Drainage Of Peripancreatic Fluid Collections Research Articles

Outcomes of lumen apposing metal stent placement in patients with surgically altered anatomy: Multicenter international experience.

Background and study aims Although outcomes of lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMS) placement in native anatomy have been reported, data on LAMS placement in surgically altered anatomy (SAA) are sparse. We aimed to assess outcomes of LAMS placement in patients with SAA for different indications. Patients and methods This was an international, multicenter, retrospective, observational study at 25 tertiary care centers through November 2023. Consecutive patients with SAA who underwent LAMS placement were included. The primary outcome was technical success defined as correct placement of LAMS. Secondary outcomes were clinical success and safety. Results Two hundred and seventy patients (125 males; average age 61 ± 15 years) underwent LAMS placement with SAA. Procedures included EUS-directed transgastric ERCP (EDGE) and EUS-directed transenteric ERCP (EDEE) (n = 82), EUS-guided entero-enterostomy (n = 81), EUS-guided biliary drainage (n = 57), EUS-guided drainage of peri-pancreatic fluid collections (n = 48), and EUS-guided pancreaticogastrostomy (n = 2). Most cases utilized AXIOS stents (n = 255) compared with SPAXUS stents (n = 15). Overall, technical success was 98%, clinical success was 97%, and the adverse event (AE) rate was 12%. Using AGREE classification, five events were rated as Grade II, 21 events as Grade IIIa, and six events as IIIb. No difference in AEs were noted among stent types ( P = 0.52). Conclusions This study shows that placement of LAMS is associated with high technical and clinical success rates in patients with SAA. However, the rate of AEs is noteworthy, and thus, these procedures should be performed by expert endoscopists at tertiary centers.

Equivalent efficacy and safety of plastic stents and lumen-apposing metal stents in the treatment of peripancreatic fluid collections: a prospective cohort study.

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided transmural drainage using double pigtail plastic stents (DPPS) has been routine for the treatment of peripancreatic fluid collections (PFC). Lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMS) have since their introduction been the preferred choice; however, their superiority has not been proven. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of DPPS and LAMS. This was a single-center, prospective study that included consecutive patients undergoing EUS-guided drainage between January 2010 and December 2020. The primary endpoints were technical success, clinical success and adverse event rate, while the secondary endpoints included symptomatic relief, length of hospital stay, and need for adjunct drainage. A subgroup analysis of walled-off necrosis (WON) was performed. A total of 89 patients (median age 56 years) underwent EUS-guided transmural drainage (DPPS: n=53; LAMS: n=36) because of a pseudocyst (n=37) or a WON (n=52). Both DPPS and LAMS had a 100% technical success rate and a comparable adverse event rate (4% vs. 6%, P=0.24). An equivalent efficacy was recorded for the drainage of PFC comparing DPPS and LAMS, and no significant statistical difference was recorded in clinical success (DPPS 60% vs. LAMS 61%, P=0.94) or the need for reintervention (DPPS 11% vs. LAMS 13%, P=0.72). In this large, prospective study of EUS-guided drainage of peripancreatic fluid collections, LAMS and DPPS showed equivalent safety, technical success, clinical success and hospital stay. Both techniques were associated with a comparable need for complementary necrosectomy.

Mishaps with EUS–guided lumen-apposing metal stents in therapeutic pancreatic EUS: Management and prevention

Abstract EUS–guided interventions have become widely accepted therapeutic management options for drainage of peripancreatic fluid collections. Apart from endosonographic skills, EUS interventions require knowledge of the endoscopic stenting techniques and familiarity with the available stents and deployment systems. Although generally safe and effective, technical failure of correct stent positioning or serious adverse events can occur, even in experts' hands. In this article, we address common and rare adverse events in transmural EUS-guided stenting, ways to prevent them, and management options when they occur. Knowing the risks of what can go wrong combined with clinical expertise, high levels of technical skills, and adequate training allows for the safe performance of EUS-guided drainage procedures. Discussing the procedural risks and their likelihood with the patient is a fundamental part of the consenting process.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided drainage of peripancreatic fluid collections: What impacts treatment duration?

