Treatment Of Pancreatic Fluid Collections Research Articles

Artificial intelligence–based skeletal muscle estimates and outcomes of EUS-guided treatment of pancreatic fluid collections

Background and AimsSkeletal muscle status may impact clinical outcomes of a variety of pancreatic diseases. Skeletal muscle quality and quantity have not been fully examined in relation to the outcomes of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided treatment of pancreatic fluid collections (PFCs). MethodsUsing a multi-institutional cohort of 372 patients receiving EUS-guided treatment of PFCs in 2010-2020, we examined the association of skeletal muscle status with adverse outcomes including clinical treatment failure and in-hospital mortality. Utilizing an in-house deep learning-based platform for pre-procedural computed tomography images, we calculated skeletal muscle density (SMD) and skeletal muscle index (SMI, height-adjusted muscle area) as surrogates for muscular quality and quantity, respectively. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was conducted to calculate odds ratios (ORs) for adverse outcomes. ResultsLower-level SMD was associated with higher risks of clinical failure and in-hospital mortality (Ptrend < 0.001). The adjusted OR for clinical failure comparing the extreme quartiles was 3.64 (95% confidence interval, 1.52-8.72). Compared with patients in the top two quartiles, patients in the lowest quartile had an adjusted OR for in-hospital mortality of 12.4 (95% confidence interval, 3.43-44.8). We observed no effect modification by the PFC types on the SMD-outcome relationship (Pinteraction > 0.16). SMD was not associated with the risk of procedure-related adverse events or PFC recurrence. SMI was not associated with adverse outcomes (Ptrend > 0.39). ConclusionsIn patients with endoscopically managed PFCs, SMD, but not SMI, was associated with the risks of clinical failure and in-hospital mortality, supporting the prognostic role of skeletal muscle quality.

Lumen-apposing metal stents versus traditional self-expanding metal stents for endoscopic ultrasound-guided drainage of pancreatic fluid collections: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Endoscopic drainage has become the preferred treatment for pancreatic fluid collections (PFCs). There is still a lack of reliable evidence to prove which metal stent is the best choice for endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided drainage of PFCs. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMS) compared to traditional self-expanding metal stents (SEMS) in meta-analysis. We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library up to July 15, 2023. Relevant publications that compared LAMS with traditional SEMS for drainage of patients' PFCs under EUS-guidance were included. This meta-analysis assessed endpoints using Review Manager 5.3 and Stata 14.0 statistical software. Nine citations comprising 707 patients with PFCs were included. The clinical success rate of LAMS tended to be higher than that of SEMS (RR = 1.07, 95%CI [1.00, 1.15], P = 0.05). LAMS had a lower technical success rate (RR = 0.97, 95%CI [0.94, 0.99], P = 0.02) and faster procedure time (minutes) (MD = - 24.29, 95%CI [- 25.59, - 22.99], P < 0.00001) compared to SEMS. In addition, LAMS had fewer overall adverse events (RR = 0.64, 95%CI [0.48, 0.87], P = 0.004). For specific adverse events, LAMS had fewer migration (RR = 0.37, 95%CI [0.19, 0.72], P = 0.003), occlusion (RR = 0.43, 95%CI [0.22, 0.82], P = 0.01) and infection (RR = 0.38, 95%CI [0.20, 0.70], P = 0.002). There was no significant difference in bleeding and perforation between the two stents. For hospital stay (days), LAMS group was similar to SEMS group (MD = - 3.34, 95%CI [- 7.71, - 1.03], P = 0.13). Regarding recurrence, LAMS group was fewer than SEMS group (RR = 0.41, 95%CI [0.21, 0.78], P = 0.007). Compared to traditional SEMS, LAMS has a higher clinical success rate, faster procedure time, fewer adverse events, similar hospital stay and lower recurrence rate in EUS-guided drainage of PFCs. LAMS is a good choice with a high technical success rate over 95%, and using a shorter length or "one-step" operation can further improve it. Richer placement experience is required for LAMS placement under EUS-guidance.

Risk factors for adverse outcomes at various phases of endoscopic ultrasound-guided treatment of pancreatic fluid collections: Data from a multi-institutional consortium.

