcomes were overall survival (OS), incidence rate of RBO, cause of RBO, and adverse events (AEs) for each type of C-SEMS.
Outcomes including technical success, clinical success, RBO, TRBO, and AEs were defined according to the Tokyo Criteria 2024.17 The cause of RBO was determined based on CT, cholangiography during ERCP, and endoscopic images. Patients who died or did not require biliary stenting were excluded. AEs requiring SEMS removal were treated as RBOs according to Tokyo Criteria 2024. The severities of AEs and RBO were defined using the Tokyo Criteria 2024. OS was defined as the period between the initial metallic stent placement and mortality or the last follow-up. The stent removal rate was defined as the percentage of stents removed in all patients in each group. Cholangitis and cholecystitis were diagnosed according to the Tokyo Guidelines of 2018.18,19
Statistical analyses
Statistical analyses were performed using EZR ver. 1.68 (Saitama Medical Center, Jichi Medical University),20 which is a graphical user interface for R ver. 4.3.1 (The R Foundation for Statistical Computing). The chi-squared test or Fisher’s exact test was used to compare categorical variables. The t-test or Mann-Whitney U-test was used to analyze continuous data with skewed distributions. The non-obstruction rates at 3, 6, and 12 months, TRBO, and OS were estimated using the Kaplan–Meier method and compared using the log-rank test. Univariate logistic regression analyses were performed to assess the association between the possible risk factors and cholecystitis. Univariate and multivariate analyses for shorter TRBO were performed using the Cox proportional hazards model. Statistical significance was set at p<0.05.
Ethical statements
This study was approved by the Nara Medical University Ethics Committee (#3774) and was performed in accordance with the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology Statement. The need for written informed consent was waived because of the retrospective design of the study. Hence, an opt-out approach was used.
Characteristics of the participants
Table 1 shows the clinical and demographic characteristics of the patients are shown in Table 1. The MH-SEMS and PC-SEMS groups did not differ significantly in terms of demographic characteristics, including age, sex, performance status, PC status, duodenal invasion, biliary stricture length, total bilirubin level, or previous drainage history. As the length of the PC-SEMS was only 6 or 8 cm, there was a significant difference in terms of length between the two types of stents. There were no significant differences in chemotherapy regimens or therapeutic effects between the two types of stents.
Clinical outcomes
Table 2 presents the patients’ clinical outcomes. Technical success was achieved in all patients in both groups. One patient in each group did not achieve clinical success because of insufficient stent expansion. In both cases, ERCP was performed again at a later date, and the stent was expanded using a 10-mm balloon catheter. Jaundice improved after the additional expansion. In the MH-SEMS group, stent removal was successful in all patients for whom it was attempted. However, in the PC-SEMS group, stent removal was successful in two of the four patients in whom it was attempted. The two groups did not differ in the total number of endoscopic procedures performed during the survival period.
RBO
Table 3 lists the RBO and its causes. The overall incidence rate of RBO did not differ significantly between the MH-SEMS and PC-SEMS groups (p=0.83). The 6-month non-occlusion rates were 67.9% and 81.9% in the MH-SEMS and PC-SEMS groups, respectively. Sludge obstruction was the most common cause of RBO in both groups. The MH-SEMS group was more likely to present with tumor ingrowth than the PC-SEMS group. There was no significant difference in the incidence of stent migration between the two groups. Figure 3 shows the Kaplan–Meier curves for TRBO. The median TRBOs was 318 days in the MH-SEMS group and 460 days in the MH-and PC-SEMS group, respectively (p=0.17). There was no significant difference in median TRBO between the MH-SEMS and PC-SEMS groups. The 6-month non-obstruction rates were 67.9% and 81.9% in the MH-SEMS and PC-SEMS groups, respectively. Figure 4 shows the OS duration of the patients. The OS did not significantly differ between the two groups (p=0.96). Figure 5 shows cumulative patient survival without stent dysfunction. The cumulative time to stent dysfunction or patient mortality did not differ significantly between the two groups (p=0.57).
Table 4 presents univariate and multivariate analyses for shorter TRBO using the Cox proportional hazards model. In the univariate analysis, poor performance status and duodenal invasion were significant risk factors. Multivariate analysis identified duodenal invasion (hazard ratio, 2.05; 95% confidence interval, 1.01–3.82; p=0.048) as an independent risk factor for shorter TRBO. Conversely, stent type was not a significant risk for shorter TRBO.
AEs
Table 5 shows the AEs. The incidence of AEs did not differ significantly between the two groups. Some patients in the MH-SEMS and PC-SEMS groups presented with cholecystitis. However, the incidence and severity did not differ significantly between the two groups. All cholecystitis cases were assumed to be caused by SEMS placement. Imaging studies confirmed no cases of cholecystitis due to gallstones, even in patients with gallstones. Furthermore, there were no significant differences in the incidence rates and severity of other AEs, including pancreatitis, nonobstructive cholangitis, liver abscess, and bleeding. In this study, none of the patients died of AEs.
Risk factors of cholecystitis
Of 131 patients with an intact gallbladder, 11 (8.4%) developed cholecystitis. Risk factors for cholecystitis were also analyzed (Table 6). In the univariate analysis, tumor invasion of the cystic duct was the only significant risk factor of cholecystitis (odds ratio, 5.49; 95% confidence interval, 1.50–20.10; p=0.010). Subgroup analysis of 95 patients (PC-SEMS group, n=65; MH-SEMS group, n=30) was performed. In this subgroup analysis, 36 patients with tumor invasion into the cystic duct were excluded (Table 7). No cases of cholecystitis occurred in the MH-SEMS group. However, compared to the PC-SEMS group, no significant difference in the incidence of cholecystitis was observed.
This study compared the novel MH-SEMS and conventional PC-SEMS to assess the use of the MH-SEMS in patients with MDBO caused by PC. The two types of stents did not differ in terms of TRBO or safety. The type of SEMS used did not affect TRBO, and only duodenal invasion caused by PC was identified as a factor that significantly shortened TRBO. However, our results showed that if AEs such as RBO and cholecystitis occurred, MH-SEMS could be removed while maintaining the same level of anti-migration effects as PC-SEMS.
Recent advancements in chemotherapy for PC have improved local tumor control.21,22 The causes of RBO include tumor ingrowth and sludge obstruction. However, stent migration cannot be ignored in the context of the increasing number of PC patients with long-term survival. To prevent C-SEMS migration, a previous study showed the usefulness of conventional PC-SEMS with the bare ends of the SEMS6,7 or novel C-SEMSs with anchoring fins.23 Recently, another study attempted to fix the distal end of a C-SEMS to the duodenal mucosa using an endoscopic hemostatic clip.24 However, these approaches pose potential risks that make stent removal challenging. Conversely, although broadly classified as a PC-SEMS, the novel MH-SEMS evaluated in this study can be eliminated if AEs develop. In 7 (16.3%) of the 43 patients who underwent MH-SEMS placement, the stents were successfully removed without any AEs. The endoscopic treatment options for RBO after C-SEMS placement include mechanical cleaning, additional stent placement, and stent exchange. C-SEMSs are advantageous because they can be easily removed. Stent exchange is the most common clinical choice for treating RBO. Jirapinyo et al.25 showed that stent replacement was superior to additional stent placement and mechanical cleaning.
