The main objective of this study is to evaluate the safety, including stent migration rates, and efficacy of placement of the esophageal multisegmented fully covered SEMS with the OTW method in patients with non-operable malignant obstruction of the…
ID
Source
Brief title
Condition
- Gastrointestinal stenosis and obstruction
Synonym
Research involving
Sponsors and support
Intervention
Outcome measures
Primary outcome
- Safety: Short term (within 7 days after treatment) and long term (after 7
days) major complications and minor complications. Major complications are
defined as life threatening and severe complications such as perforation,
haemorrhage, fistula formation and severe pain. Minor complications are defined
as non-life threatening or moderately severe pain, gastroesophageal reflux and
stent migration. Because of the new stent design that should decrease stent
migration, we will specifically pay attention to stent migration rates.
- Efficacy: Consisting of
• Clinical outcome, measured at baseline and during follow-up until death with
the Ogilvie dysphagia score;
• Technical successful placement of the esophageal multisegmented fully covered
SEMS including correct positioning at the stenosis. Technical success is
defined as ease of deployment and placement of the stent at the required
location.
Secondary outcome
- Recurrent dysphagia: cause of dysphagia will be registered during follow-up;
- Functional outcome after stent placement: expressed as WHO performance,
measured at baseline and during follow-up until death;
- Pain related to esophageal stent during follow-up: the first two weeks pain
will be measured daily with a patient diary, using the Visual Analogue Scale
(VAS). After this, every 4 weeks until death the patient will be contacted with
a telephone interview;
Background summary
The majority of esophageal cancer patients have unresectable disease at
presentation. Even after curative therapy, about 20% of patients develop
dysphagia from recurrent strictures. Dysphagia is the predominant symptom in
70% of esophageal cancer. Complications include high risk of aspiration and
reduced patency of the orogastric pathway, which lead to a profound reduction
in quality of life. Therefore palliative therapy has been, and will continue to
remain, an important part of the management of esophageal malignancy. The
primary goal of palliative treatment in patients with esophageal cancer is to
achieve adequate improvement of dysphagia and therefore quality of life, with a
reduced need for additional interventions.
Although optimal intervention for treatment of dysphagia has yet to be
established, placement of a partially or fully covered self-expandable metal
stents (SEMS) is the palliative modality of choice and recommended by the
European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy2. This because of their ability
to provide instant, long-lasting relief from dysphagia with minimal morbidity
and negligible mortality3.
1st generation SEMS: Uncovered SEMS
The first commercially produced self-expandable metal stent was the Wallstent,
made of stainless steel. Ultraflex stent, developed by Boston Scientific
(Natick, MA, USA) was the first stent to be made of nitinol, a shape-retaining
nickel and titanium alloy. Since then, nitinol is most popular stent wire
material.
2nd generation SEMS: Covered SEMS
To prevent tumor ingrowth into stent, fully or partially covered stent is
introduced in 1990. Covered material is various: Polyurethane, silicone and
PTFE.
3rd generation SEMS: Retrievable SEMS
A retrievable fully covered SEMS is introduced in 1997. Drawstrings were
attached to stent to help remove or reposition the stent.
4th generation: Self-Expandable Plastic Stent
Polyflex is the first self-expanding plastic stent (SEPS) characterized by
removability.
Known complications of esophageal stent placement are esophageal perforation,
chest pain, bleeding, fistula formation, gastroesophageal reflux and recurrent
dysphagia due to among others tumor/hyperplastic tissue in- or overgrowth,
stent migration or food occlusion. Stent migration rates of 6-17% have been
described4. Migration rates seem to be higher when using fully covered stent
designs, possibly due to reduced adhesion and fixation to the esophageal wall.
The esophageal multisegmented fully covered SEMS is made of nitinol wire and
has a silicone cover. It shares similar characteristics with other 2nd and 3rd
generation stents which have been used over more than 20 years. Placement is
done according to the over-the-wire (OTW) method using fluoroscopic images to
control the position, which is considered to be a safe method and is widely
used in daily clinical practice5-6. Its multisegmented design is a new aspect
and expected to decrease migration rates. The multisegmented fully covered SEMS
has been evaluated for palliation of malignant dysphagia and has been approved
with a Conformité Européenne (CE) certificate for the maintenance of esophageal
lumen patency in malignant dysphagia.
Since there is limited data on the effectiveness in the clinical context, the
aim of this study is to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the esophageal
multisegmented fully covered SEMS. We will pay specific attention to migration
rates during assessment of the safety of the stent.
Study objective
The main objective of this study is to evaluate the safety, including stent
migration rates, and efficacy of placement of the esophageal multisegmented
fully covered SEMS with the OTW method in patients with non-operable malignant
obstruction of the esophagus or esophagogastric junction, extrinsic malignant
compression, or recurrent malignant dysphagia after esophagectomy.
Other (secondary) objectives are to assess the effect of the stent on the
presence of hyperplastic reaction after implantation, the functional
complications and survival.
Study design
A non-randomized prospective clinical study in a single centre (Radboudumc), to
evaluate the safety and efficacy of the esophageal multisegmented fully covered
SEMS in patients with non-operable malignant obstruction of the esophagus or
esophagogastric junction, extrinsic malignant compression, or recurrent
malignant dysphagia after esophagectomy.
After stent placement patients will be evaluated with a telephone interview 14
days later and at 4-week intervals until death/stent removal , or until a
maximum of 6 months follow-up.
Intervention
Placement of esophageal multisegmented fully covered SEMS
Study burden and risks
Participation in the study does not cause any additional charge to patients.
The stent implantation and follow-up are not different from the usual in
standard clinical practice. As the stent is designed to prevent migration, this
could be a possible advantage of participation in the study. However, a
decrease of migration rates has to be confirmed first.
The risk classification is determined as negligible based on the guideline of
the *Nederlandse Federatie van Universitair Medische Centra*. The risks
associated with the participation in the study are similar to the risks of
treatment with any esophageal stent, and do not different from the
complications arising from the use of other expandable stent; migration,
bleeding, perforation and development of hyperplasia/granulation tissue.
Geert Grooteplein Zuid 10
Nijmegen 6525 GA
NL
Geert Grooteplein Zuid 10
Nijmegen 6525 GA
NL
Listed location countries
Age
Inclusion criteria
- Patients presenting with dysphagia due to a non-operable malignant
obstruction of the esophagus or esophagogastric junction including extrinsic
malignant compression and recurrence in post-esophagectomy patients;
- Requiring treatment for dysphagia (Ogilvie score of 2-4);
- Life expectancy of less than 12 months;
- Written informed consent;
- Age >= 18 years.
Exclusion criteria
- Stenosis after laryngectomy;
- Distance between the upper edge of the stent less than 2 cm from the upper
esophageal sphincter;
- Tumor length of more than 14 cm;
- Esophageal fistula;
- Previous stent placement for the same condition;
- Inappropriate cultural level and understanding of the study;
- Coagulopathy;
- Patients with eosinophilic esophagitis or a esohpageal motility disorder.
Design
Recruitment
Medical products/devices used
Followed up by the following (possibly more current) registration
No registrations found.
Other (possibly less up-to-date) registrations in this register
No registrations found.
In other registers
Register | ID |
---|---|
ClinicalTrials.gov | NCT04415463 |
CCMO | NL73180.091.20 |