Short-term Stenting Versus Balloon Dilatation for Dominant Strictures in Primary Sclerosing Cholangitis

• recurrence-free interval of the primary dominant stricture [ Time Frame: 24 months ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]
  

• number of patients with adverse events in both groups [ Time Frame: 3 months ] [ Designated as safety issue: Yes ]
  adverse events within first 3 months after the intervention
  
  

Rationale:

Primary sclerosing cholangitis is a chronic progressive fibro-obliterative disease of the biliary tree leading to biliary cirrhosis. During its course, dominant strictures occur in approximately 50% of patients. These can be accompanied by lead worsening of symptoms and jaundice and are an indication for endoscopic treatment. The best form of treatment, either balloon dilatation or short-term stent placement, has never been formally investigated.

Objective:

Primary:

To compare the efficacy of single session balloon dilatation versus short-term stent placement in non-advanced PSC patients with regard to re-intervention free recurrence rate at two years.

Secondary:

To compare the short term efficacy of single balloon dilatation versus short-term stenting with regard to improvement of cholestatic symptoms, biochemical cholestasis, and quality of life in non-endstage PSC patients at three months; to compare the safety of single balloon dilatation session versus short-term stenting in non advanced PSC patients during two years.

Study design: This is a multicenter, open-label, randomized intervention study.

Study population:

Non-advanced primary sclerosing cholangitis subjects with progression of cholestatic complaints from the outpatient population of the seven participating centres.

Main study parameters/endpoints:

1. Difference in re-intervention free survival time between both groups at two years.
2. Change in semi-quantitative scoring of cholestatic symptoms (pruritus, right upper quadrant pain, fatigue) from baseline at three months.
3. Change in total bilirubin, alkaline phosphatase, and yGT from baseline at 3 months.
4. Safety: adverse events, clinical laboratory values, vital signs.

Nature and extent of the burden and risks associated with participation, benefit and group relatedness:

Currently, both interventions belong to standard patient care armamentarium. Burden for the patient exists in slightly more regular follow-up visits for two years (three-monthly instead of every 3-4 months) to their treating centre. ERCP is associated with a low mortality (<0.5 %) and acceptable morbidity (overall 5%). Most dreaded complications are severe post-ERCP pancreatitis (<2%) and suppurative cholangitis (<2%). From the available retrospective literature data the incidence of these complications does not seem to differ between the two treatment modalities. ERCP will only be performed when there is a clearcut clinical indication anyway.