Stenting and interventional radiology for obstructive jaundice in patients with unresectable biliary tract carcinomas

Together with biliary drainage, which is an appropriate procedure for unresectable biliary cancer, biliary stent placement is used to improve symptoms associated with jaundice. Owing to investigations comparing percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD), surgical drainage, and endoscopic drainage, many types of stents are now available that can be placed endoscopically. The stents used are classified roughly as plastic stents and metal stents. Compared with plastic stents, metal stents are of large diameter, and have long-term patency (although they are expensive). For this reason, the use of metal stents is preferred for patients who are expected to survive for more than 6 months, whereas for patients who are likely to survive for less than 6 months, the use of plastic stents is not considered to be improper. Obstruction in a metal stent is caused by a tumor that grows within the stent through the mesh interstices. To overcome such problems, a covered metal stent was developed, and these stents are now used in patients with malignant distal biliary obstruction. However, this type of stent has been reported to have several shortcomings, such as being associated with the development of acute cholecystitis and stent migration. In spite of these shortcomings, evidence is expected to demonstrate its superiority over other types of stent

Reassessment of Rebleeding Risk of Forrest IB (Oozing) Peptic Ulcer Bleeding in a Large International Randomized Trial

OBJECTIVES:Our aims were to assess risks of early rebleeding after successful endoscopic hemostasis for Forrest oozing (FIB) peptic ulcer bleeding (PUBs) compared with other stigmata of recent hemorrhage (SRH).METHODS:These were post hoc multivariable analyses of a large, international, double-blind study (NCT00251979) of patients randomized to high-dose intravenous (IV) esomeprazole (PPI) or placebo for 72 h. Rebleeding rates of patients with PUB SRH treated with either PPI or placebo after successful endoscopic hemostasis were also compared.RESULTS:For patients treated with placebo for 72 h after successful endoscopic hemostasis, rebleed rates by SRH were spurting arterial bleeding (FIA) 22.5%, adherent clot (FIIB) 17.6%, non-bleeding visible vessel (FIIA) 11.3%, and oozing bleeding (FIB) 4.9%. Compared with FIB patients, FIA, FIIB, and FIIA had significantly greater risks of rebleeding with odds ratios (95% CI's) from 2.61 (1.05, 6.52) for FIIA to 6.66 (2.19, 20.26) for FIA. After hemostasis, PUB rebleeding rates for FIB patients at 72 h were similar with esomeprazole (5.4%) and placebo (4.9%), whereas rebleed rates for all other major SRH (FIA, FIIA, FIIB) were lower for PPI than placebo, but the treatment by SRH interaction test was not statistically significant.CONCLUSIONS:After successful endoscopic hemostasis, FIB patients had very low PUB rebleeding rates irrespective of PPI or placebo treatment. This implies that after successful endoscopic hemostasis the prognostic classification of FIB ulcers as a high-risk SRH and the recommendation to treat these with high-dose IV PPI's should be re-evaluated