In contrast, in our study, the median TRBO and overall incidence of RBO did not differ significantly. However, RBO caused by tumor ingrowth was slightly more likely to occur in MH-SEMS. This may be attributed to the presence of side holes in the cover membrane in MH-SEMS, which facilitate tumor growth into the stent lumen more readily than in PC-SEMS. Moreover, the MH-SEMS group had a slightly lower 12-month non-obstruction rate than the PC-SEMS group (33.9% vs. 60.9%). Furthermore, in this study, the TRBO of the MH-SEMS was shorter than that previously reported.14 Kulpatcharapong et al.14 reported that the TRBO of an MH-SEMS was 479 days. However, their study included patients with different cancer types, such as cholangiocarcinoma, in addition to PC, and the OS of these patients was longer than that of patients in our study. Our study included only patients with MDBO attributed to unresectable PC, and these differences in background factors may have affected TRBO. In contrast, Takeda et al.26 recently reported the MH-SEMS results in patients with MDBO due to unresectable PC. Unlike the aforementioned report from Thailand, Takeda et al.26 reported that the TRBO for MH-SEMS was significantly shorter than that for conventional fully C-SEMS at 101 days. Takeda et al.26 highlighted that multiple small ingrowths occur via the side hole of the MH-SEMS, which can easily cause blockage of the antegrade bile flow. However, their study included a smaller number of cases than ours and did not evaluate the therapeutic effects of chemotherapy. Nevertheless, TRBO of MH-SEMS varies substantially depending on the report, and more prospective studies with larger numbers of cases are needed in the future. Additionally, in the latest Tokyo Criteria 2024,17 stent removal caused by AEs possibly related to the stent itself was considered RBO. Therefore, stents that can be removed may have a higher incidence of RBO than those that cannot.
However, cholecystitis after C-SEMS placement cannot be neglected. Risk factors for the development of cholecystitis after C-SEMS placement include tumor invasion into the cystic duct, presence of gallstones, and diameter of the common bile duct.8-10,27 Specifically, tumor invasion into the cystic duct is the strongest risk factor for the development of cholecystitis.28 The usefulness of prophylactic endoscopic gallbladder stenting (EGBS)8 and endoscopic ultrasonography-guided gallbladder drainage29 has been reported in recent years. However, the development of cholecystitis after C-SEMS placement remains challenging to prevent completely. In our study, tumor invasion of the cystic duct was the strongest risk factor for the development of cholecystitis, and the use of MH-SEMS was not associated with a decreased risk of developing cholecystitis. In contrast, in our study, none of the patients in the MH-SEMS group developed cholecystitis in the absence of tumor invasion into the cystic duct. Therefore, the efficacy of MH-SEMS in preventing cholecystitis cannot be judged solely based on this study; thus, further studies should be conducted. However, as presented in the previous text, the MH-SEMS can be removed even if cholecystitis develops. In our study, there was one case of severe cholecystitis in the MH-SEMS group, which improved after stent removal and EGBS placement.
Furthermore, the possibility of pancreatitis after SEMS placement should not be disregarded. In our study, only of 1/127 patients underwent endoscopic sphincterotomy (ES) before SEMS placement. Whether ES before SEMS placement reduces the risk after SEMS placement remains controversial. Onnekink et al.30 conducted a randomized controlled trial and found no preventive effect of ES before C-SEMS placement in patients with MDBO. Hayashi et al.31 also argued that ES before C-SEMS placement is unnecessary in cases of pancreatic duct obstruction, such as pancreatic head cancer. In our study, pancreatitis developed in only 8.1% of patients with PC who received SEMS placement, and all cases were mild or moderate and resolved with conservative treatment. None of the patients required SEMS removal due to pancreatitis. These findings are consistent with those of previous studies by Onnekink et al.30 and Hayashi et al.31
In addition, cost-effectiveness is a key factor in SEMS drainage of MDBO. As of 2024, both MH-SEMS and PC-SEMS are sold in Japan at the same price (227,000 JPY), indicating that the initial placement costs are identical. However, the overall cost-effectiveness depends on multiple factors, including the frequency of RBO, treatments required for RBO management, and endoscopic reintervention strategies. Further studies are needed to determine which stent type offers superior cost-effectiveness, considering their similar clinical outcomes.
The current study had several limitations. First, this study had a retrospective design. Notably, PC-SEMS were primarily used in the first half of the study period, whereas MH-SEMS were used more frequently in the second half. Although the proportion of patients who received nanoliposomal irinotecan chemotherapy was slightly higher in the MH-SEMS group, the difference was not statistically significant. Furthermore, as shown in Table 1 and Figure 4, patient characteristics and survival rates did not differ significantly between the MH-SEMS and PC-SEMS groups. The details of the ERCP procedure were similar in both groups. However, stent selection bias may have existed. Second, our sample size was small, potentially limiting the detection of statistically significant differences in key outcomes related to MH-SEMS and PC-SEMS performance, such as cholecystitis incidence after stent placement and stent removal success. Third, the two stents were of the same braided type. However, the manner in which the stent wires were braided differed. This variation in the mechanical properties of the stent body may have influenced our results.
In conclusion, the clinical outcomes of MH-SEMS and PC-SEMS in patients with MDBO caused by PC were similar.
Fig. 1.
Patient flowchart. MH-SEMS, multi-hole self-expandable metallic stent; PC-SEMS, partially covered self-expandable metallic stent; MDBO, malignant distal biliary obstruction; RBO, recurrent biliary obstruction.
ce-2024-340f1.jpg
Fig. 2.
(A) Multi-hole self-expandable metallic stent. Six rows of side holes were drilled on the membrane in line with the longitudinal direction of the stent (yellow circles). The diameters of each side hole was 1.8 mm. (B) Partially covered self-expandable metallic stent. The 5-mm portions at both ends of this stent were not covered by the membrane to prevent stent migration.
ce-2024-340f2.jpg
Fig. 3.
Kaplan–Meier curve showing the time to recurrent biliary obstruction (TRBO). There was no significant difference in the median TRBO between the MH-SEMS and PC-SEMS groups. MH-SEMS, multi-hole self-expandable metallic stent; PC-SEMS, partially covered self-expandable metallic stent; CI, confidence interval.
ce-2024-340f3.jpg
Fig. 4.
Kaplan–Meier curve showing the overall survival (OS) duration of patients. There was no significant difference in the OS duration between the MH-SEMS and PC-SEMS groups. MH-SEMS, multi-hole self-expandable metallic stent; PC-SEMS, partially covered self-expandable metallic stent; CI, confidence interval.
ce-2024-340f4.jpg
Fig. 5.
Kaplan–Meier curve showing the cumulative patient survival without stent dysfunction. There was no significant difference in the cumulative time to stent dysfunction or patient mortality between the MH-SEMS and PC-SEMS groups. MH-SEMS, multi-hole self-expandable metallic stent; PC-SEMS, partially cov­ered self-expandable metallic stent; CI, confidence interval.
ce-2024-340f5.jpg
ce-2024-340f6.jpg
Table 1.
Characteristics of the participants
Characteristic All participants (n=137) MH-SEMS group (n=43) PC-SEMS group (n=94) p-value
Age (yr) 74 (67–79) 74 (67.5–78.5) 74 (67–80) 0.75
Sex 0.20
 Male 69 (50.4) 18 (41.9) 51 (54.3)
 Female 68 (49.6) 25 (58.1) 43 (45.7)
ECOG PS 0.72
 0 52 (38.0) 18 (41.9) 34 (36.2)
 1 77 (56.2) 22 (51.2) 55 (58.5)
 2 8 (5.8) 3 (6.9) 5 (5.3)
Surgically altered anatomy (except for Billroth I gastrectomy) 3 (2.2) 0 (0) 3 (3.2)a) 0.55
Intact gallbladder 131 (95.6) 42 (97.7) 89 (94.7) 0.67
Clinical stage 0.38
 ⅠA+ⅠB 7 (5.1) 2 (4.7) 5 (5.3)
 ⅡA+ⅡB 19 (13.9) 9 (20.9) 10 (10.6)
 Ⅲ 37 (27.0) 9 (20.9) 28 (29.8)
 Ⅳ 74 (54.0) 23 (53.5) 51 (54.3)
Resectability 0.16
 Resectable 15 (10.9) 5 (11.6) 10 (10.6)
 Borderline resectable 12 (8.8) 7 (16.3) 5 (5.3)
 Unresectable local advanced 35 (25.6) 8 (18.6) 27 (28.7)
 Unresectable metastasis 75 (54.7) 23 (53.5) 52 (55.3)
Duodenal invasion 64 (46.7) 24 (55.8) 40 (41.5) 0.14
Biliary stricture length (cm) 16.5 (11.5–25) 16 (14–20) 17 (11–27) 0.47
Maximum diameter of the common bile duct (mm) 12 (10–14.5) 13 (10–15) 12 (10–15) 0.85
Serum bilirubin before stenting (mg/dL) 2.4 (1.1–5.1) 2.9 (1.0–6.8) 2.1 (1.0–4.7) 0.24
Stent placement in acute cholangitis 27 (19.7) 12 (27.9) 15 (16.0) 0.11
Endoscopic sphincterotomy 1 (0.7) 0 (0) 1 (1.1) 1.00
Previous drainage history
 Yes 41 (29.9) 12 (27.9) 29 (30.9) 0.84
  Endoscopic biliary stenting 35 (25.5) 11 (25.6) 24 (25.6)
  Endoscopic naso-biliary drainage 6 (4.4) 1 (2.3) 5 (5.3)
Stent length (cm) <0.01
 5 1 1 0
 6 52 4 48
 7 21 21 0
 8 61 15 46
 10 2 2 0
Stent diameter (mm)
 10 137 (100.0) 43 (100.0) 94 (100.0) 1.00
Chemotherapy
 Yes 84 (61.3) 27 (62.8) 57 (60.6) 0.85
Regimens
 GnP 60 (43.7) 22 (51.2) 38 (40.4) 0.26
 mFFX 5 (3.6) 2 (4.7) 3 (3.2) 0.64
 SOXIRI 32 (23.4) 11 (25.6) 21 (22.3) 0.67
 5-FU+nal-IRI 16 (11.7) 3 (7.0) 13 (13.8) 0.39
 Others 25 (18.2) 4 (9.3) 21 (22.3) 0.094
Therapeutic effects 0.40
 Partial response 14 (16.7) 5 (18.5) 9 (15.8)
 Stable disease 60 (71.4) 17 (63.0) 43 (75.4)
 Progressive disease 10 (11.9) 5 (18.5) 5 (8.8)
Treatment with radiotherapy 1 (0.74) 0 (0) 1 (1.1) 1.00
Follow-up period days 189 (95–297) 177 (94–237) 212 (102–330) 0.23

