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

Endoscopic Drainage of Pancreatic Fluid Collections

Pancreatic fluid collections (PFCs) are commonly encountered complications of acute and chronic pancreatitis. With the advancement of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) techniques and devices, EUS-directed transmural drainage of symptomatic or infected PFCs has become the standard of care. Traditionally, plastic stents have been used for drainage, although lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMSs) are now favored by most endoscopists due to ease of use and reduced procedure time. While safety has been repeatedly demonstrated, follow-up care for these patients is critical as delayed adverse events of indwelling drains are known to occur.

Role of imaging in evaluating the complications of endoscopic management of pancreatic fluid collections in acute pancreatitis

Acute pancreatitis is associated with local and systemic complications. Pancreatic fluid collection (PFC) is the most common local complication. Infected or symptomatic PFCs need drainage. Endoscopic drainage (ED) is the first-line procedure for accessible PFCs adjacent to the stomach and duodenum. ED is performed under endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) guidance. The technical and clinical success rates of EUS-guided ED in well-encapsulated PFCs are high. ED of poorly encapsulated PFCs is associated with complications. Bleeding and perforation are the most common complications. Contrast-enhanced computed tomography is critical in planning ED and early detection and management of complications. With the increasing utilization of ED for PFC, the radiologist must be familiar with the ED techniques, types of stents, and the complications related to ED. In this review, we discuss the technical aspects of the ED as well as the imaging findings of ED-related complications.

The novel technique of drainage stenting using a tapered sheath dilator in endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage

During endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD), there is a risk for bile leakage until stent deployment, which can result in severe peritonitis, particularly when passing a drainage stent becomes challenging despite tract dilation. There is no established method or dedicated device to optimize EUS-BD. Therefore, we have developed a novel stent deployment technique using the tapered sheath dilator. To address the safety and technical aspects of the EUS-BD technique, we retrospectively analyzed 11 consecutive patients who underwent EUS-BD using the tapered sheath dilator. The procedure involved the insertion of a guidewire, followed by mechanical dilation using the tapered sheath dilator. Subsequently, the inner catheter was removed and drainage stents (up to 6 Fr in diameter) were deployed through the outer sheath. We found a 100% technical success rate for tract dilation and stent deployment; moreover, all patients achieved clinical success. The median time for dilation was 40 s (range, 8-198), whereas the median time from dilation to stent deployment was 10 min (range, 6-19). Notably, no cases of bile leakage or peritonitis were observed. In conclusion, the use of the integrated device for tract dilation and stent delivery system might provide a safe and straightforward technique for drainage stenting during EUS-BD.

International Consensus Recommendations for Safe Use of LAMS for On- and Off-Label Indications Using a Modified Delphi Process

INTRODUCTION

The study aimed to develop international consensus recommendations on the safe use of lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMSs) for on- and off-label indications.

METHODS

Based on the available literature, statements were formulated and grouped into the following categories: general safety measures, peripancreatic fluid collections, endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-biliary drainage, EUS-gallbladder drainage, EUS-gastroenterostomy, and gastric access temporary for endoscopy. The evidence level of each statement was determined using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology.International LAMS experts were invited to participate in a modified Delphi process. When no 80% consensus was reached, the statement was modified based on expert feedback. Statements were rejected if no consensus was reached after the third Delphi round.

RESULTS

Fifty-six (93.3%) of 60 formulated statements were accepted, of which 35 (58.3%) in the first round. Consensus was reached on the optimal learning path, preprocedural imaging, the need for airway protection and essential safety measures during the procedure, such as the use of Doppler, and measurement of the distance between the gastrointestinal lumen and the target structure. Specific consensus recommendations were generated for the different LAMS indications, covering, among others, careful patient selection, the preferred size of the LAMS, the need for antibiotics, the preferred anatomic location of the LAMS, the need for coaxial pigtail placement, and the appropriate management of LAMS-related adverse events.

DISCUSSION

Through a modified international Delphi process, we developed general and indication-specific experience- and evidence-based recommendations on the safe use of LAMS.