BackgroundPeripancreatic fluid collections (PFCs) are complications resulting from acute or chronic pancreatitis and require treatment in certain clinical conditions. The present study aimed to identify the factors influencing the duration of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided drainage of symptomatic pancreatic pseudocysts (PPCs), walled-off necrosis (WON), and acute necrotic collections (ANCs). MethodsThis was a retrospective cohort study of 68 patients with PFCs who underwent EUS-guided drainage. The timing and duration of EUS-guided drainage of various PFCs (ANC, WON, and PPCs) were compared, and the factors influencing the duration of endoscopic treatment were identified. ResultsThe mean time to first EUS-guided PFC drainage since the acute pancreatitis episode was 372.0, 505.0, and 18.7 days for WON, PPC, and ANC, respectively, and the mean duration of treatment was 90, 60, and 63 days, respectively. A disconnected pancreatic duct, a history of percutaneous drainage, and an infected PFC were identified as factors influencing the treatment duration. A positive correlation was observed between the treatment duration and patients’ age. Patients with a disconnected pancreatic duct had to undergo more procedures. In patients with PPC, clinically successful drainage was more frequently achieved after a single procedure without the need for repeated procedures than in those with WON (90% vs. 59%, P = 0.01). ConclusionsPatients with a history of percutaneous drainage, disconnected pancreatic duct, or PFC infection may require longer endoscopic treatment.

Perceived Feasibility of Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Gastroenteric Anastomosis: An Italian Survey.

Background and Objectives: Endoscopic ultrasound-guided gastroenteric anastomosis (EUS-GEA) using lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMS) is emerging as a minimally invasive alternative to surgery across several indications. The aim of this survey is to investigate the perceived feasibility of this technique nationwide, within a working group skilled in interventional endosonography. Materials and Methods: Endoscopists were asked to answer to 49 items on a web-based questionnaire about expertise, peri- and intra-procedural aspects in the three main settings of EUS-GEA performance, budget/refund, and future perspectives. Statistical analysis was performed through SPSS® (IBM Corp. Released 2017. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 25.0. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp.). Results: Sixty endosonographers belonging to forty Italian centers were I-EUS app users and were all invited to participate. In total, 29 participants from 24 Italian centers completed the survey. All the participants were endosonographers with a broad range of experience both in the field of EUS (only 10.3% with more than 20 years of experience) and duodenal stenting (only 6.9% placed more than 10 stents in 2020), whereas 86.2% also performed ERCP. A total of 27.6% of participants performed EUS-GEA (3.4% more than 20 during their career); on the other hand, 79.3% of participants routinely performed drainage of peri-pancreatic fluid collections, 62.1% performed biliary drainage, and 62.1% performed gallbladder drainage with LAMS. A total of 89.7% of participants thought that EUS-GEA could be useful in their daily clinical practice, with 100% concluding that this procedure will need to be performed in referral centers in the near future; however, in 55.2% of cases, organizational obstacles may occur and affect the diffusion of the procedure. With regard to indications: 44.8% of participants performed the procedure with palliative intent for malignant indication (96.6% pancreatic adenocarcinoma), and 13.6% also for benign indication. A total of 20.7% of participants experienced adverse events (none severe or fatal, 66.6% moderate). A total of 62.1% of participants considered the procedure technically challenging, although 82.8% considered the risk of adverse events acceptable when considering the benefit. Conclusions: To our knowledge, this is the first survey assessing the perceived feasibility of EUS-guided anastomoses after its advent. There are currently wide variations in practice nationwide, which demonstrate a need to define technical, qualitative, and peri-procedural requirements to carry out this procedure. Therefore, a standardization of these requirements is needed in order to overcome the technical, economical, and organizational obstacles relative to its diffusion.

The clinical management of peripancreatic fluid collection after distal pancreatectomy.

Peripancreatic fluid collection (PFC) is a frequent radiological finding on postoperative computed tomography (CT) after distal pancreatectomy (DP). We evaluated the risk factors for drainage of PFC after DP to clarify the optimal management of PFC. This study included 85 patients who underwent elective DP between January 2010 and December 2020. PFC was defined as an area of fluid located at the pancreatic resection margin on postoperative routine CT on approximately postoperative day 7 (first CT). We retrospectively investigated the relationship between clinical variables, including CT findings and PFC drainage. Drainage was performed in 19 patients (22.4%). Drainage for PFC was significantly associated with a longer postoperative hospital stay, higher PFC volume, presence of air bubbles, and higher white blood cell (WBC) count at the time of the first CT. According to the multivariate analyses, a PFC volume ≥ 60mL and WBC count ≥ 12,400/μL on the day of the first CT were independent risk factors for PFC drainage after DP. The combination of these 2 factors showed 73.7% sensitivity and 90.9% specificity. The PFC volume and WBC count at the first CT were significantly associated with PFC drainage and may help determine the appropriate treatment.