Values are presented as median (range) or number (%).

MH-SEMS, multi-hole self-expandable metallic stent; PC-SEMS, partially covered self-expandable metallic stent; ECOG, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group; PS, performance status; GnP, gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel; mFFX, modified FOLFIRINOX (fluorouracil/irinotecan/oxaliplatin); SOXIRI, S-1/oxaliplatin/irinotecan; 5-FU, 5-fluorouracil; nal-IRI, nanoliposomal-irinotecan.

a)Two cases of gastrojejunostomy bypass and one case of proximal gastrectomy.

Table 2.
Clinical outcomes of the patients
Outcome All patients (n=137) MH-SEMS group (n=43) PC-SEMS group (n=94) p-value
Technical success 137 (100.0) 43 (100.0) 94 (100.0) 1.00
Clinical success 135 (98.5) 42 (97.7) 93 (98.9) 1.00
Cause of clinical failure
 Insufficient stent dilation 2 (1.5) 1 (2.3) 1 (1.1) 1.00
Successful stent removal in attempted cases 9/11 (81.8) 7/7 (100.0) 2/4 (50.0) 0.11
Days from stent placement to attempt stent removal 112 (12–357) 112 (28–337) 207.5 (12–357) 0.79
Cause of stent removal
 RBO of sludge 5 (3.6) 5 (11.6) 0 <0.01
 RBO of ingrowth 1 (0.7) 1 (2.3) 0 0.31
 RBO of migration (incomplete) 2 (1.5) 0 2 (2.1) 1.00
 Cholecystitis 1 (0.7) 1 (2.3) 0 0.31
No. of endoscopic biliary drainage procedures during survival periods 1 (1–2) 1 (1–2) 1 (1–2) 0.87

Values are presented as number (%) or median (range).

MH-SEMS, multi-hole self-expandable metallic stent; PC-SEMS, partially covered self-expandable metallic stent; RBO, recurrent biliary obstruction.