Plastic pigtail vs lumen-apposing metal stents for drainage of walled-off necrosis (PROMETHEUS study): an open-label, multicenter randomized trial

BACKGROUND

Lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMS) have displaced double-pigtail plastic stents (DPS) as the standard treatment for walled-off necrosis (WON),β but evidence for exclusively using LAMS is limited. We aimed to assess whether the theoretical benefit of LAMS was superior to DPS.

METHODS

This multicenter, open-label, randomized trial was carried out in 9 tertiary hospitals. Between June 2017, and Oct 2020, we screened 99 patients with symptomatic WON, of whom 64 were enrolled and randomly assigned to the DPS group (n = 31) or the LAMS group (n = 33). The primary outcome was short-term (4-weeks) clinical success determined by the reduction of collection. Secondary endpoints included long-term clinical success, hospitalization, procedure duration, recurrence, safety, and costs. Analyses were by intention-to-treat.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov, NCT03100578.

RESULTS

A similar clinical success rate in the short term (RR, 1.41; 95% CI 0.88-2.25; p = 0.218) and in the long term (RR, 1.2; 95% CI 0.92-1.58; p = 0.291) was observed between both groups. Procedure duration was significantly shorter in the LAMS group (35 vs. 45-min, p = 0.003). The hospital admission after the index procedure (median difference, - 10 [95% CI - 17.5, - 1]; p = 0.077) and global hospitalization (median difference - 4 [95% CI - 33, 25.51]; p = 0.82) were similar between both groups. Reported stent-related adverse events were similar for the two groups (36 vs.45% in LAMS vs. DPS), except for de novo fever, which was significantly 26% lower in LAMS (RR, 0.26 [0.08-0.83], p = 0.015).

CONCLUSIONS

The clinical superiority of LAMS over DPS for WON therapy was not proved, with similar clinical success, hospital stay and similar safety profile between both groups, yet a significant reduction in procedure time was observed.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03100578.

Efficacy and safety of long-term indwelling plastic stents after resolution of pancreatic fluid collections with endoscopic transmural drainage: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Pancreatic fluid collections (PFCs) may recur after resolution with endoscopic transmural drainage (ETD) and standard stent removal (SSR). Herein, we compared the efficacy and safety of leaving long-term indwelling plastic stents (LTIS) vs. standard stent removal after PFC resolution with ETD.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Scopus, and Cochrane databases from inception to September 2022. Full-text articles comparing long-term (> 6 months) outcomes of LTIS and SSR were eligible, as well as single-arm studies with ≥ 10 patients with LTIS. Two independent reviewers selected studies, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Measured outcomes included the following: (A) PFC recurrence; (B) interventions for PFC recurrence; (C) technical success; and (D) adverse events (AEs). Meta-analysis was carried out using random-effects models.

RESULTS

We included 16 studies, encompassing 1285 patients. Compared to SSR after PFC resolution with ETD, LTIS was associated with significantly lower risk of PFC recurrence (3% vs. 23%; OR 0.22 [95%CI 0.09-0.52]; I2 = 45%) and need for interventions (2% vs. 14%; OR 0.35 [95%CI 0.16-0.78]; I2 = 0%). The superiority of LTIS on reducing PFC recurrence was found with walled-off necrosis, with or without disconnected pancreatic duct, and with placement of ≥ 2 LTIS. When using LTIS, the pooled proportion of AEs was 8% (95%CI 4-11%) and technical success was 93% (95%CI 86-99%).

CONCLUSIONS

Our results show that LTIS after PFC resolution with ETD is feasible, safe, and superior to SSR in reducing the risk of PFC recurrence and need for interventions.