No comprehensive study has examined short- and long-term adverse outcomes of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided treatment of pancreatic fluid collections (PFCs) including walled-off necrosis (WON) and pseudocysts. In a multi-institutional cohort of 357 patients receiving EUS-guided treatment of PFCs (228 with WON and 129 with pseudocysts), we examined PFC type-specific risk factors for procedure-related adverse events (AEs), clinical failure, and recurrence. Odds ratios (ORs) and hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were computed using the logistic and Cox regression models, respectively, adjusting for potential confounders. Adverse events were observed predominantly in WON, and risk factors were WON extension to the pelvis (OR 2.49; 95% CI 1.00-6.19) and endoscopic necrosectomy (OR 5.15; 95% CI 1.61-16.5). Risk factors for clinical failure in WON treatment included higher Charlson Comorbidity Index (OR for ≥3 vs. ≤2, 2.58; 95% CI 1.05-6.35), extension to the pelvis (OR 3.63; 95% CI 1.57-8.43), nonuse of a lumen-apposing metal stent (OR 2.88; 95% CI 1.10-7.54), and percutaneous drainage (OR 3.73; 95% CI 1.27-10.9). Patients with pseudocysts extending to the paracolic gutter and the need for more than two endoscopic/percutaneous procedures had ORs for clinical failure of 5.28 (95% CI 1.10-25.3) and 5.52 (95% CI 1.61-18.9), respectively. Pseudocysts requiring the multigateway approach were associated with a high risk of recurrence (HR 4.00; 95% CI 1.11-11.6). The adverse outcomes at various phases of EUS-guided PFC treatment may be predictable based on clinical parameters. Further research is warranted to optimize treatment strategies for high-risk patients.

Endoscopic management of pancreatic walled-off necrosis.

Pancreatic walled-off necrosis (WON) is a complication of severe pancreatitis. Endoscopic transmural drainage has been recognized as the first-line treatment for pancreatic fluid collections. Endoscopy offers a minimally invasive approach when compared to surgical drainage. Today, endoscopists may choose to use self-expanding metal stents, pigtail stents, or lumen-apposing metal stents to facilitate drainage of fluid collections. Current data suggest that all 3 approaches yield similar outcomes. It was previously thought that drainage should be performed 4 weeks from the initial event of pancreatitis, theoretically allowing the capsule to mature. However, current data show that both early (<4 weeks) and standard (≥4 weeks) endoscopic drainage are comparable. Herein, we provide an up-to-date state-of-the-art review of the indications, techniques, innovations, outcomes, and future perspectives following drainage of pancreatic WON.

Endoscopic management of pancreatic fluid collections with disconnected pancreatic duct syndrome.

Disconnected pancreatic duct syndrome (DPDS) is an important and common complication of acute necrotizing pancreatitis. Endoscopic approach has been established as the first-line treatment for pancreatic fluid collections (PFCs) with less invasion and satisfactory outcome. However, the presence of DPDS significantly complicates the management of PFC; besides, there is no standardized treatment for DPDS. The diagnosis of DPDS presents the first step of management, which can be preliminarily established by imaging methods including contrast-enhanced computed tomography, ERCP, magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP), and EUS. Historically, ERCP is considered as the gold standard for the diagnosis of DPDS, and secretin-enhanced MRCP is recommended as an appropriate diagnostic method in existing guidelines. With the development of endoscopic techniques and accessories, the endoscopic approach, mainly including transpapillary and transmural drainage, has been developed as the preferred treatment over percutaneous drainage and surgery for the management of PFC with DPDS. Many studies concerning various endoscopic treatment strategies have been published, especially in the recent 5 years. Nonetheless, existing current literature has reported inconsistent and confusing results. In this article, the latest evidence is summarized to explore the optimal endoscopic management of PFC with DPDS.

Supportive treatment during the periprocedural period of endoscopic treatment for pancreatic fluid collections: a critical review of current knowledge and future perspectives.

Pancreatic fluid collections (PFCs) commonly develop as complications of acute pancreatitis and ductal disruption due to chronic pancreatitis. In the revised Atlanta classification, PFCs were classified based on the presence of necrosis and duration following the onset of acute pancreatitis. Interventions are required in cases of symptomatic pancreatic pseudocysts or walled-off necrosis (WON). In the management of these PFCs, endoscopic ultrasound-guided transluminal drainage and subsequent direct endoscopic necrosectomy for WON are increasingly utilized as less invasive treatment modalities compared to surgical debridement. To date, researchers have focused predominantly on the technical aspects of endoscopic therapy for symptomatic PFCs. Given the poor physical condition of patients receiving endoscopic treatment for PFCs, systemic support may have a substantial impact on the short- and long-term outcomes of these patients. A multidisciplinary approach is required to improve the clinical outcomes of patients with infected PFCs and their associated comorbidities. However, non-interventional support during the periprocedural period of endoscopic treatment of PFCs has not been fully discussed, and there have been considerable variations in the selection of treatment options between endoscopists and centers. To address these unmet needs in the clinical management of PFCs and promote future research to improve the clinical outcomes, we conducted a review of the literature within a multicenter consortium of expert endoscopists with specific expertise in the endoscopic treatment of PFCs. In this review, we summarize the current evidence on non-interventional supportive care (e.g., continuous lavage, medications, nutritional support, and antimicrobials) and propose potential topics for future research.