Table 3.
Recurrent biliary obstruction
RBO All patients (n=135) MH-SEMS group (n=42) PC-SEMS group (n=93) p-value
Incidence rate of RBO (n, %) 36 (26.7) 12 (28.6) 24 (25.8) 0.83
 Non-obstruction rate at 3 months (%) 89.7 86.7 90.1
 Non-obstruction rate at 6 months (%) 78.1 67.9 81.9
 Non-obstruction rate at 12 months (%) 55.8 33.9 60.9
Time to RBO (95% CI) 460 (335–NA) 318 (174–NA) 460 (356–NA) 0.17
Overall survival without stent dysfunction (95% CI) 172 (128–222) 147 (112–202) 186 (126–238) 0.57
RBO grade, moderate/severe 16/20 4/8 12/12 0.48
Cause of RBO (n, %)
 Sludge 16 (11.9) 5 (11.9) 11 (11.8) 1.00
 Food impaction 2 (1.5) 0 (0) 2 (2.2) 1.00
 Ingrowth 4 (3.0) 3 (7.1) 1 (1.1) 0.089
 Overgrowth 5 (3.7) 1 (2.4) 4 (4.3) 1.00
 Stent migration 5 (3.7) 2 (4.8) 3 (3.2) 0.65
 Cholecystitis (required stent removal) 1 (0.7) 1 (2.4) 0 0.31
 Others 3 (2.2) 0 (0) 3 (3.2) 0.55

RBO, recurrent biliary obstruction; MH-SEMS, multi-hole self-expandable metallic stent; PC-SEMS, partially covered self-expandable metallic stent; CI, confidence interval; NA, not applicable.

Table 4.
Univariate and multivariate analyses for time to recurrent biliary obstruction (n=135)
Univariate
 Multivariate
HR (95% CI) p-value HR (95% CI) p-value
Patient factors
 Age (yr), >72 (n=58)/≤72 (n=77) 1.90 (0.94–3.86) 0.074 1.45 (0.65–3.23) 0.36
 Sex, male (n=67)/female (n=68) 0.73 (0.37–1.43) 0.36
 ECOG PS, ≥1 (n=85)/0 (n=50) 2.20 (0.32–4.20) 0.034 1.71 (0.76–3.88) 0.20
Status of pancreatic cancer
 Unresectable metastasis (n=74)/others (n=61) 0.60 (0.30–1.20) 0.15
 Unresectable locally advanced (n=35)/others (n=100) 1.24 (0.62–2.48) 0.54
 Duodenal invasion, yes (n=61)/no (n=/74) 1.96 (1.01–3.82) 0.048 2.05 (1.01–3.82) 0.046
Stent factors
 MH-SEMS (n=42)/PC-SEMS (n=93) 1.66 (0.80–3.42) 0.17 1.63 (0.76–3.50) 0.21
 Stent length, ≥8 cm (n=62)/<8 cm (n=73) 0.59 (0.29–1.18) 0.14
 Previous drainage history, yes (n=31)/no (n=94) 1.19 (0.61–2.33) 0.61
Chemotherapy
 Chemotherapy, no (n=53)/yes (n=82) 2.08 (1.00–4.34) 0.051 1.68 (0.74–3.82) 0.21
 Therapeutic effect, PD or BSC (n=64)/PR or SD (n=71) 1.53 (0.73–3.22) 0.26
 Chemotherapy not including GnP or BSC (n=76)/including GnP (n=59) 1.48 (0.73–3.01) 0.28

HR, hazard ratio; CI, confidence interval; ECOG, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group; PS, performance status; MH-SEMS, multi-hole self-expandable metal stent; PC-SEMS, partially covered self-expandable metallic stent; PD, progressive disease; BSC, best supportive care; PR, partial response; SD, stable disease; GnP, gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel.

Table 5.
Adverse events
AE All patients (n=135) MH-SEMS group (n=42) PC-SEMS group (n=93) p-value
Rate of adverse events 37 (27.2) 13 (31.0) 24 (25.5) 0.54
Pancreatitis 11 (8.1) 2 (4.8) 9 (9.6) 0.50
 Grade, mild/moderate/severe 9/2/0 2/0/0 7/2/0 1.00
Cholecystitis (in patients with an intact gallbladder) 11 (8.4) 3 (7.1) 8 (9.0) 1.00
 Grade, mild/moderate/severe 2/7/2 1/1/1 1/6/1 0.28
Non-occlusive cholangitis 14 (10.3) 6 (14.3) 8 (8.5) 0.36
 Grade, mild/moderate/severe 4/6/4 1/3/2 3/3/2 0.82
Liver abscess 10 (7.4) 4 (9.5) 6 (6.4) 0.63
 Grade, mild/moderate/severe 0/0/10 0/0/4 0/0/6 1.00
Hemorrhage 2 (1.5) 1 (2.4) 1 (1.1) 0.52
 Grade, mild/moderate/severe 0/1/1 0/0/1 0/1/0 1.00

Values are presented as number (%) or number only.

MH-SEMS, multi-hole self-expandable metallic stent; PC-SEMS, partially covered self-expandable metallic stent.

Table 6.
Risk factors of cholecystitis after stent placement (univariate analysis)
Variable OR (95% CI) p-value
Patient factors
 Age (yr), ≤74 (n=69)/>74 (n=62) 1.64 (0.46–5.89) 0.45
 Sex, male (n=66)/female (n=65) 0.34 (0.15–1.92) 0.34
 ECOG performance status, ≥1 (n=79)/0 (n=52) 1.17 (0.32–4.20) 0.81
 Gallstone, present (n=27)/absent (n=104) 1.50 (0.37–6.08) 0.57
 Maximum diameter of the CBD, <12 (n=75)/≥12 mm (n=56) 2.45 (0.68–8.82) 0.17
Status of pancreatic cancer
 Unresectable local advanced (n=35)/others (n=96) 2.74 (0.78–9.65) 0.12
 Duodenal invasion, yes (n=60)/no (n=71) 0.41 (0.11–1.64) 0.21
 Biliary stricture length ≥16 mm (n=74)/<16 mm (n=57) 0.64 (0.18–2.20) 0.48
 Tumor invasion of cystic duct, yes (n=36)/no (n=95) 5.49 (1.50–20.10) 0.010
 Tumor invasion to the feeding artery, yes (n=33)/no (n=98) 1.12 (0.28–4.52) 0.87
Stent factors
 MH-SEMS (n=42)/PC-SEMS (n=89) 0.46 (0.095–2.24) 0.34
 Stent length, ≥8 cm (n=59)/<8 cm (n=72) 1.02 (0.30–3.52) 0.98
 Stent across the orifice of the cystic duct, yes (n=100)/no (n=31) 1.43 (0.29–7.02) 0.66
Others
 Stent placement in acute cholangitis, yes (n=26)/no (n=105) 1.81 (0.43–7.53) 0.42
 Previous drainage history, yes (n=38)/no (n=93) 0.91 (0.23–3.63) 0.90
 Treatment with chemotherapy, yes (n=81)/no (n=50) 3.00 (0.62–14.50) 0.17

OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval; ECOG, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group; CBD, common bile duct; MH-SEMS, multi-hole self-expandable metallic stent; PC-SEMS, partially covered self-expandable metallic stent.

