An interventional study of WInged perimeter biliary stent insertion (Viaduct) and traditional polyethylene stent insertion (Cotton Huibregtse) in Malignant Tumor of Extrahepatic Bile Duct, sponsored by University of British Columbia. Completed at 2 sites in Canada. Open to participants aged 18 Years and older. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2018-05-02.
Sponsored by University of British Columbia · Not applicable, Interventional, and Treatment
Strictures in the bile duct cause a blockage of flow of bile. This leads to potential problems including jaundice, itch and infection in the bile duct. The usual first step in this situation would be to allow flow of bile by placing a stent across the stricture. This is usually done by a special type of endoscopy procedure called an endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, or ERCP.
The most commonly used stent are made from a plastic material called polyethylene and has a central lumen in which bile drains through it. Health Canada has approved the sale and use of another stent with a winged perimeter (the VIADUCT stent) for placement in bile duct strictures and is used routinely in our hospitals. However, the investigators do not know which stent is better at treating bile duct strictures. In order to determine which stent would be more useful, the VIADUCT stent and the usual polyethylene flanged stent must be studied under carefully controlled circumstances. This will be done by a randomized, subject-blinded study. Other trials in the past have looked at other stents in this way, but this is the first time the VIADUCT stent has been looked at in this manner. The investigators suspect that the design of the VIADUCT stent will allow it to work for a longer period of time compared to the traditional polyethylene stent.
Biliary obstruction usually presents with jaundice, pruritis, cholangitis, and steatorrhoea. Strictures which are a common cause of biliary obstruction, may be secondary to benign or malignant conditions. Common benign conditions include chronic pancreatitis, primary sclerosing cholangitis, autoimmune pancreatitis, prior surgery and recurrent pyogenic cholangitis. Cholangiocarcinomas, ampullary and pancreatic tumours are more common causes of malignant biliary obstruction.
The principles of managing biliary strictures are to determine the underlying cause of the stricture, whilst achieving drainage of the biliary tree, initially with the placement of a plastic stent via an endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). Strictures are sampled using biliary brush cytology and/or biliary biopsy to assess for underlying malignancy. Malignant strictures are usually staged for resectability with computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) and/or endoscopic ultrasound (EUS).
The Viaduct stent (GI Supply, Camp Hill, Pennsylvania, USA) is a unique stent design and has a winged perimeter, which channels flow of bile around the stent, rather than through a central lumen. Theoretically this may enhance flow and biliary drainage, and prevent obstruction. Both polyethylene and Viaduct plastic stents are approved for use by Health Canada for benign and malignant biliary conditions. It is not known whether one stent is superior to the other in maintaining symptomatic relief from bile duct strictures as there have been no studies to date comparing the two stents.
There is limited published data on the Viaduct stent. A pilot study of the winged stent design was published in 2006. Five patients had winged stents inserted and followed for 2 weeks. The were no problems with stent insertion and symptoms of obstruction and jaundice improved over this time. One study published in abstract form retrospectively compared 34 Viaduct stents matched with 240 "conventional" stents over a five year period. There was no statistical difference with stent dysfunction, and a trend towards patency with the Viaduct stent.
The primary aim of this study is to compare the stent patency time in the Viaduct and polyethylene stent groups in subjects with malignant bile duct strictures. The secondary aims are to determine the etiology of stent failure in the two treatment groups, to identify and compare device-related adverse events in the two treatment groups, to identify other patient factors associated with stent failure, and to compare survival between the Viaduct and polyethylene stent groups.
9,365 studies on the registry are indexed under Neoplasms; 2,489 are open to participants now.
This study's enrollment of 58 is above the median of 50 across 7,253 interventional studies indexed under Neoplasms.
Browse Neoplasms studies →University of British Columbia is the lead sponsor of 1,309 studies on the registry; 253 are open to participants now.
Of its 6 completed or terminated interventional studies of FDA-regulated products, 1 (17%) have results posted.
Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.
Exclusion Criteria:
Patients who receive the Viaduct stent during ERCP
Device: WInged perimeter biliary stent insertion (Viaduct)
Patient who receive the traditional polyethylene stent during ERCP
Device: traditional polyethylene stent insertion (Cotton Huibregtse)
Insertion of a winged perimeter stent. Size to be determined during the ERCP based on findings.
Also known as: Viaduct Stent
insertion of a traditional polyethylene stent during ERCP, size to be determined depending on findings during ERCP
Also known as: Cotton Huibregtse Stent
Stent patency time
Time to bile duct re-obstruction
Time frame: six months post stent insertion
Etiology of stent failure
Usually occlusion or migration
Time frame: six months post stent insertion
Compare number of patients with device related adverse events
Comparing both procedural and delayed complications of stents
Time frame: six months post stent insertion
Identify patient factors associated with stent failure
Time frame: six months post stent insertion
Survival between the two groups
Measurement in months of survival post diagnosis
Time frame: six months post stent insertion
Plan to share: No
This study is completed, as verified in Apr 2018. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.
Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.
Sign in to followQuestions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.
Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.
Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.
University of British Columbia