Multicenter study of the efficacy and safety of electrocautery-enhanced lumen-apposing metal stents for the internal drainage of pancreatic fluid collections

Pancreatic fluid collections (PFCs) including pancreatic pseudocyst (PP) and walled-off necrosis (WON) are complications after acute pancreatitis. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided lumen-apposing metal stent (LAMS) placement to manage PFCs. Between June 2019 and May 2023, patients with symptomatic PFCs who underwent EUS-guided electrocautery-enhanced LAMS drainage were enrolled retrospectively from eight tertiary centers in Taiwan. In total, 33 [14 (42.42%) PP and 19 (57.58%) WON] patients were enrolled. Gallstones (27.27%) and abdominal pain (72.73%) were the most common etiology and indication for drainage. The technical and clinical success rates were 100% and 96.97%, respectively, and the mean procedure time was 30.55 (± 16.17) min. Complications included one (3.03%) case of self-limited bleeding; there were no cases of mortality. Seven (21.21%) patients had recurrence. Patients with disconnected pancreatic duct syndrome (DPDS) had a higher recurrence rate than those without (71.43% vs. 38.46%, p = 0.05). After replacing LAMSs with transmural double-pigtail plastic stents (DPSs) in the DPDS patients, the DPS migration rate was higher in the patients with recurrence (100% vs. 33.33%, p = 0.04). In conclusion, drainage of symptomatic PFCs with EUS-guided electrocautery-enhanced LAMS appears to be efficient and safe. Replacing LAMSs with DPSs in DPDS patients was associated with a lower recurrence rate.

Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Drainage of Pancreatic Fluid Collections: Not All Queries Are Already Solved

Pancreatic fluid collections (PFCs) are well-known complications of acute pancreatitis. The overinfection of these collections leads to a worsening of the prognosis with an increase in the morbidity and mortality rate. The primary strategy for managing infected pancreatic necrosis (IPN) or symptomatic PFCs is a minimally invasive step-up approach, with endosonography-guided (EUS-guided) transmural drainage and debridement as the preferred and less invasive method. Different stents are available to drain PFCs: self-expandable metal stents (SEMSs), double pigtail stents (DPPSs), or lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMSs). In particular, LAMSs are useful when direct endoscopic necrosectomy is needed, as they allow easy access to the necrotic cavity; however, the rate of adverse events is not negligible, and to date, the superiority over DPPSs is still debated. Moreover, the timing for necrosectomy, the drainage technique, and the concurrent medical management are still debated. In this review, we focus attention on indications, timing, techniques, complications, and particularly on aspects that remain under debate concerning the EUS-guided drainage of PFCs.

Endoscopic management of pancreatic collections. Endoscopic Ultrasound Group from the Spanish Society of Digestive Endoscopy (GSEED-USE) Clinical Guidelines

Acute pancreatitis is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. It can develop complications such as fluid collections and necrosis. Infection of necrosis occurs in about 20-40% of patients with severe acute pancreatitis, and is associated with organ failure and worse prognosis. In the past years, the treatment of pancreatic collections has shifted from open surgery to minimally invasive techniques, such as endoscopic ultrasound guided drainage. These guidelines from a selection of experts among the Endoscopic Ultrasound Group from the Spanish Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (GSEED-USE) have the purpose to provide advice on the management of pancreatic collections based on a thorough review of the available scientific evidence. It also reflects the experience and clinical practice of the authors, who are advanced endoscopists or clinical pancreatologists with extensive experience in managing patients with acute pancreatitis.

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

BACKGROUND

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.

METHODS

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.

RESULT

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).

CONCLUSION

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.

EUS-guided interventional therapies for pancreatic diseases

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) is an integrated diagnostic technique merging endoscope and ultrasound to examine the digestive system. EUS has emerged as a primary diagnostic method for pancreatic diseases due to its distinctive benefits. Over the past four decades, EUS has undergone a transformation, shifting its role from primarily diagnostic to increasingly therapeutic. Additionally, in recent years, EUS has emerged as an increasingly prominent adjunctive or alternative approach to conventional surgical interventions. This review provides a comprehensive analysis of current technological approaches in the treatment of pancreatic diseases. The dynamic interplay with diverse therapeutic approaches has reinvigorated EUS and shaped its trajectory in the management of pancreatic diseases.

Managing complications of chronic pancreatitis: a guide for the gastroenterologist

INTRODUCTION

Chronic pancreatitis is a heterogeneous and complex syndrome that, in most cases, causes pain as a cardinal symptom and affects both the morphology and function of the pancreas, leading to several serious complications.