Table 7.
Cholecystitis in patients without tumor invasion to the cystic duct
MH-SEMS group (n=30) PC-SEMS group (n=65) p-value
With cholecystitis 0 (0) 4 (6.2) 0.30
Without cholecystitis 30 (100.0) 61 (93.8)

Values are presented as number (%).

MH-SEMS, multi-hole self-expandable metallic stent; PC-SEMS, partially covered self-expandable metallic stent.

  • 1. Nakai Y, Isayama H, Wang HP, et al. International consensus statements for endoscopic management of distal biliary stricture. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2020;35:967–979.ArticlePubMedPMCPDF
  • 2. Kitano M, Yamashita Y, Tanaka K, et al. Covered self-expandable metal stents with an anti-migration system improve patency duration without increased complications compared with uncovered stents for distal biliary obstruction caused by pancreatic carcinoma: a randomized multicenter trial. Am J Gastroenterol 2013;108:1713–1722.ArticlePubMedPDF
  • 3. Isayama H, Komatsu Y, Tsujino T, et al. A prospective randomised study of “covered” versus “uncovered” diamond stents for the management of distal malignant biliary obstruction. Gut 2004;53:729–734.ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 4. Ghazi R, AbiMansour JP, Mahmoud T, et al. Uncovered versus fully covered self-expandable metal stents for the management of distal malignant biliary obstruction. Gastrointest Endosc 2023;98:577–584.ArticlePubMed
  • 5. Nakai Y, Isayama H, Kogure H, et al. Risk factors for covered metallic stent migration in patients with distal malignant biliary obstruction due to pancreatic cancer. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2014;29:1744–1749.ArticlePubMedPDF
  • 6. Yokota Y, Fukasawa M, Takano S, et al. Partially covered metal stents have longer patency than uncovered and fully covered metal stents in the management of distal malignant biliary obstruction: a retrospective study. BMC Gastroenterol 2017;17:105.ArticlePMCPDF
  • 7. Vanella G, Coluccio C, Cucchetti A, et al. Fully covered versus partially covered self-expandable metal stents for palliation of distal malignant biliary obstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Gastrointest Endosc 2024;99:314–322.ArticlePubMed
  • 8. Ishii T, Kin T, Yamazaki H, et al. Prophylactic endoscopic gallbladder stent placement for cholecystitis after covered metal stent placement for distal biliary obstruction (with video). Gastrointest Endosc 2023;98:36–42.ArticlePubMed
  • 9. Ishii T, Hayashi T, Yamazaki H, et al. Risk factors for early and late cholecystitis after covered metal stent placement for distal biliary obstruction. J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci 2023;30:1180–1187.ArticlePubMed
  • 10. Tamura T, Yamai T, Uza N, et al. Adverse events of self-expandable metal stent placement for malignant distal biliary obstruction: a large multicenter study. Gastrointest Endosc 2024;99:61–72.ArticlePubMed
  • 11. Almadi MA, Barkun AN, Martel M. No benefit of covered vs uncovered self-expandable metal stents in patients with malignant distal biliary obstruction: a meta-analysis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2013;11:27–37.ArticlePubMed
  • 12. Tringali A, Hassan C, Rota M, et al. Covered vs. uncovered self-expandable metal stents for malignant distal biliary strictures: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Endoscopy 2018;50:631–641.ArticlePubMed
  • 13. Kobayashi M. Development of a biliary multi-hole self-expandable metallic stent for bile tract diseases: a case report. World J Clin Cases 2019;7:1323–1328.ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 14. Kulpatcharapong S, Piyachaturawat P, Mekaroonkamol P, et al. Efficacy of multi-hole self-expandable metal stent compared to fully covered and uncovered self-expandable metal stents in patients with unresectable malignant distal biliary obstruction: a propensity analysis. Surg Endosc 2024;38:212–221.ArticlePubMedPDF
  • 15. Brierley JD, Gospodarowicz MK, Wittekind C. TNM classification of malignant tumours. 8th ed. Wiley Blackwell; 2017.
  • 16. Eisenhauer EA, Therasse P, Bogaerts J, et al. New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Eur J Cancer 2009;45:228–247.ArticlePubMed
  • 17. Isayama H, Hamada T, Fujisawa T, et al. TOKYO criteria 2024 for the assessment of clinical outcomes of endoscopic biliary drainage. Dig Endosc 2024;36:1195–1210.ArticlePubMed
  • 18. Yokoe M, Hata J, Takada T, et al. Tokyo Guidelines 2018: diagnostic criteria and severity grading of acute cholecystitis (with videos). J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci 2018;25:41–54.ArticlePubMed
  • 19. Kiriyama S, Kozaka K, Takada T, et al. Tokyo Guidelines 2018: diagnostic criteria and severity grading of acute cholangitis (with videos). J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci 2018;25:17–30.ArticlePubMed
  • 20. Kanda Y. Investigation of the freely available easy-to-use software ‘EZR’ for medical statistics. Bone Marrow Transplant 2013;48:452–458.ArticlePubMedPDF
  • 21. Conroy T, Desseigne F, Ychou M, et al. FOLFIRINOX versus gemcitabine for metastatic pancreatic cancer. N Engl J Med 2011;364:1817–1825.ArticlePubMed
  • 22. Von Hoff DD, Ervin T, Arena FP, et al. Increased survival in pancreatic cancer with nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine. N Engl J Med 2013;369:1691–1703.ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 23. Brinkmann F, Uhlig K, Sambale A, et al. Anchoring fins of fully covered self-expandable metal stents affect pull-out force and stent migration. Gastrointest Endosc 2024;99:377–386.ArticlePubMed
  • 24. Wang X, Shi X, Luo H, et al. Effects of clip anchoring on preventing migration of fully covered self-expandable metal stent in patients undergoing endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: a multicenter, randomized controlled study. Am J Gastroenterol 2024;119:2028–2035.ArticlePubMed
  • 25. Jirapinyo P, AlSamman MA, Thompson CC. Impact of infected stent removal on recurrent cholangitis with time-to-event analysis. Surg Endosc 2019;33:4109–4115.ArticlePubMedPMCPDF
  • 26. Takeda T, Sasaki T, Okamoto T, et al. Outcomes of multi-hole self-expandable metal stents versus fully covered self-expandable metal stents for malignant distal biliary obstruction in unresectable pancreatic cancer. DEN Open 2024;5:e70014.ArticlePubMedPMC
  • 27. Matsumi A, Kato H, Ogawa T, et al. Risk factors and treatment strategies for cholecystitis after metallic stent placement for malignant biliary obstruction: a multicenter retrospective study. Gastrointest Endosc 2024;100:76–84.ArticlePubMed
  • 28. Isayama H, Kawabe T, Nakai Y, et al. Cholecystitis after metallic stent placement in patients with malignant distal biliary obstruction. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2006;4:1148–1153.ArticlePubMed
  • 29. Robles-Medranda C, Oleas R, Puga-Tejada M, et al. Prophylactic EUS-guided gallbladder drainage prevents acute cholecystitis in patients with malignant biliary obstruction and cystic duct orifice involvement: a randomized trial (with video). Gastrointest Endosc 2023;97:445–453.ArticlePubMed
  • 30. Onnekink AM, Gorris M, Bekkali NL, et al. Endoscopic sphincterotomy to prevent post-ERCP pancreatitis after self-expandable metal stent placement for distal malignant biliary obstruction (SPHINX): a multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Gut 2025;74:246–254.ArticlePubMed
  • 31. Hayashi T, Kawakami H, Osanai M, et al. No benefit of endoscopic sphincterotomy before biliary placement of self-expandable metal stents for unresectable pancreatic cancer. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2015;13:1151–1158.ArticlePubMed

