Ultrasound-guided Percutaneous Biliary Drainage Versus Endoscopic Ultrasound-guided Biliary Drainage

NCT ID: NCT03546049

Last Updated: 2023-08-29

Study Results

Results pending

The study team has not published outcome measurements, participant flow, or safety data for this trial yet. Check back later for updates.

Basic Information

Get a concise snapshot of the trial, including recruitment status, study phase, enrollment targets, and key timeline milestones.

Recruitment Status

UNKNOWN

Clinical Phase

NA

Total Enrollment

216 participants

Study Classification

INTERVENTIONAL

Study Start Date

2018-12-01

Study Completion Date

2024-12-01

Brief Summary

Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.

Prospective multi-site study of ultrasound-guided percutaneous biliary drainage and endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage with implantation of a self-expanding metal stent in patients with malignant, distal bile duct obstruction (PUMa-study)

Detailed Description

Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.

In a recent systematic review and meta-analysis about the efficacy and safety of endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage (EUBD) in comparison with percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage (PTBD), there was no difference in technical success between the two procedures, but PTBD was associated with a lower level of clinical success, a higher level of post-procedural adverse events and a higher rate of re-interventions. The authors concluded that EUBD should be favored for biliary drainage when endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreaticography (ERCP) failed or wasn´t possible to perform due to anatomical reasons.

The hypothesis of this prospective multicenter study is that PTBD wasn´t performed in an appropriate way to compare it adequately with EUBD. The following improvements should be done. First, color Doppler ultrasound-guidance for cannulating the bile duct should be used in PTBD. The transgression of blood vessels with the risk of severe intrahepatic bleedings or hemobilia can be avoided, which are common adverse events in PTBDs when it is performed by fluoroscopic guidance. Second, the access to the bile duct from the left side of the liver should be favored. The access from the right liver side causes more adverse events such as biliary effusion or pneumothorax, as well as more patient discomfort and pain. Third, implantation of the self-expanding metal stent should be performed in the first session as a one-step procedure. This has the advantage that no further re-intervention is necessary after insertion of an external or an external/internal drainage, an outcome which can cause further adverse events such as bile duct leak along the catheter, biliary ascites or catheter dislocation. Fourth, stent release should be performed under endoscopic luminal guidance. In this way, the positioning and the correct expansion of the distal tip of the metal stent can be observed directly in comparison with the stent release which is only controlled by fluoroscopic guidance.

On the other hand, EUBD should be performed in its best manner (special metal stents included) with the three techniques that are usually necessary to perform a successful EUBD: EUS-guided antegrade transpapillary drainage, EUS-guided transhepatic drainage and EUS-guided choledochal drainage.

The study focuses on patients with malignant distal (infra-hilar) bile duct obstruction.

It is presumed that the technical and clinical success rate is equal (non-inferiority) but the adverse event rate, the number of re-interventions and the number of days of hospitalization may differ between the two interventions. An adequate number of cases (106 patients in each intervention, drop outs included) should be recruited to calculate relevant statistical differences.

Furthermore, patients will be followed over six months after the intervention to calculate an estimated survival analysis (with and without palliative chemotherapy).

Conditions

See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.

Bile Duct Obstruction, Extrahepatic

Study Design

Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.

Allocation Method

NON_RANDOMIZED

Intervention Model

PARALLEL

prospective, non-randomized multicenter study (each center performs the intervention which can do best)
Primary Study Purpose

TREATMENT

Blinding Strategy

DOUBLE

Investigators Outcome Assessors

Study Groups

Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.

US-guided percutaneous biliary drainage

The initial percutaneous transhepatic puncture of the bile duct is performed by ultrasound guidance with a Chiba-needle (0.7 mm). After injection of a radiopaque contrast media into the bile duct system, the malignant extrahepatic bile duct stenosis can be visualized by fluoroscopic guidance (digital remote-controlled fluoroscopy device). Then a 0.018 inch guide wire is introduced and proceeded beyond the tumor stenosis into the duodenum. Next, the Chiba needle is exchanged by a 5 F catheter and the 0.018 inch guide wire is exchanged by a 0.035 inch guide wire. After dilatation of the hepatic access route with bougies up to 12 F, a self-expandable metal stent is introduced. The placement of the metal stent is controlled by endoscopic luminal guidance (gastroscope or duodenoscope).

Group Type ACTIVE_COMPARATOR

US-guided percutaneous biliary drainage

Intervention Type PROCEDURE

Device: metal stent. The self-expandable metal stent is implanted percutaneously by a transhepatic access route.

The metal stent is partially covered or non-covered (in cases in which the gallbladder is not removed).

Length: 6-10 cm. Diameter: 8-10 mm.