AREAS COVERED

The present review, based on a non-systematic PubMed search updated to June 2023, aims to present the current available evidence on the role of gastroenterologists in the diagnosis and treatment of both local and systemic complications by either endoscopic or medical treatments.

EXPERT OPINION

At diagnosis and during chronic pancreatitis follow-up, particular care is needed to consider not only the clinically manifest signs and symptoms of the disease, such as pain, jaundice, gastrointestinal obstruction, and pseudocysts, which require multidisciplinary discussion to establish the best treatment option (endoscopic or surgical), but also less evident systemic complications. Pancreatic exocrine and endocrine insufficiency, together with chronic inflammation, addiction, and dysbiosis, contribute to malnutrition, sarcopenia, and osteopathy. These complications, in turn, increase the risk of infection, thromboembolic events, and death. Patients with chronic pancreatitis also have an increased risk of psychiatric disorders and pancreatic cancer onset. Overall, patients with chronic pancreatitis should receive a holistic evaluation, considering all these aspects, possibly through multidisciplinary care in dedicated expert centers.

Safety and efficacy of lumen-apposing metal stents and double-pigtail plastic stents for endoscopic ultrasound-guided drainage of walled-off necrosis; a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Patients with walled-off necrosis (WON) are still challenging to treat safely and effectively. Recently, double-pigtail plastic stents (DPS), bi-flanged metallic stents (BFMS), and lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMS) have been employed with endoscopic ultrasound-guided (EUS-guided) drainage. However, there is little solid evidence to support the effectiveness and safety of using stents. This study aims to compare the outcomes of the LAMS and the PS.

METHOD

Till July 2022, a thorough database search was done, and studies that met the criteria were chosen. By using the RevMan software, the technical and clinical success and other secondary outcomes were calculated. Subgroup analysis was performed between the LAMS and the BFMS.

RESULTS

Fifteen studies (two randomized controlled trials and thirteen observational) with 687 patients receiving metal stents and 771 patients receiving plastic stents were selected for final analysis. There was no significant risk of bias or publication bias. The odds ratios (OR) for technical and clinical success were 0.36 (95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.08, 1.52) and 2.26 (95%CI 1.62, 3.15), respectively. The OR for overall adverse events was 0.74 (95% CI 0.41, 1.34). In subgroup analysis, the LAMS and the BFMS showed the same outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Compared to DPS, LAMS had better clinical outcomes and fewer side effects when treating patients with WON.

Clinical application and follow-up of electrocautery-enhanced lumen-apposing metal stents for endoscopic ultrasonography-guided interventions

Aim: The lumen-apposing metal stent (LAMS) is a new device that expands the scope of gastrointestinal intervention under endoscopy. LAMS was initially used for the treatment of pancreatic fluid collections (PFCs), but is increasingly being used off-label. The electrocautery system simplifies the deployment of LAMS, making it more suitable for off-label situations. The short-term results of electrocautery-enhanced lumen-apposing metal stents (ECE-LAMS) are satisfactory; however, the long-term follow-up results must be evaluated. The aim of this article is to review the expanded clinical application of ECE-LAMS, the clinical value of on-label and off-label use, and follow-up results.Methods: After searching in PubMed and Web of Science databases using 'electrocautery-enhanced lumen-apposing metal stents' and 'endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) -guided interventions' as keywords, studies related were compiled and examined.Results: ECE-LAMS are widely used for on-label and off-label situations. The short-term and long-term results of ECE-LAMS are satisfactory, but there are still some studies that do not agree with this viewpoint.Conclusion: The clinical application of ECE-LAMS is relatively safe and reliable but more well-designed randomized trials and prospective studies are needed to evaluate the impact of this technology on therapeutic EUS, to improve the safety and success rate of EUS-guided LAMS implantation, and to expand its application in other indications.

A possible manifestation of pancreas divisum-pancreatic pseudocyst in an infant with no apparent history of pancreatitis: a case report

BACKGROUND

Pancreas divisum (PD), the most common pancreatic anomaly, is caused by the failure of pancreatic bud fusion in the embryo. Although most cases are asymptomatic, it can cause pancreatitis or epigastric pain. We report an unusual case of PD in an infant.