Figure & Data

REFERENCES

    Citations

    Citations to this article as recorded by  
    • Multi-Hole Self-Expandable Metallic Stent for Malignant Distal Biliary Obstruction: A Literature Review
      Koh Kitagawa, Shohei Asada, Jun-ichi Hanatani, Yuki Motokawa, Yui Osaki, Tomihiro Iwata, Akira Mitoro, Hitoshi Yoshiji
      Journal of Clinical Medicine.2026; 15(4): 1410.     CrossRef
    • Efficacy of fully covered self-expanding metal stents removal versus stent-in-stent techniques in recurrent malignant distal biliary obstruction
      See Young Lee, Sung Ill Jang, Eui Joo Kim, Dong Ki Lee, Seoyeon Cho, Yeseul Seong, Jung Hyun Jo, Chan Min Jung, In Rae Cho, Woo Hyun Paik, Ji Kon Ryu, Hyun Seok Lee, Sang Hyub Lee, Jae Hee Cho
      Scientific Reports.2026;[Epub]     CrossRef
    • Advancements in stent strategies for malignant distal biliary obstruction: defining the clinical role of multi-hole self-expandable metal stents
      Sung Yong Han
      Clinical Endoscopy.2025; 58(5): 698.     CrossRef
    • Endoscopic biliary drainage with multi-hole self-expandable metallic stent during neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy in pancreatic cancer
      Shohei Asada, Koh Kitagawa, Junichi Hanatani, Yuki Motokawa, Yui Osaki, Tomihiro Iwata, Kosuke Kaji, Akira Mitoro, Minako Nagai, Hitoshi Yoshiji, Masayuki Sho
      World Journal of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy.2025;[Epub]     CrossRef

    • PubReader PubReader
    • ePub LinkePub Link
    • Cite
      CITE
      export Copy Download
      Close
      Download Citation
      Download a citation file in RIS format that can be imported by all major citation management software, including EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and Reference Manager.
      Format:
      • RIS — For EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and most other reference management software
      • BibTeX — For JabRef, BibDesk, and other BibTeX-specific software
      Include:
      • Citation for the content below
      Efficacy of multi-hole self‑expandable metallic stents versus partially covered self‑expandable metallic stents in patients with malignant distal biliary obstruction caused by unresectable pancreatic cancer: a retrospective comparative cohort study in Japan
      Clin Endosc. 2025;58(5):744-756.   Published online August 26, 2025
      DOI: https://doi.org/10.5946/ce.2024.340
      Close
    • XML DownloadXML Download
    Figure
    • 0
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
    Related articles
    Efficacy of multi-hole self‑expandable metallic stents versus partially covered self‑expandable metallic stents in patients with malignant distal biliary obstruction caused by unresectable pancreatic cancer: a retrospective comparative cohort study in Japan
    Image Image Image Image Image Image
    Fig. 1. Patient flowchart. MH-SEMS, multi-hole self-expandable metallic stent; PC-SEMS, partially covered self-expandable metallic stent; MDBO, malignant distal biliary obstruction; RBO, recurrent biliary obstruction.
    Fig. 2. (A) Multi-hole self-expandable metallic stent. Six rows of side holes were drilled on the membrane in line with the longitudinal direction of the stent (yellow circles). The diameters of each side hole was 1.8 mm. (B) Partially covered self-expandable metallic stent. The 5-mm portions at both ends of this stent were not covered by the membrane to prevent stent migration.
    Fig. 3. Kaplan–Meier curve showing the time to recurrent biliary obstruction (TRBO). There was no significant difference in the median TRBO between the MH-SEMS and PC-SEMS groups. MH-SEMS, multi-hole self-expandable metallic stent; PC-SEMS, partially covered self-expandable metallic stent; CI, confidence interval.
    Fig. 4. Kaplan–Meier curve showing the overall survival (OS) duration of patients. There was no significant difference in the OS duration between the MH-SEMS and PC-SEMS groups. MH-SEMS, multi-hole self-expandable metallic stent; PC-SEMS, partially covered self-expandable metallic stent; CI, confidence interval.
    Fig. 5. Kaplan–Meier curve showing the cumulative patient survival without stent dysfunction. There was no significant difference in the cumulative time to stent dysfunction or patient mortality between the MH-SEMS and PC-SEMS groups. MH-SEMS, multi-hole self-expandable metallic stent; PC-SEMS, partially cov­ered self-expandable metallic stent; CI, confidence interval.
    Graphical abstract

    Fig. 1.

    Fig. 2.

    Fig. 3.

    Fig. 4.

    Fig. 5.