EUS-guided biliary drainage

The initial transluminal puncture of the bile duct is performed by endoscopic ultrasound guidance (longitudinal echoendoscope) with an 19 G access needle. After injection of a radiopaque contrast media into the bile duct system, the malignant extrahepatic bile duct stenosis can be visualized by fluoroscopic guidance. Then, a 0.035 inch guide wire is introduced into the bile duct. After dilatation of the transluminal access route with a balloon catheter, a self-expandable metal stent is introduced as an antegrade biliary drainage, a transhepatic biliary drainage or a choledochal biliary drainage. The placement of the metal stent is controlled by fluoroscopic and endoscopic luminal guidance.

Group Type EXPERIMENTAL

EUS-guided biliary drainage

Intervention Type PROCEDURE

Device: metal stent. The transluminal (transgastric, transduodenal or transenteric) implanted self-expandable metal stent is released via echoendoscope.

The metal stent is partially covered or non-covered (in cases in which the gallbladder is not removed) or mixed covered (one half covered, one half non-covered). The mixed covered stent is used for the transhepatic access.

Length: 6-10 cm. Diameter: 8-10 mm.

Interventions

Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.

US-guided percutaneous biliary drainage

Device: metal stent. The self-expandable metal stent is implanted percutaneously by a transhepatic access route.

The metal stent is partially covered or non-covered (in cases in which the gallbladder is not removed).

Length: 6-10 cm. Diameter: 8-10 mm.

Intervention Type PROCEDURE

EUS-guided biliary drainage

Device: metal stent. The transluminal (transgastric, transduodenal or transenteric) implanted self-expandable metal stent is released via echoendoscope.

The metal stent is partially covered or non-covered (in cases in which the gallbladder is not removed) or mixed covered (one half covered, one half non-covered). The mixed covered stent is used for the transhepatic access.

Length: 6-10 cm. Diameter: 8-10 mm.

Intervention Type PROCEDURE

Other Intervention Names

Discover alternative or legacy names that may be used to describe the listed interventions across different sources.

WallFlex™ Biliary RX Stents Boston Scientific WallFlex™ Biliary RX Stents Boston Scientific

Eligibility Criteria

Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.

Inclusion Criteria

* Inoperable, malignant disease with extrahepatic bile duct obstruction (infra- hilar)
* ERCP was not successful or wasn´t possible due to anatomical reasons (for example status post-gastrectomy)
* At least twofold elevated bilirubin level (\> 2mg/dl)
* Histologically verified malignant disease
* Abdominal ultrasound was performed
* Computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging of the abdomen was performed
* A written consent was given

Exclusion Criteria

* Relevant blood coagulation disorder (Quick \< 50%, Partial thromboplastin time \> 50 sec., thrombocytes \< 50/nl)
* Extrahepatic cholangiocellular carcinoma (Klatskin tumor) Bismuth II-IV or intrahepatic cholangiocellular carcinoma
* Operable, malignant disease or disease which can be cured by chemotherapy (for example aggressive Non Hodgkin-lymphoma)
* Pregnancy or breastfeeding
* Participation in another trial concerning PTBD or EUBD
Minimum Eligible Age

18 Years

Eligible Sex

ALL

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

No

Sponsors

Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.

University Hospital Heidelberg

OTHER

Sponsor Role collaborator

Theresienkrankenhaus und St. Hedwig-Klinik GmbH

OTHER

Sponsor Role lead

Responsible Party

Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.

Daniel Schmitz, MD

Medical doctor, assistant medical director

Responsibility Role PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR

Principal Investigators

Learn about the lead researchers overseeing the trial and their institutional affiliations.

Anja Sander, Dr.M.Sc.

Role: STUDY_DIRECTOR

Institut für Medizinische Biometrie und Informatik Abteilung Medizinische Biometrie, Heidelberg University Hospital

Locations

Explore where the study is taking place and check the recruitment status at each participating site.

Tertiary referral hospital: Theresienkrankenhaus und St. Hedwig Hospital

Mannheim, , Germany

Site Status RECRUITING

Countries

Review the countries where the study has at least one active or historical site.

Germany

Central Contacts

Reach out to these primary contacts for questions about participation or study logistics.

Daniel Schmitz, Dr.med.

Role: CONTACT

00496214245575

Jochen Rudi, Prof.Dr.med.

Role: CONTACT

00496214244631

Facility Contacts

Find local site contact details for specific facilities participating in the trial.

Daniel Schmitz, MD

Role: primary

00496214245575

Jochen Rudi, MD PD

Role: backup

00496214245937

References

Explore related publications, articles, or registry entries linked to this study.