CASE PRESENTATION

The patient was a 9-month-old girl with no pertinent medical history. She had suffered vomiting and diarrhea for 1 week before transfer to our hospital. Her general condition was poor, and abdominal distention was noted. Blood tests revealed microcytic anemia with normal chemical markers. The parents reported no episode of pancreatitis. Ultrasonography revealed massive ascites, which was later found to be bloody. Enhanced computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging depicted a cystic lesion, approximately 2 cm in size, anterior to the second portion of the duodenum. During exploratory laparotomy, a pinhole was identified on the cyst wall, which was mistakenly identified as a duodenal perforation, and direct closure was performed. Postoperative levels of serum amylase and inflammation markers were elevated, and the amount of ascites increased, impairing oral feeding. The level of pancreatic enzymes in the ascites was high. Imaging studies were repeated, but the cause of pancreatic fistula was not identified. Conservative therapy, including administration of total parenteral nutrition, antibiotics, and octreotide, was initiated, but the situation did not improve. Three months after admission, endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography showed a thick dorsal pancreatic duct communicating with a hypoplastic ventral duct, which was indicative of PD. Contrast medium leaking from the dorsal duct near the minor ampulla revealed the presence of a pseudocyst. Stenting via the minor papilla was impossible because the minor papilla was obstructed. Instead, a stent was inserted into the ventral pancreatic duct. Endoscopic transgastric drainage of the cyst was effective, and the patient was discharged, 7 months after admission. The patient is healthy, but the gastric stent needs to be replaced regularly.

CONCLUSION

In children, PD can manifest with pancreatic pseudocyst that causes pancreatic ascites, even in the absence of pancreatitis. This may be a previously unrecognized manifestation of PD in children, and clinicians need to be aware of it.

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

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 drainage of pancreatic fluid collections: do we know enough about the best approach?

Pancreatic fluid collection often occurs as a local complication of acute pancreatitis, and drainage is indicated in symptomatic patients. The drainage may be surgical, percutaneous, or endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) guided. In symptomatic collections older than 4 weeks and localized in the upper abdomen, EUS-guided drainage is the first choice of treatment. Lumen-apposing metal stents are useful in cases of walled-off necrosis, facilitating access to the cavity; however, they do not reduce the number of necrosectomy sessions required. In most pancreatic pseudocysts requiring drainage, plastic stents remain the first choice of treatment. This review aimed to summarize the principles and techniques of step-up therapy of pancreatic fluid collections, including preprocedural and postprocedural assessment and practical approaches of drainage and necrosectomy, making available evidence more accessible to endoscopists aiming to train for this procedure. Successful and safe EUS drainage connotes early recognition and treatment of complications and the presence of a multidisciplinary team for optimal patient management. However, the best time for necrosectomy, modality of drainage method (lumen-apposing metal stents or plastic stents), and duration of antibiotherapy are still under evaluation.

Lumen-apposing-metal stent misdeployment in endoscopic ultrasound-guided drainages: A systematic review focusing on issues and rescue management

BACKGROUND

The introduction of lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMS) for endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided drainages has marked a turning point in the field of interventional ultrasound and it is gathering worldwide diffusion in different clinical settings. Nevertheless, the procedure may conceal unexpected pitfalls. LAMS misdeployment is the most frequent cause of technical failure and it can be considered a procedure-related adverse event when it hampers the conclusion of the planned procedure or results in significant clinical consequences. Stent misdeployment can be managed successfully by endoscopic rescue maneuvers to allow the completion of the procedure. To date, no standardized indication is available to guide an appropriate rescue strategy depending on the type of procedure or of misdeployment.