    Graphical abstract

    Efficacy of multi-hole self‑expandable metallic stents versus partially covered self‑expandable metallic stents in patients with malignant distal biliary obstruction caused by unresectable pancreatic cancer: a retrospective comparative cohort study in Japan
    Characteristic All participants (n=137) MH-SEMS group (n=43) PC-SEMS group (n=94) p-value
    Age (yr) 74 (67–79) 74 (67.5–78.5) 74 (67–80) 0.75
    Sex 0.20
     Male 69 (50.4) 18 (41.9) 51 (54.3)
     Female 68 (49.6) 25 (58.1) 43 (45.7)
    ECOG PS 0.72
     0 52 (38.0) 18 (41.9) 34 (36.2)
     1 77 (56.2) 22 (51.2) 55 (58.5)
     2 8 (5.8) 3 (6.9) 5 (5.3)
    Surgically altered anatomy (except for Billroth I gastrectomy) 3 (2.2) 0 (0) 3 (3.2)a) 0.55
    Intact gallbladder 131 (95.6) 42 (97.7) 89 (94.7) 0.67
    Clinical stage 0.38
     ⅠA+ⅠB 7 (5.1) 2 (4.7) 5 (5.3)
     ⅡA+ⅡB 19 (13.9) 9 (20.9) 10 (10.6)
     Ⅲ 37 (27.0) 9 (20.9) 28 (29.8)
     Ⅳ 74 (54.0) 23 (53.5) 51 (54.3)
    Resectability 0.16
     Resectable 15 (10.9) 5 (11.6) 10 (10.6)
     Borderline resectable 12 (8.8) 7 (16.3) 5 (5.3)
     Unresectable local advanced 35 (25.6) 8 (18.6) 27 (28.7)
     Unresectable metastasis 75 (54.7) 23 (53.5) 52 (55.3)
    Duodenal invasion 64 (46.7) 24 (55.8) 40 (41.5) 0.14
    Biliary stricture length (cm) 16.5 (11.5–25) 16 (14–20) 17 (11–27) 0.47
    Maximum diameter of the common bile duct (mm) 12 (10–14.5) 13 (10–15) 12 (10–15) 0.85
    Serum bilirubin before stenting (mg/dL) 2.4 (1.1–5.1) 2.9 (1.0–6.8) 2.1 (1.0–4.7) 0.24
    Stent placement in acute cholangitis 27 (19.7) 12 (27.9) 15 (16.0) 0.11
    Endoscopic sphincterotomy 1 (0.7) 0 (0) 1 (1.1) 1.00
    Previous drainage history
     Yes 41 (29.9) 12 (27.9) 29 (30.9) 0.84
      Endoscopic biliary stenting 35 (25.5) 11 (25.6) 24 (25.6)
      Endoscopic naso-biliary drainage 6 (4.4) 1 (2.3) 5 (5.3)
    Stent length (cm) <0.01
     5 1 1 0
     6 52 4 48
     7 21 21 0
     8 61 15 46
     10 2 2 0
    Stent diameter (mm)
     10 137 (100.0) 43 (100.0) 94 (100.0) 1.00
    Chemotherapy
     Yes 84 (61.3) 27 (62.8) 57 (60.6) 0.85
    Regimens
     GnP 60 (43.7) 22 (51.2) 38 (40.4) 0.26
     mFFX 5 (3.6) 2 (4.7) 3 (3.2) 0.64
     SOXIRI 32 (23.4) 11 (25.6) 21 (22.3) 0.67
     5-FU+nal-IRI 16 (11.7) 3 (7.0) 13 (13.8) 0.39
     Others 25 (18.2) 4 (9.3) 21 (22.3) 0.094
    Therapeutic effects 0.40
     Partial response 14 (16.7) 5 (18.5) 9 (15.8)
     Stable disease 60 (71.4) 17 (63.0) 43 (75.4)
     Progressive disease 10 (11.9) 5 (18.5) 5 (8.8)
    Treatment with radiotherapy 1 (0.74) 0 (0) 1 (1.1) 1.00
    Follow-up period days 189 (95–297) 177 (94–237) 212 (102–330) 0.23
    Outcome All patients (n=137) MH-SEMS group (n=43) PC-SEMS group (n=94) p-value
    Technical success 137 (100.0) 43 (100.0) 94 (100.0) 1.00
    Clinical success 135 (98.5) 42 (97.7) 93 (98.9) 1.00
    Cause of clinical failure
     Insufficient stent dilation 2 (1.5) 1 (2.3) 1 (1.1) 1.00
    Successful stent removal in attempted cases 9/11 (81.8) 7/7 (100.0) 2/4 (50.0) 0.11
    Days from stent placement to attempt stent removal 112 (12–357) 112 (28–337) 207.5 (12–357) 0.79
    Cause of stent removal
     RBO of sludge 5 (3.6) 5 (11.6) 0 <0.01
     RBO of ingrowth 1 (0.7) 1 (2.3) 0 0.31
     RBO of migration (incomplete) 2 (1.5) 0 2 (2.1) 1.00
     Cholecystitis 1 (0.7) 1 (2.3) 0 0.31
    No. of endoscopic biliary drainage procedures during survival periods 1 (1–2) 1 (1–2) 1 (1–2) 0.87
    RBO All patients (n=135) MH-SEMS group (n=42) PC-SEMS group (n=93) p-value
    Incidence rate of RBO (n, %) 36 (26.7) 12 (28.6) 24 (25.8) 0.83
     Non-obstruction rate at 3 months (%) 89.7 86.7 90.1
     Non-obstruction rate at 6 months (%) 78.1 67.9 81.9
     Non-obstruction rate at 12 months (%) 55.8 33.9 60.9
    Time to RBO (95% CI) 460 (335–NA) 318 (174–NA) 460 (356–NA) 0.17
    Overall survival without stent dysfunction (95% CI) 172 (128–222) 147 (112–202) 186 (126–238) 0.57
    RBO grade, moderate/severe 16/20 4/8 12/12 0.48
    Cause of RBO (n, %)
     Sludge 16 (11.9) 5 (11.9) 11 (11.8) 1.00
     Food impaction 2 (1.5) 0 (0) 2 (2.2) 1.00
     Ingrowth 4 (3.0) 3 (7.1) 1 (1.1) 0.089
     Overgrowth 5 (3.7) 1 (2.4) 4 (4.3) 1.00
     Stent migration 5 (3.7) 2 (4.8) 3 (3.2) 0.65
     Cholecystitis (required stent removal) 1 (0.7) 1 (2.4) 0 0.31
     Others 3 (2.2) 0 (0) 3 (3.2) 0.55
    Univariate
    		 Multivariate
    HR (95% CI) p-value HR (95% CI) p-value
    Patient factors
     Age (yr), >72 (n=58)/≤72 (n=77) 1.90 (0.94–3.86) 0.074 1.45 (0.65–3.23) 0.36
     Sex, male (n=67)/female (n=68) 0.73 (0.37–1.43) 0.36
     ECOG PS, ≥1 (n=85)/0 (n=50) 2.20 (0.32–4.20) 0.034 1.71 (0.76–3.88) 0.20
    Status of pancreatic cancer
     Unresectable metastasis (n=74)/others (n=61) 0.60 (0.30–1.20) 0.15
     Unresectable locally advanced (n=35)/others (n=100) 1.24 (0.62–2.48) 0.54
     Duodenal invasion, yes (n=61)/no (n=/74) 1.96 (1.01–3.82) 0.048 2.05 (1.01–3.82) 0.046
    Stent factors
     MH-SEMS (n=42)/PC-SEMS (n=93) 1.66 (0.80–3.42) 0.17 1.63 (0.76–3.50) 0.21
     Stent length, ≥8 cm (n=62)/<8 cm (n=73) 0.59 (0.29–1.18) 0.14
     Previous drainage history, yes (n=31)/no (n=94) 1.19 (0.61–2.33) 0.61
    Chemotherapy
     Chemotherapy, no (n=53)/yes (n=82) 2.08 (1.00–4.34) 0.051 1.68 (0.74–3.82) 0.21
     Therapeutic effect, PD or BSC (n=64)/PR or SD (n=71) 1.53 (0.73–3.22) 0.26
     Chemotherapy not including GnP or BSC (n=76)/including GnP (n=59) 1.48 (0.73–3.01) 0.28
    AE All patients (n=135) MH-SEMS group (n=42) PC-SEMS group (n=93) p-value
    Rate of adverse events 37 (27.2) 13 (31.0) 24 (25.5) 0.54
    Pancreatitis 11 (8.1) 2 (4.8) 9 (9.6) 0.50
     Grade, mild/moderate/severe 9/2/0 2/0/0 7/2/0 1.00
    Cholecystitis (in patients with an intact gallbladder) 11 (8.4) 3 (7.1) 8 (9.0) 1.00
     Grade, mild/moderate/severe 2/7/2 1/1/1 1/6/1 0.28
    Non-occlusive cholangitis 14 (10.3) 6 (14.3) 8 (8.5) 0.36
     Grade, mild/moderate/severe 4/6/4 1/3/2 3/3/2 0.82
    Liver abscess 10 (7.4) 4 (9.5) 6 (6.4) 0.63
     Grade, mild/moderate/severe 0/0/10 0/0/4 0/0/6 1.00
    Hemorrhage 2 (1.5) 1 (2.4) 1 (1.1) 0.52
     Grade, mild/moderate/severe 0/1/1 0/0/1 0/1/0 1.00
    Variable OR (95% CI) p-value
    Patient factors
     Age (yr), ≤74 (n=69)/>74 (n=62) 1.64 (0.46–5.89) 0.45
     Sex, male (n=66)/female (n=65) 0.34 (0.15–1.92) 0.34
     ECOG performance status, ≥1 (n=79)/0 (n=52) 1.17 (0.32–4.20) 0.81
     Gallstone, present (n=27)/absent (n=104) 1.50 (0.37–6.08) 0.57
     Maximum diameter of the CBD, <12 (n=75)/≥12 mm (n=56) 2.45 (0.68–8.82) 0.17
    Status of pancreatic cancer
     Unresectable local advanced (n=35)/others (n=96) 2.74 (0.78–9.65) 0.12
     Duodenal invasion, yes (n=60)/no (n=71) 0.41 (0.11–1.64) 0.21
     Biliary stricture length ≥16 mm (n=74)/<16 mm (n=57) 0.64 (0.18–2.20) 0.48
     Tumor invasion of cystic duct, yes (n=36)/no (n=95) 5.49 (1.50–20.10) 0.010
     Tumor invasion to the feeding artery, yes (n=33)/no (n=98) 1.12 (0.28–4.52) 0.87
    Stent factors
     MH-SEMS (n=42)/PC-SEMS (n=89) 0.46 (0.095–2.24) 0.34
     Stent length, ≥8 cm (n=59)/<8 cm (n=72) 1.02 (0.30–3.52) 0.98
     Stent across the orifice of the cystic duct, yes (n=100)/no (n=31) 1.43 (0.29–7.02) 0.66
    Others
     Stent placement in acute cholangitis, yes (n=26)/no (n=105) 1.81 (0.43–7.53) 0.42
     Previous drainage history, yes (n=38)/no (n=93) 0.91 (0.23–3.63) 0.90
     Treatment with chemotherapy, yes (n=81)/no (n=50) 3.00 (0.62–14.50) 0.17
    MH-SEMS group (n=30) PC-SEMS group (n=65) p-value
    With cholecystitis 0 (0) 4 (6.2) 0.30
    Without cholecystitis 30 (100.0) 61 (93.8)
    Table 1. Characteristics of the participants

