Management of occluded self-expanding biliary metal stents in malignant biliary disease

Background: Occlusion of self-expanding metal stents(SEMS) in malignant biliary obstruction occurs in up to 40% of patients. This study aimed to compare the different techniques to resolve stent occlusion in our collective of patients.Methods: Patients with malignant biliary obstruction and occlusion of biliary metal stent at a tertiary referral endoscopic center were retrospectively identified between April 1, 1994 and May 31, 2014. The clinical records were further analyzed regarding the characteristics of patients, malignant strictures, SEMS,management strategies, stent patency, subsequent interventions, survival time and case charges.Results: A total of 108 patients with biliary metal stent occlusion were identified. Seventy-nine of these patients were eligible for further analysis. Favored management was plastic stent insertion in 73.4% patients. Second SEMS were inserted in 12.7% patients. Percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage and mechanical cleansing were conducted in a minority of patients. Further analysis showed no statistically significant difference in median overall secondary stent patency(88 vs. 143 days, P = 0.069), median survival time(95 vs. 192 days, P = 0.116), median subsequent intervention rate(53.4% vs. 40.0%, P = 0.501)and median case charge(€5145 vs. €3473, P = 0.803) for the treatment with a second metal stent insertion compared to plastic stent insertion. In patients with survival time of more than three months,significantly more patients treated with plastic stents needed re-interventions than patients treated with second SEMS(93.3% vs. 57.1%, P = 0.037).Conclusions: In malignant biliary strictures, both plastic and metal stent insertions are feasible strategies for the treatment of occluded SEMS. Our data suggest that in palliative biliary stenting, patients especially those with longer expected survival might benefit from second SEMS insertion. Careful patient selection is important to ensure a proper decision for either management strategy.

Femoral indicator injection for transpulmonary thermodilution using the EV1000/VolumeView~®: do the same criteria apply as for the PiCCO~®?

Objective： Comparison of global end-diastolic volume index （GEDVI） obtained by femoral and jugular transpulmonary thermodilution （TPTD） indicator injections using the EV1000NolumnView device （Edwards Lifesci- ences, Irvine, USA）. Methods： In an 87-year-old woman with hypovolemic shock and equipped with both jugular and femoral vein access and monitored with the EV1000NolumeView device, we recorded 10 datasets, each comprising duplicate TPTD via femoral access and duplicate TPTD （20 ml cold saline） via jugular access. Results： Mean femoral GEDVI （（674.6±52.3） ml/m2） was significantly higher than jugular GEDVI （（552.3±69.7） ml/m2）, with P=-0.003. Bland-Airman analysis demonstrated a bias of （＋122±61） ml/m2, limits of agreement of -16 and ＋260 ml/m2, and a percentage error of 22%. Use of the correction-formula recently suggested for the PiCCO device significantly reduced bias and percentage error. Similarly, mean values of parameters derived from GEDVI such as pulmonary vascular permeability index （PVPI; 1.244±0.101 vs. 1.522±0.139; P〈0.001） and global ejection fraction （GEF; （24.7±1.6）% vs. （28.1±1.8）%; P〈0.001） were significantly different in the case of femoral compared to jugular indicator injection. Fur- thermore, the mean cardiac index derived from femoral indicator injection （（4.50±0.36） L/（min.m2）） was significantly higher （P=0.02） than that derived from jugular indicator injection （（4.12±0.44） L/（min.m2））, resulting in a bias of （＋0.38±0.37） L/（min.m2） and a percentage error of 19.4%. Conclusions： Femoral access for indicator injection results in markedly altered values provided by the EV1000NolumeView , particularly for GEDVI, PVPI, and GEF.