Management of pancreatic fluid collections.

Pancreatic fluid collections often develop as a complication of acute pancreatitis but can be seen in a variety of conditions including chronic pancreatitis, trauma, malignancy or post-operatively. It is important to classify a pancreatic fluid collection in order to optimize treatment strategies and management. Most interventions are targeted towards the management of delayed complications of pancreatitis, including pancreatic pseudocysts and walled-off necrosis (WON), which often develop days to weeks after the initial episode of pancreatitis. Surgical, percutaneous, and endoscopic interventions are all possible methods for treatment of pancreatic fluid collections, however endoscopic drainage with endoscopic ultrasound has become first-line. Advances within endoscopic drainage strategies have also led to innovative changes in the specific stents used for treatment, with possible options including double pigtail plastic stents, fully covered self-expanding metal stents and lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMS).

Endoscopic Ultrasound-guided Drainage of Patients With Infected Walled-off Necrosis: Which Stent to Choose?

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided drainage is the preferred treatment of pancreatic fluid collections (PFC). However, the choice of the stent for EUS-guided drainage in critically ill PFC cases with infected walled-off necrosis (WON) and/or organ failure (OF) remains unknown. Between January 2018 and December 2019, consecutive patients with symptomatic PFC subjected to EUS-guided drainage using biflanged metal stents (BFMS) or double-pigtail plastic stents (DPPS) were compared for technical success, clinical success, duration of the procedure, need for intensive care unit stay, duration of intensive care unit stay, ventilator need, resolution of OF, the duration for resolution of OF, complications, need for salvage percutaneous drainage or surgery and mortality. A subgroup of patients having infected WON with/without OF were analyzed separately. Among 120 patients (84.6% males) with PFC (108 WON, 22 pseudocyst) who underwent EUS-guided drainage, there was no difference in outcome parameters in BFMS and DPPS groups. Among patients with WON, clinical success was significantly higher (96.2% vs. 81.8%, P=0.04), with significantly shorter hospital stay (6 vs. 10 d) and procedure duration (17.18±4.6 vs. 43.6±9.7 min, P<0.0001) in the BFMS group. Among patients with infected WON with/without OF, the clinical success was significantly higher (100% vs. 73.9%, P=0.02), and the duration of the procedure was significantly lower (16.28±4.4 vs. 44.39±10.7, P<0.0001) in BFMS compared with DPPS group. EUS-guided drainage of WON using BFMS scores over DPPS. In patients having infected WON with/without OF, BFMS may be preferred over DPPS.

Endoscopic intraluminal treatment of pancreatic fluid collections after pancreas transplantation

To improve the outcomes after pancreas transplantation complicated by pancreatitis using percutaneous drainage and endoscopic stenting of the main pancreatic duct. There were 64 transplantations of the pancreatoduodenal complex between January 1, 2012 and December 31, 2021 at the Sklifosovsky Research Institute for Emergency Care. In 11 (17.2%) cases, early postoperative period was complicated by acute pancreatitis and parapancreatic fluid accumulations. Of these, 7 patients underwent ultrasound-guided percutaneous drainage of focal destructions. This procedure was effective and did not require additional treatment. In 4 patients, debridement and drainage were ineffective and required additional endoscopic stenting of the main pancreatic duct. All patients underwent percutaneous drainage of peripancreatic fluid collections and subsequent fistulography. All patients had inhomogeneous cavities with irregular shape and volume of 19.6±1.8 cm3. In 3 (75%) out of 4 patients, there was a passage of contrast agent into the main pancreatic duct of the graft and donor duodenal stump. We did not find contrast enhancement of ductal system in 1 (25%) patient since filling of the cavity with a contrast agent was not tight. Sensitivity of this method for detecting pancreatic ductal defects was 75%. Indications for stenting of the main pancreatic duct were established in 22.5±9.6 days after transplantation. Drainage and debridement were ineffective in 2 (50%) patients. In other 2 (50%) patients, peripancreatic fluid collections enlarged. All patients underwent endoscopic stenting of the main pancreatic duct. Endoscopic stenting of the main pancreatic duct of the donor pancreas combined with percutaneous drainage of peripancreatic fluid accumulations is a highly effective and minimally invasive approach for fluid collections after transplantation of the pancreatoduodenal complex. This method also minimizes the incidence of postoperative complications. Thanks to this method, we avoided redo open surgeries in all cases.

