Randomised study of endoscopic biliary endoprosthesis versus duct clearance for bileduct stones in high-risk patients

Abstract

The value of an endoprosthesis for long-term management of bileduct stones has not been formally established. The main theoretical advantage of endoprosthesis insertion (BE) over conventional endoscopic duct clearance (DC) is the prevention of stone impaction, with obstruction and consequent cholangitis or pancreatitis. In a randomised study we compared the results of these two methods in patients with symptomatic bileduct stones who were at high risk because of old age (> 70 yr) or serious debilitating disease. 43 high-risk patients were randomised to BE with a 7F double-pigtail endoprosthesis and < 0.75 cm sphincterotomy, and 43 to DC with standard 1.25-1.50 cm sphincterotomy and stone extraction by balloon or basket, with or without mechanical lithotripsy. The principal endpoint was the rate of biliary related complications. In the BE group biliary drainage was achieved in the first session in all but one patient (who required 2 sessions). In the DC group, 24 patients had duct clearance at the first attempt and 35 (81%) after a median of 2 sessions (range 2-4); eight of this group had an endoprosthesis inserted to maintain long-term drainage. At 72 h the complication rates were 7% in the BE group and 16% in the DC group (p = 0.18). However, the long-term complication rate for BE was higher: by Kaplan-Meier analysis, at a median of 20 months the proportions free of biliary complications were 64% BE and 86% DC (p = 0.03, log-rank test). For immediate bileduct drainage, endoprosthesis insertion proved a safe and effective alternative to duct clearance. Because of the risk of subsequent cholangitis, its use as a definitive treatment should be confined to highly selected cases.