Efficacy and safety of endoscopic drainage of peripancreatic fluid collections: a retrospective multicenter European study.

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided transmural drainage allows treatment of symptomatic peripancreatic fluid collections (PFCs), with lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMS) and double pigtail plastic stents (DPPS) being the 2 most frequently used modalities. Consecutive patients undergoing PFC drainage in 10 European centers were retrospectively retrieved. Technical success (successful deployment), clinical success (satisfactory drainage), rate and type of early adverse events, drainage duration and complications on stent removal were evaluated. A total of 128 patients-92 men (71.9%), age 57.2±11.9 years-underwent drainage, with pancreatic pseudocyst (PC) and walled-off necrosis (WON) in 92 (71.9%) and 36 (28.1%) patients, respectively. LAMS were used in 80 (62.5%) patients and DPPS in 48 (37.5%). Technical success was achieved in 124 (96.9%) of the cases, with no difference regarding either the type of stent (P>0.99) or PFC type (P=0.07). Clinical success was achieved in 119 (93%); PC had a better response than WON (91/92 vs. 28/36, P<0.001), but the type of stent did not affect the clinical success rate (P=0.29). Twenty patients (15.6%) had at least one early complication, with bleeding being the most common (n=7/20, 35%). No difference was detected in complication rate per type of stent (P=0.61) or per PFC type (P=0.1). Drainage duration was significantly longer with DPPS compared to LAMS: 88 (70-112) vs. 35 (29-55.3) days, P<0.001. EUS-guided drainage of PFCs achieves high percentages of technical and clinical success. Drainage using LAMS is of shorter duration, but the complication rate is similar between the 2 modalities.

New Stents for Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Procedures

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided transmural drainage of peripancreatic fluid collection, gallbladder, bile duct, or pancreatic duct has emerged as a therapeutic option in patients with pancreatobiliary diseases. Recently, dedicated stents for EUS-guided interventions, which include lumen-apposing metal stents and modified tubular self-expanding metal stents, have been developed to improve efficacy and safety of these procedures. This article has reviewed newly developed stents for EUSguided interventions and their therapeutic outcomes.

Head-to-head comparison between endoscopic ultrasound guided lumen apposing metal stent and plastic stents for the treatment of pancreatic fluid collections: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Peripancreatic fluid collections (PFCs) result from acute or chronic pancreatic inflammation that suffers a rupture of its ducts. Currently, there exists three options for drainage or debridement of pancreatic pseudocysts and walled-off necrosis (WON). The traditional procedure is drainage by placing double pigtail plastic stents (DPPS); lumen-apposing metal stent (LAMS) has a biflanged design with a wide lumen that avoids occlusion with necrotic tissue, which is more common with DPPS and reduces the possibility of migration. We performed a systematic review and meta-analyses head-to-head, including only studies that compare the two main techniques to drainage of PFCs: LAMS vs DPPS. We conducted a systematic review in different databases, such as PubMed, OVID, Medline, and Cochrane Databases. This meta-analysis considers studies published from 2014 to 2020, including only studies that compare the two main techniques to drainage of PFCs: LAMS vs DPPS. Thirteen studies were included in the meta-analyses. Only one of all studies was a randomized controlled trial. These studies comprise 1584 patients; 68.2% were male, and 31.8% were female. Six hundred sixty-three patients (41.9%) were treated with LAMS, and 921 (58.1%) were treated with DPPS. Six studies included only WON in their analysis, two included only pancreatic pseudocysts, and five studies included both pancreatic pseudocysts and WON. The technical success was similar in patients treated with LAMS and DPPS (97.6% vs 97.5%, respectively, P=.986, RR=1.00 [95% CI 0.93-1.08]). The clinical success was similar in both groups (LAMS: 90.1% vs DPPS: 84.2%, P=.139, RR=1.063 [95% CI 0.98-1.15]). Patients treated with LAMS had a lower complication rate than the DPPS groups, with a significant statistical difference (LAMS: 16.0% vs DPPS: 20.2%, P=.009, RR=0.746 [95% CI 0.60-0.93]). Bleeding was the most common complication in the LAMS group (33 patients, [5.0%]), whereas infection was the most common complication in the DPPS group (56 patients, [6.1%]). The LAMS migration rate was lower than in the DPPS (0.9% vs 2.2%, respectively, P=.05). The mortality rate was similar in both groups, 0.6% in the LAMS group (four patients) and 0.4% in the DPPS group (four patients; P=.640). The PFCs drainage is an indication when persistent symptoms or PFCs-related complications exist. EUS guided drainage with LAMS has similar technical and clinical success to DPPS drainage for the management of PFCs. The technical and clinical success rates are high in both groups. However, LAMS drainage has a lower adverse events rate than DPPS drainage. More randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm the real advantage of LAMS drainage over DPPS drainage.