    Values are presented as median (range) or number (%).

    MH-SEMS, multi-hole self-expandable metallic stent; PC-SEMS, partially covered self-expandable metallic stent; ECOG, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group; PS, performance status; GnP, gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel; mFFX, modified FOLFIRINOX (fluorouracil/irinotecan/oxaliplatin); SOXIRI, S-1/oxaliplatin/irinotecan; 5-FU, 5-fluorouracil; nal-IRI, nanoliposomal-irinotecan.

    Two cases of gastrojejunostomy bypass and one case of proximal gastrectomy.

    Table 2. Clinical outcomes of the patients

    Values are presented as number (%) or median (range).

    MH-SEMS, multi-hole self-expandable metallic stent; PC-SEMS, partially covered self-expandable metallic stent; RBO, recurrent biliary obstruction.

    Table 3. Recurrent biliary obstruction

    RBO, recurrent biliary obstruction; MH-SEMS, multi-hole self-expandable metallic stent; PC-SEMS, partially covered self-expandable metallic stent; CI, confidence interval; NA, not applicable.

    Table 4. Univariate and multivariate analyses for time to recurrent biliary obstruction (n=135)

    HR, hazard ratio; CI, confidence interval; ECOG, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group; PS, performance status; MH-SEMS, multi-hole self-expandable metal stent; PC-SEMS, partially covered self-expandable metallic stent; PD, progressive disease; BSC, best supportive care; PR, partial response; SD, stable disease; GnP, gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel.

    Table 5. Adverse events

    Values are presented as number (%) or number only.

    MH-SEMS, multi-hole self-expandable metallic stent; PC-SEMS, partially covered self-expandable metallic stent.

    Table 6. Risk factors of cholecystitis after stent placement (univariate analysis)

    OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval; ECOG, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group; CBD, common bile duct; MH-SEMS, multi-hole self-expandable metallic stent; PC-SEMS, partially covered self-expandable metallic stent.

    Table 7. Cholecystitis in patients without tumor invasion to the cystic duct

    Values are presented as number (%).

    MH-SEMS, multi-hole self-expandable metallic stent; PC-SEMS, partially covered self-expandable metallic stent.

    Table 1.

    Table 2.

    Table 3.

    Table 4.

    Table 5.

    Table 6.

    Table 7.

    Clin Endosc : Clinical Endoscopy Twitter Facebook
    © Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy.
    Close layer
    TOP