Disconnected pancreatic duct syndrome and outcomes of endoscopic ultrasound-guided treatment of pancreatic fluid collections: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Disconnected pancreatic duct syndrome (DPDS) frequently occurs in patients with acute necrotizing pancreatitis and resultant pancreatic fluid collection (PFC). We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate outcomes of endoscopic ultrasound-guided treatment of PFCs according to the presence of DPDS. Using PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane database, we identified clinical studies published until January 2021 with data comparing outcomes of endoscopic ultrasound-guided drainage of PFCs between DPDS and non-DPDS patients. We pooled data on technical and clinical success rates, PFC recurrence, and adverse events using the random-effects model. We identified five eligible articles including 941 PFC patients treated with endoscopic ultrasound-guided interventions. Clinical success, defined as resolution of the PFC and symptoms, was achieved in a majority of the cases irrespective of DPDS (pooled odds ratio [OR] comparing DPDS to non-DPDS patients, 0.77; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.33-1.81). Compared to patients without DPDS, patients with DPDS were more likely to undergo PFC recurrence (pooled OR 6.72; 95% CI 2.72-16.6) after clinical resolution of PFC. Prolonged plastic stent placement following the clinical resolution was more frequently performed in DPDS patients than in non-DPDS patients (pooled OR 15.9; 95% CI 2.76-91.9). No statistically significant difference was observed between the groups in terms of the rate of technical success, adverse events, or mortality. Disconnected pancreatic duct syndrome was associated with higher rate of PFC recurrence after successful endoscopic treatment of PFCs. Future studies should evaluate effectiveness and optimal duration of long-term placement of transmural plastic stents for PFCs with DPDS.

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.

Role of endoscopic ultrasonography in the management of peripancreatic collections.

Pancreatic fluid collections are surrounded by a wall of granulation tissue and may contain necrotic debris. They occur following a severe acute pancreatitis and most of the cases resolve spontaneously after several weeks. However, their management may lead to a very hard-to-treat condition, requiring a multidisciplinary approach. During the last decades we assisted to a change of paradigm involving Endoscopic Ultrasonography, from a pure diagnostic technique to an interventional-therapeutic one, allowing an effective, safe and less invasive approach than other existing treatment standards, historically consisting of surgical and percutaneous drainage. Treatment of pancreatic fluid collections is indicated if they become infected or symptomatic. Over the past years, exponential developments were done in interventional endoscopic approach, making it the first line suggested modality. The use of endoscopic ultrasound allows assessment of the collection, even when it is not directly bulging on gastrointestinal wall, creation of an internal fistulous tract, checking for surrounding vessels with the use of Doppler, and deployment of a stent avoiding the discomfort of external tubes. Several types of stent have been used for endoscopic drainage: plastic double pigtail stents, fully covered self-expanding metal stents and, more recently, lumen apposing metal stents, which are considered revolutionary because of their two-side flanges and wide and short internal channel, a new design that made easier direct endoscopic necrosectomy. This review aims to go through currently available literature on the diagnostic and therapeutic role of endoscopic ultrasonography to handle pancreatic fluid collections.

The Role of Endoscopic Transpapillary Stenting of the Main Pancreatic Duct during the Endoscopic Treatment of Pancreatic Fluid Collections.