AIM

To evaluate the incidence of LAMS misdeployment during EUS-guided choledochoduodenostomy (EUS-CDS), gallbladder drainage (EUS-GBD) and pancreatic fluid collections drainage (EUS-PFC) and to describe the endoscopic rescue strategies adopted under the circumstance.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of the literature on PubMed by searching for studies published up to October 2022. The search was carried out using the exploded medical subject heading terms “lumen apposing metal stent”, “LAMS”, “endoscopic ultrasound” and “choledochoduodenostomy” or “gallbladder” or “pancreatic fluid collections”. We included in the review on-label EUS-guided procedures namely EUS-CDS, EUS-GBD and EUS-PFC. Only those publications reporting EUS-guided LAMS positioning were considered. The studies reporting a technical success rate of 100% and other procedure-related adverse events were considered to calculate the overall rate of LAMS misdeployment, while studies not reporting the causes of technical failure were excluded. Case reports were considered only for the extraction of data regarding the issues of misdeployment and rescue techniques. The following data were collected from each study: Author, year of publication, study design, study population, clinical indication, technical success, reported number of misdeployment, stent type and size, flange misdeployed and type of rescue strategy.

RESULTS

The overall technical success rate of EUS-CDS, EUS-GBD and EUS-PFC was 93.7%, 96.1%, and 98.1% respectively. Significant rates of LAMS misdeployment have been reported for EUS-CDS, EUS-GBD and EUS-PFC drainage, respectively 5.8%, 3.4%, and 2.0%. Endoscopic rescue treatment was feasible in 86.8%, 80%, and 96.8% of cases. Non endoscopic rescue strategies were required only in 10.3%, 16% and 3.2% for EUS-CDS, EUS-GBD, and EUS-PFC. The endoscopic rescue techniques described were over-the-wire deployment of a new stent through the created fistula tract in 44.1%, 8% and 64.5% and stent-in-stent in 23.5%, 60%, and 12.9%, respectively for EUS-CDS, EUS-GBD, and EUS-PFC. Further therapeutic option were endoscopic rendezvous in 11.8% of EUS-CDS and repeated procedure of EUS-guided drainage in 16.1% of EUS-PFC.

CONCLUSION

LAMS misdeployment is a relatively common adverse event in EUS-guided drainages. There is no consensus on the best rescue approach in these cases and the choice is often made by the endoscopist relying upon the clinical scenario, anatomical characteristics, and local expertise. In this review, we investigated the misdeployment of LAMS for each of the on-label indications focusing on the rescue therapies used, with the aim of providing useful data for endoscopists and to improve patient outcomes.

Transpapillary Stenting Improves Treatment Outcomes in Patients Undergoing Endoscopic Transmural Drainage of Ductal Disruption-Associated Pancreatic Fluid Collections

INTRODUCTION

Endoscopic transmural drainage (TMD) has been accepted as the preferred therapy for symptomatic pancreatic fluid collections (PFCs). Recurrence of PFCs presents a unique challenge in patients with disrupted pancreatic duct (PD). We aimed to evaluate whether transpapillary drainage (TPD) provides additional benefits to TMD in patients with PD disruption.

METHODS

This was a multicenter retrospective study. Consecutive patients who underwent TMD, TPD, or combined drainage (CD) of PFCs were included. The primary outcome was to compare PFC recurrence among different groups. The secondary outcomes were the technical success rate, length of hospital stay, and procedure-related complications.

RESULTS

A total of 153 patients, which consists of 57 patients with pancreatic pseudocysts and 96 patients with walled-off necrosis, were included. PFC recurrence was more common in patients with PD disruption than those with an intact main duct (19% vs 1.4%, P < 0.001). PD disruption was identified as a major risk factor of PFC recurrence by univariable and multivariable analyses. The recurrence rate of CD was significantly lower than TMD only or TPD only (6.5% vs 15.4% vs 22.7%, P < 0.01). The length of hospital stay of CD was significantly shorter than TMD only or TPD only (5 [3.0-9.0] vs 7.0 [5.0-12.0] vs 9 [7.0-16.0], P < 0.001). Dual-modality drainage did not increase procedure-related complications compared with TMD only (13.0% vs 12.8%, P > 0.05). Partial PD disruption was bridged in 87.3% cases while complete PD disruption was reconnected in 55.2% cases. Although statistically not significant, the clinical success rate in walled-off necrosis cases with actively bridged ducts was much higher than those with passively bridged ducts (76.9% vs 40%).

DISCUSSION

Transpapillary pancreatic duct stenting seems to improve the efficacy of endoscopic TMD of pancreatic duct disruption-associated PFCs by reducing the recurrence rate and shortening the length of hospital stay.