Interventional endoscopic ultrasound.

To update on recent advances in interventional endoscopic ultrasound (INVEUS) techniques. The introduction of linear echoendoscopes with larger instrument channels and the combined development of new tools and devices have enabled various new applications of minimally invasive endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided transluminal interventions of the pancreas, biliary system and peri-gastrointestinal structures. In this review, EUS-guided interventions are discussed and evaluated: drainage of peripancreatic fluid collections, access and drainage of bile ducts, gallbladder and pancreatic duct, treatment of gastrointestinal haemorrhage, coeliac plexus block and coeliac plexus neurolysis, fiducial placement, solid and cystic tumour ablation, drug delivery and brachytherapy, gastroenterostomy, angiotherapy and other EUS-guided applications. The EUS-guided interventions are classified based on the available evidence as established or experimental, standardized or nonstandardized procedures in common or rare diseases with well or little known complications and their established or nonestablished treatment. Some EUS-guided interventions have sparse published evidence with only single-centre studies, case series or individual case reports, others like drainage of peripancreatic fluid collections have become widely accepted practice. INVEUS has been accepted as an alternative to several surgical approaches, EUS-guided techniques result in faster recovery times, shorter hospital stay and lower costs.

Peripancreatic Fluid Collections After Pancreas Transplant: Safety and Efficacy of Percutaneous Drainage.

OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of percutaneous drainage of peripancreatic fluid collections after pancreas transplant and to determine factors predicting a successful clinical outcome. MATERIALS AND METHODS. This single-center retrospective study included 28 patients who underwent percutaneous drainage for peripancreatic collections after transplant between January 2008 and December 2018. Clinical success was defined as drainage resulting in resolution of symptoms. Primary clinical success was defined as symptom resolution after the initial drainage procedure, and secondary success was defined as symptom resolution after additional drainage procedures. Operative intervention or death was considered clinical failure. Patient, collection, and procedural factors were assessed for their potential impact on the clinical outcome. RESULTS. Clinical success was achieved in 23 of 28 drainage procedures (82.1%), with primary success in 15 procedures. Of the five patients with failed drainage procedures, three required pancreatectomies, one required surgical washout, and one died from a disseminated infection. The median duration of drainage in the clinical success group was 25 days (range, 3-136 days), and patients with longer drainage periods had more successful outcomes (p = .04). Graft pancreatitis was diagnosed in five patients (17.9%) and was not associated with drainage outcome (p = .21). Collections were positive for bacterial growth in 13 patients (46.4%) and were high in amylase in 12 (42.9%). We observed drainage failure in collections with polymicrobial growth and in the presence of fistulas (p = .05 and p = .07, respectively). Patients with successful outcomes had smaller collection volumes (p = .045). No complications attributed to drainage were encountered. CONCLUSION. Percutaneous drainage is safe and effective for management of peripancreatic fluid collections after pancreas transplant.

A Comparison of Endoscopic Versus Surgical Creation of a Cystogastrostomy to Drain Pancreatic Pseudocysts and Walled-Off Pancreatic Necrosis in 5500 Patients.

To determine the success, morbidity, and mortality rates of endoscopic and surgical creation of pancreatic cystenterostomies for the drainage of peripancreatic fluid collections, pseudocysts with necrotic debris, and walled-off pancreatic necrosis. Endoscopic methods of cystenterostomy creation to drain pancreatic pseudocysts (with and without necrotic debris) and infected peripancreatic fluid collections are perceived to be less morbid than surgery. Contemporary reports document a very high complication rate with endoscopic methods. A meta-analysis of 5500 patients. Open and laparoscopic surgical techniques to drain chronic pancreatic pseudocysts, infected pancreatic fluid collections, and walled-off pancreatic necrosis are more successful with less morbidity and mortality than endoscopic methods. In regards to a surgical step-up approach to treat chronic infected pancreatic fluid collections or walled-off pancreatic necrosis, surgical creation of a cystenterostomy is more successful with fewer complications than endoscopic methods and should be given priority if less invasive or conservative methods fail.