Endotherapy is a recognized, widely available, and minimally invasive treatment method for pancreatic fluid collections (PFCs) formed in the course of acute pancreatitis (AP). The use of endoscopic techniques in the treatment of main pancreatic duct (MPD) disruption due to AP remains unclear. In this article, a comprehensive review of current literature referencing our observations was performed to identify publications on the role of MPD stenting in patients undergoing endoscopic drainage of PFCs resulting from AP. In this paper, we attempt to clarify this most controversial aspect of endotherapy for PFCs based on existing knowledge and our own experience regarding the endoscopic treatment of AP sequelae. Endoscopic retrograde pancreatography should be performed in all patients undergoing endoscopic drainage of walled-off pancreatic necrosis to assess the integrity of the main pancreatic duct and to implement endotherapy if pancreatic duct disruption is detected. Passive transpapillary drainage is an effective method for treating MPD disruption in the course of necrotizing AP and is one of the key components of endoscopic therapy for local pancreatic necrosis. Conversely, in patients with pancreatic pseudocysts, passive transpapillary drainage reduces the effectiveness of endoscopic treatment and should not be used even in cases of MPD disruption during transmural drainage of pancreatic pseudocysts. In conclusion, the use of transpapillary drainage should depend on the type of the PFC. This conclusion is of great clinical importance, as it can help improve the results of pancreatic endotherapy for fluid collections resulting from AP.

Endoscopic Treatment of Pancreatic Fluid Collections

Acute pancreatitis is frequently complicated by pancreatic fluid collections (PFCs). PFCs usually resolve spontaneously but some can mature forming large cysts filled with fluid or necrotic debris. Historically they have been treated with surgical removal but with the advancement of endoscopic procedures, endoscopic drainage has risen to be a safe first-line treatment of PFCs. Furthermore, the development of plastic stents and lumen apposing metal stents (LAMS) has replaced not only the open surgery but also the percutaneous drainage due to smaller number of adverse events. Especially the LAMS has gained favor recently as large metaanalysis suggests their advantages over plastic stents in the treatment of PFCs, however, the data about their use in the drainage of PFCs is still scarce.

Lumen-apposing metal stents versus biliary fully-covered metal stents for EUS-guided drainage of pancreatic fluid collections: a case control study: Meeting presentations: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy ESGE Days 2018.

Background and study aims Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided drainage has become first-line treatment for pancreatic fluid collections (PFC). The aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness and safety of biliary fully-covered self-expandable metal stents (BFCSEMS) and lumen-apposing metal stents with electrocautery (EC-LAMS). Patients and methods From April 2008 to March 2017, consecutive patients with symptomatic PFC drained under EUS-guidance with metal stents were included. Patients drained with EC-LAMS were considered the study group and those drained with BFCSEMS the control group. Two primary endpoints were evaluated: effectiveness (defined as reduction of ≥ 50 % of PFC size in cross-sectional imaging and improvement of symptoms 6 months after the transmural drainage) and safety. Results Thirty patients were drained with EC-LAMS and 60 patients with BFCSEMS. Patients and PFC baseline characteristics in both groups were similar. Use of a coaxial double pigtail plastic stent and a nasocystic lavage catheter was significantly less frequent in patients drained with EC-LAMS (33 % vs. 100 %, and 13 % vs. 58 %, respectively; P < 0.0001). Technical success was 100 % in both groups. Procedure time was < 30 minutes in all patients drained with EC-LAMS and over 30 minutes in all patients drained with BFCSEMS ( P = 0.0001). Clinical success was higher with a tendency to significance in patients drained with EC-LAMS (96 % vs. 82 %, P = 0.055) and the adverse event rate was lower (4 % vs. 18 %, P = 0.04). No case of procedure-related mortality was recorded. Conclusions EC-LAMS and BFCSEMS are both effective for EUS-guided drainage of PFC. However, EC-LAMS requires less time to be performed and appears to be safer.

Lumen Apposing Metal Stents (LAMSs) for Drainage of Pancreatic and Gallbladder Collections: A Meta-analysis.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided transmural drainage using lumen apposing metal stents (LAMSs) is becoming a popular and promising therapeutic approach for drainage of intra-abdominal fluid collections. There has been an increasing number of studies evaluating LAMS for drainage of pancreatic pseudocysts (PP), walled-off pancreatic necrosis (WOPN), and gallbladder (GB) drainage. The aim of this meta-analysis is to analyze the literature to date regarding the clinical success, technical success, and adverse events of LAMS in treatment of pancreatic fluid collections and GB drainage. A comprehensive search of multiple literature databases through November 2016 was performed. Human studies with at least 10 subjects that examined the clinical success, technical success, and adverse events of LAMS in treating PP, WOPN, and GB drainage were included. A total of 993 patients (608-WOPN; 204-PP; 181-GB drainage) underwent drainage from 20 trials. For drainage of WOPN, the pooled technical success was 98.9% [95% confidence interval (CI): 98.2% to 99.7%] and clinical success was 90% (95% CI: 87% to 93%) (τ=0.001). For drainage of PP, the pooled technical success was 97% (95% CI: 95% to 99%) and clinical success was 98% (95% CI: 96% to 100%), (τ=0.001). For GB drainage, the pooled technical success was 95% (95% CI: 91% to 99%) and clinical success was 93% (95% CI: 90% to 97%), (τ=0.001). Total adverse events occurred in 11% of patients with higher complication rates observed in GB drainage. There was no evidence of publication bias in this meta-analysis. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided transmural drainage using LAMS is becoming a widely accepted therapeutic approach for the treatment of PP, WOPN, and GB drainage with high clinical and technical success rates and acceptable adverse events. Further prospective randomized trials reporting long-term clinical efficacy and cost-effectiveness are needed to validate LAMS as a therapeutic modality for pancreatic and GB collections.