Sharaiha RZ, Khan MA, Kamal F, Tyberg A, Tombazzi CR, Ali B, Tombazzi C, Kahaleh M. Efficacy and safety of EUS-guided biliary drainage in comparison with percutaneous biliary drainage when ERCP fails: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Gastrointest Endosc. 2017 May;85(5):904-914. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2016.12.023. Epub 2017 Jan 4.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 28063840 (View on PubMed)

Bapaye A, Dubale N, Aher A. Comparison of endosonography-guided vs. percutaneous biliary stenting when papilla is inaccessible for ERCP. United European Gastroenterol J. 2013 Aug;1(4):285-93. doi: 10.1177/2050640613490928.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 24917973 (View on PubMed)

Artifon EL, Aparicio D, Paione JB, Lo SK, Bordini A, Rabello C, Otoch JP, Gupta K. Biliary drainage in patients with unresectable, malignant obstruction where ERCP fails: endoscopic ultrasonography-guided choledochoduodenostomy versus percutaneous drainage. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2012 Oct;46(9):768-74. doi: 10.1097/MCG.0b013e31825f264c.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 22810111 (View on PubMed)

Khashab MA, Valeshabad AK, Afghani E, Singh VK, Kumbhari V, Messallam A, Saxena P, El Zein M, Lennon AM, Canto MI, Kalloo AN. A comparative evaluation of EUS-guided biliary drainage and percutaneous drainage in patients with distal malignant biliary obstruction and failed ERCP. Dig Dis Sci. 2015 Feb;60(2):557-65. doi: 10.1007/s10620-014-3300-6. Epub 2014 Aug 1.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 25081224 (View on PubMed)

Sharaiha RZ, Kumta NA, Desai AP, DeFilippis EM, Gabr M, Sarkisian AM, Salgado S, Millman J, Benvenuto A, Cohen M, Tyberg A, Gaidhane M, Kahaleh M. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage versus percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage: predictors of successful outcome in patients who fail endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. Surg Endosc. 2016 Dec;30(12):5500-5505. doi: 10.1007/s00464-016-4913-y. Epub 2016 Apr 29.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 27129552 (View on PubMed)

Lee TH, Choi JH, Park do H, Song TJ, Kim DU, Paik WH, Hwangbo Y, Lee SS, Seo DW, Lee SK, Kim MH. Similar Efficacies of Endoscopic Ultrasound-guided Transmural and Percutaneous Drainage for Malignant Distal Biliary Obstruction. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2016 Jul;14(7):1011-1019.e3. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2015.12.032. Epub 2015 Dec 31.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 26748220 (View on PubMed)

Sportes A, Camus M, Greget M, Leblanc S, Coriat R, Hochberger J, Chaussade S, Grabar S, Prat F. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided hepaticogastrostomy versus percutaneous transhepatic drainage for malignant biliary obstruction after failed endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: a retrospective expertise-based study from two centers. Therap Adv Gastroenterol. 2017 Jun;10(6):483-493. doi: 10.1177/1756283X17702096. Epub 2017 Apr 10.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 28567118 (View on PubMed)

Schmitz D, Grosse A, Hallscheidt P, Roseneck A, Niemeyer J, Rudi J. Color Doppler ultrasound-guided PTBD with and without metal stent implantation by endoscopic control: prospective success and early adverse event rates. Z Gastroenterol. 2015 Nov;53(11):1255-60. doi: 10.1055/s-0041-104225. Epub 2015 Nov 12.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 26562399 (View on PubMed)

Liu YS, Lin CY, Chuang MT, Tsai YS, Wang CK, Ou MC. Success and complications of percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage are influenced by liver entry segment and level of catheter placement. Abdom Radiol (NY). 2018 Mar;43(3):713-722. doi: 10.1007/s00261-017-1258-5.

Reference Type BACKGROUND
PMID: 28741168 (View on PubMed)

Schmitz D, Valiente CT, Dollhopf M, Perez-Miranda M, Kullmer A, Gornals J, Vila J, Weigt J, Voigtlander T, Redondo-Cerezo E, von Hahn T, Albert J, Vom Dahl S, Beyna T, Hartmann D, Franck F, Garcia-Alonso FJ, Schmidt A, Garcia-Sumalla A, Arrubla A, Joerdens M, Kleemann T, Tomo JRA, Grassmann F, Rudi J. Percutaneous transhepatic or endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage in malignant distal bile duct obstruction using a self-expanding metal stent: Study protocol for a prospective European multicenter trial (PUMa trial). PLoS One. 2022 Oct 27;17(10):e0275029. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0275029. eCollection 2022.

Reference Type DERIVED
PMID: 36302047 (View on PubMed)

Other Identifiers

Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.

2018-PUMa-3-12-001

Identifier Type: -

Identifier Source: org_study_id

More Related Trials

Additional clinical trials that may be relevant based on similarity analysis.

EUS Biliary Drainage vs. ERCP
NCT03870386 COMPLETED NA