A novel tube placement technique in EUS-guided drainage for small pancreatic pseudocyst: Spinning lasso method

This paper discusses a novel tube placement technique; the "spinning lasso method", in EUS-guided drainage for small pancreatic pseudocysts (PC) with video. In general, the placement of a drainage tube can be difficult in a small PC and the tube often deviates during attempted insertions into the cavity. The technique helps to mitigate this problem.

Self-Expandable Metal Stent (SEMS) Versus Lumen-Apposing Metal Stent (LAMS) for Drainage of Pancreatic Fluid Collections: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Background and aim Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided drainage is the gold standard approach for the treatment of encapsulated pancreatic collections (EPCs) including pseudocyst and walled-off pancreatic necrosis (WON), and is associated with an equivalent clinical efficacy to surgical drainage with fewer complications and less morbidity. Drainage may be achieved via several types of stents including a fully covered self-expandable metallic stent (SEMS) and lumen-apposing metal stent (LAMS). However, to date there have been no randomized trials to compare these devices. This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of the SEMS versus LAMS for EUS-guided drainage of EPCs. Methods A phase IIB randomized trial was designed to compare the SEMS versus LAMS for the treatment of EPCs. Technical success, clinical success, adverse events (AEs), and procedure time were evaluated. A sample size of 42 patients was determined. Results There was no difference between the two groups in technical (LAMS 80.95% vs 100% SEMS, p=0.107), clinical (LAMS 85.71% vs 95.24% SEMS, p=0.606) or radiological success (LAMS 92.86% vs 83.33% SEMS, p=0.613). There was no difference in AEs including stent migration rate and mortality. The procedure time was longer in the LAMS group (mean time 43.81 min versus 24.43 min, p=0.001). There was also a difference in the number of intra-procedure complications (5 LAMS vs 0 SEMS, p=0.048). Conclusion SEMS and LAMS have similar technical, clinical, and radiological success as well as AEs. However, SEMS has a shorter procedure time and fewer intra-procedure complications compared to non-electrocautery-enhanced LAMS in this phase IIB randomized controlled trial (RCT). The choice of the type of stent used for EUS drainage of EPCs should consider device availability, costs, and personal and local experience.

Endoscopic transluminal drainage and necrosectomy for infected necrotizing pancreatitis: Progress and challenges

Infected necrotizing pancreatitis (INP) represents a severe condition in patients with acute pancreatitis. Invasive interventions are recommended in symptomatic INP. Growing evidence has suggested interventional strategies of INP evolving from traditional surgery to minimally invasive step-up endoscopic procedures. However, there is still no standardized protocol for endoscopic interventions. Recently, various studies have been published about the endoscopic management of INP. This article reviews published articles and guidelines to present the progress and challenges of endoscopic transluminal drainage and necrosectomy in INP.

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.

Comparison of lumen-apposing metal stents versus double-pigtail plastic stents for infected necrotising pancreatitis

OBJECTIVE

Lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMS) are believed to clinically improve endoscopic transluminal drainage of infected necrosis when compared with double-pigtail plastic stents. However, comparative data from prospective studies are very limited.

DESIGN

Patients with infected necrotising pancreatitis, who underwent an endoscopic step-up approach with LAMS within a multicentre prospective cohort study were compared with the data of 51 patients in the randomised TENSION trial who had been assigned to the endoscopic step-up approach with double-pigtail plastic stents. The clinical study protocol was otherwise identical for both groups. Primary end point was the need for endoscopic transluminal necrosectomy. Secondary end points included mortality, major complications, hospital stay and healthcare costs.

RESULTS

A total of 53 patients were treated with LAMS in 16 hospitals during 27 months. The need for endoscopic transluminal necrosectomy was 64% (n=34) and was not different from the previous trial using plastic stents (53%, n=27)), also after correction for baseline characteristics (OR 1.21 (95% CI 0.45 to 3.23)). Secondary end points did not differ between groups either, which also included bleeding requiring intervention-5 patients (9%) after LAMS placement vs 11 patients (22%) after placement of plastic stents (relative risk 0.44; 95% CI 0.16 to 1.17). Total healthcare costs were also comparable (mean difference -€6348, bias-corrected and accelerated 95% CI -€26 386 to €10 121).