S3234 The Outcomes and Adverse Events After EUS-Guided Drainage of Peripancreatic Fluid Collections With the Use of Lumen Apposing Metal Stents

S3234 The Outcomes and Adverse Events After EUS-Guided Drainage of Peripancreatic Fluid Collections With the Use of Lumen Apposing Metal Stents

Interventional radiology-assisted transgastric endoscopic drainage of peripancreatic fluid collections.

Peripancreatic fluid collections (PFCs) occur as a consequence of pancreatitis. Most PFCs resolve spontaneously, although 1%-2% persist and may require intervention. Conventional transluminal endoscopic drainage methods require the PFC to be bulging into the gastric wall; however, it is not uncommon for this to be absent. Imaging guidance for transluminal endoscopic PFC drainage allows the endoscopist to localize nonbulging pseudocysts that cannot be localized using endoscopy alone, to identify and avoid vascular structures between the cyst and the gastric lumen, and to reveal solid or necrotic components within the pseudocyst cavity. Although endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) has been used to meet this need, timely access to therapeutic EUS remains a limiting factor at many centres. We report our technique and experience performing transgastric endoscopic drainage of PFCs under computed tomography (CT) interventional radiology guidance.

International multicenter comprehensive analysis of adverse events associated with lumen-apposing metal stent placement for pancreatic fluid collection drainage

High rates of technical and clinical success were reported for lumen-apposing metal stent (LAMS) placement for peripancreatic fluid collection (PFC) drainage. However, data on the adverse event (AE) rates are heterogeneous. The aim of this study was to evaluate the incidence, severity, management, and risk factors of AEs related to the use of LAMSs for drainage of PFCs in a large cohort of patients. This is a multicenter, international, retrospective review from 15 centers of all patients who underwent placement of LAMSs for the management of PFCs. A nested case-control study was conducted in patients with (case) or without (control) AEs. Three hundred thirty-three procedures in 328 patients were performed (5 patients treated with 2 LAMSs). Technical success was achieved in 321 patients (97.9%). Three hundred four patients were finally included in the study (7 excluded for lost to follow-up information; 10 excluded for deaths unrelated to LAMSs). The rate of clinical success was 89.5%. Seventy-nine LAMS-related AEs occurred in 74 of 304 patients (24.3%), after a mean time of 25.3 days (median, 18 days; interquartile range, 6-30) classified as 20 (25.3%) mild, 54 (68.4%) moderate, or 5 (6.3%) severe. On multivariable analysis compared with control subjects, cases were more likely to have walled-off necrosis (WON) versus pancreatic pseudocysts (odds ratio, 2.18; 95% confidence interval, 1.09-4.46; P= .028), whereas cases were less likely to have undergone tract (balloon) dilation (yes vs no; odds ratio, .47; 95% confidence interval, .22-.93; P= .034). Data from this large international retrospective study confirm that the use of LAMSs for management of PFCs has excellent technical and good clinical success rates. The rate of AEs, however, is not negligible and should be carefully considered before using these stents for drainage of PFCs and in particular for WON. Further prospective studies are needed to confirm these findings. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT03544008.).

Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Drainage of Peripancreatic Fluid Collections.

Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Drainage of Peripancreatic Fluid Collections.

Transcutaneous partial pressure of carbon dioxide monitoring during EUS-guided drainage of peripancreatic fluid collections using carbon dioxide insufflation: A prospective study.

Background:Carbon dioxide (CO2) insufflation has become more commonly used in EUS-guided interventions in recent years. However, there is a paucity of information regarding methods by which to monitor in vivo CO2 levels. This study aimed to assess the feasibility of a novel noninvasive method to monitor transcutaneous partial pressure of CO2 (PCO2) (PtcCO2) levels during EUS-guided drainage of peripancreatic fluid collections (PFCs). The safety of CO2 insufflation in EUS-guided interventions was also investigated.Patients and Methods:Patients who underwent EUS-guided PFC drainage between September 2015 and December 2016 at Shengjing Hospital of China Medical University were prospectively enrolled in this study. PtcCO2 was measured in all patients using a noninvasive sensor throughout the procedure.Results:There were 25 patients eligible to be included in this study. The mean procedure time was 53.1 min. The mean PtcCO2 level was 40 ± 4 mmHg and 48 ± 5 mmHg before and after the procedure, respectively. The mean peak PtcCO2 during the procedure was significantly higher at 53 ± 6 mmHg (P < 0.0001). No complications associated with CO2 insufflation such as CO2 narcosis, gas embolism, or arrhythmias were encountered.Conclusions:PtcCO2 monitoring can accurately reflect the level of PCO2 continuously and noninvasively. CO2 insufflation is safe for patients undergoing relatively complicated EUS-guided drainage of PFCs.