The Evolution of EUS-Guided Transluminal Drainage for the Treatment of Pancreatic Fluid Collections: A Comparison of Clinical and Cost Outcomes with Double-Pigtail Plastic Stents, Conventional Metal Stents and Lumen-Apposing Metal Stents.

BackgroundWhile most pancreatic fluid collections (PFCs) resolve spontaneously, endoscopic ultrasound-guided transluminal drainage (EUS-TD) may be necessary. EUS-TD has evolved from multiple double-pigtail plastic stents (DPPS) to fully covered self-expanding metal stents (FCSEMS) and lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMS). This study compares clinical attributes of DPPS, FCSEMS and LAMS.MethodsThis is a single-centre retrospective review of EUS-TD for PFCs. The primary outcome was clinical success. Secondary outcomes were technical success, procedure time, hospital length of stay (HLOS), number of endoscopies, need for necrosectomy, adverse events (AEs) and overall cost.ResultsFifty-eight patients (37 male, average age 49 years) underwent a total of 60 EUS-TD procedures for PFCs (average size 11.2 cm with 29 pseudocysts and 29 walled-off necrosis). Ten patients (17%) underwent EUS-TD with DPPS and 48 patients (83%) with metal stents (32 FCSEMS, 16 LAMS). Overall technical and clinical success was 100% and 84%, respectively. Lumen-apposing metal stents had shorter procedure times (14.9 versus 63.6 DPPS, 39.1 min FCSEMS, P < 0.001), and no difference in AEs (3 of 16 versus 4 of 10 DPPS, 12 of 34 FCSEMS, ns). Double-pigtail plastic stents required more endoscopies (3.7 versus 2.3 LAMS, 2.3 FCSEMS, P = 0.013) and necrosectomies (4 of 10 [40%]) compared with 5 of 34 [15%] in the FCSEMS group and 3 of 16 [19%] in the LAMS group, respectively, P = 0.001) to achieve clinical resolution. The overall cost and HLOS was not significantly different between groups.ConclusionThe use of LAMS for PFCs is not associated with any significant increase in cost despite technical (shorter procedure time) and clinical advantages (shorter indwell time, reduced need for necrosectomy and no increase in AEs).

Efficacy and safety of endoscopic ultrasonography-guided drainage for the treatment of pancreatic fluid collections after distal pancreatectomy

Efficacy and safety of endoscopic ultrasonography-guided drainage for the treatment of pancreatic fluid collections after distal pancreatectomy

Treatment of Pancreatic Fluid Collections

Pancreatic Fluid Collection (PFC) develops as a result of acute pancreatitis, chronic pancreatitis, trauma, and postoperation. Although percutaneous drainage, surgery and Endoscopic Retrograde Panceatogram are used as conventional treatments in complicated PFC, the clinical course of PFC is unsatisfactory due to its clinical success rate and the risk of procedure-related complications. Endoscopic ultrasonography-guided transmural drainage of PFC is a safe and effective modality for the management of PFC, particularly in patients with pancreas necrosis. A range of techniques and stents have been introduced and a newly designed metal stent is now available.

Efficacy and Safety of Self-expandable Lumen-Apposing Fully Covered Metal Stent With an Electrocautery-Enhanced Delivery System in Treatment of Pancreatic Fluid Collections

Efficacy and Safety of Self-expandable Lumen-Apposing Fully Covered Metal Stent With an Electrocautery-Enhanced Delivery System in Treatment of Pancreatic Fluid Collections