Safety and efficacy of the use of lumen-apposing metal stents in the management of postoperative fluid collections: a large, international, multicenter study.

Multiple studies have examined the use of lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMSs) for the drainage of peripancreatic fluid collections. Data on the use of LAMSs for postoperative fluid collections (POFCs) are scarce. POFCs may lead to severe complications without appropriate treatment. We aimed to study the outcomes (technical success, clinical success, rate/severity of adverse events, length of stay, recurrence) of the use of LAMSs for the drainage of POFCs. This international, multicenter, retrospective study involved 19 centers between January 2012 and October 2017. The primary outcome was clinical success. Secondary outcomes included technical success and rate/severity of adverse events using the ASGE lexicon. A total of 62 patients were included during the study period. The most common etiology of the POFCs was distal pancreatectomy (46.8 %). The mean (standard deviation) diameter was 84.5 mm (30.7 mm). The most common indication for drainage was infection (48.4 %) and transgastric drainage was the most common approach (82.3 %). Technical success was achieved in 60/62 patients (96.8 %) and clinical success in 57/62 patients (91.9 %) during a median (interquartile range) follow-up of 231 days (90 - 300 days). Percutaneous drainage was needed in 8.1 % of patients. Adverse events occurred intraoperatively in 1/62 patients (1.6 %) and postoperatively in 7/62 (11.3 %). There was no procedure-related mortality. This is the largest study on the use of LAMSs for POFCs. It suggests good clinical efficacy and safety of this approach. The use of LAMSs in the management of POFCs is a feasible alternative to percutaneous and surgical drainage.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided drainage of peri-pancreatic fluid collection in a pediatric population

Pancreatitis is uncommon in children, but it still occurs.Walled-off pancreatic necrosis is one of the serious complications of pancreatitis.A large number of literatures and clinical data have confirmed that endoscopic ultrasound-guided drainage is safe and effective for the treatment of peri-pancreatic fluid collection in adults.While for the treatment of children, the literatures are limited.The article aims to review the safety and effectiveness of endoscopic ultrasound-guided drainage in the treatment of peri-pancreatic fluid collection in children, and to share clinical experience and standardize treatment methods. Key words: Pancreatitis; Children; Peri-pancreatic fluid collection; Endoscopic ultrasound

Outcomes after Peripancreatic Fluid Drainage in Patients with Simultaneous Pancreas-Kidney Transplantation

PurposeTo determine the clinical outcomes of patients who underwent image-guided drainage of peripancreatic fluid collections after simultaneous pancreas-kidney (SPK) transplantation. Materials and MethodsA retrospective review of all patients who underwent peripancreatic fluid collection drainage after SPK, from January 2000 to August 2017, at a single institution was performed. Patient characteristics, surgical technique, medication regimen, microbial analysis, and clinical outcomes were reviewed. Thirty-one patients requiring a total of 41 drainages were included in this study. The median age was 44 years (range 30–58 years), and median time between SPK and drainage was 28 days (range 8 to 3,401 days). Fisher’s exact test, unpaired Student t-tests, and Pearson correlations were used for statistical analysis. ResultsFever (51%) and abdominal pain (31%) were the most common presenting symptoms. The average amount of fluid drained at the time of drain placement was 97 mL (SD 240 mL). The average time spent with a drain in place was 33 days (SD 31 days). Microorganisms were isolated in the fluid of 22 of 41 drainages (54%), with mixed gastrointestinal flora being the most common. No further intervention was needed in 34 of 41 drainages (82%). However, drainage failed in 5 of 31 patients (16%), requiring surgical intervention with removal of the pancreas transplant. ConclusionsPercutaneous drainage of peripancreatic fluid collections after SPK transplantation is a safe and effective treatment option.