CONCLUSION

Our comparison of two patient groups from two multicentre prospective studies with a similar design suggests that LAMS do not reduce the need for endoscopic transluminal necrosectomy when compared with double-pigtail plastic stents in patients with infected necrotising pancreatitis. Also, the rate of bleeding complications was comparable.

EUS-guided drainage of large walled-off pancreatic necroses using plastic versus lumen-apposing metal stents: a single-centre randomised controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

In treating pancreatic walled-off necrosis (WON), lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMS) have not proven superior to the traditional double pigtail technique (DPT). Among patients with large WON (>15 cm) and their associated substantial risk of treatment failure, the increased drainage capacity of a novel 20-mm LAMS might improve clinical outcomes. Hence, we conducted a study comparing the DPT and 20-mm LAMS in patients with large WON.

DESIGN

A single-centre, open-label, randomised, controlled superiority trial using an endoscopic step-up approach in patients with WON exceeding 15 cm in size. The primary endpoint was the number of necrosectomies needed to achieve clinical success (clinical and CT resolution), while the secondary endpoints included technical success, adverse events, length of stay and mortality.

RESULTS

Twenty-two patients were included in the DPT group and 20 in the LAMS group, with no significant differences in patient characteristics. The median size of WON was 24.1 cm (P25-P75: 19.6-31.1). The technical success rates were 100% for DPT and 95% for LAMS (p=0.48), while clinical success rates were 95.5% and 94.7%, respectively (p=1.0). The mean number of necrosectomies was 2.2 for DPT and 3.2 for LAMS (p=0.42). Five patients (12%) developed procedure-related serious adverse events (DPT=4, LAMS=1, p=0.35). The median length of stay was 43 (P25-P75: 40-67) and 58 days (P25-P75: 40-86) in the DPT and LAMS groups (p=0.71), respectively, with an overall mortality of 4.8%.

CONCLUSIONS

For treating large WON, LAMS are not superior to DPT. The techniques are associated with comparable needs for necrosectomy and hospital stay, and no gross difference in adverse events.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT04057846.

Nomogram for prediction of adverse events after lumen-apposing metal stent placement for drainage of pancreatic fluid collections

OBJECTIVES

To generate a prognostic model based on a nomogram for adverse event (AE) prediction after lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMS) placement in patients with pancreatic fluid collections (PFC).

METHODS

Data from a large multicenter series of PFCs treated with LAMS placement were retrieved. AE (overall and excluding mild events) prediction was calculated through a logistic regression model and a nomogram was created and internally validated after bootstrapping. Results were expressed in terms of odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Discrimination was assessed by c-statistics and calibrated by comparing deciles of predicted and observed ORs.

RESULTS

Overall, 516 patients were included (males 68%, mean age 61.6 ± 15.2 years). PFCs were predominantly walled-off necrosis (52.1%). Independent predictors of AE occurrence were injury of main pancreatic duct (OR in the case of leak 2.51, 95% CI 1.06-5.97, P = 0.03; OR in the case of complete disruption 2.61, 1.53-4.45, P = 0.01), abnormal vessels (OR in the case of perigastric varices 2.90, 1.31-6.42, P = 0.008; OR in the case of pseudoaneurysm 2.99, 1.75-11.93, P = 0.002), using a multigate technique (OR 3.00, 1.28-5.24; P = 0.05), and need of percutaneous drainage (OR 2.81, 1.03-7.65, P = 0.04). By nomogram, a score beyond 200 points corresponded to a 50% probability of AE occurrence. The model was confirmed even when excluding mild AEs and it showed optimal discrimination (c-index 76.8%, 95% CI 74-79), confirmed after internal validation.

CONCLUSION

Patients with preprocedural evidence of pancreatic duct leak/disruption, vessel alteration, requiring percutaneous drainage or a multigate technique are at higher risk for AE.

Controversies in EUS-guided treatment of walled-off necrosis

This review gives an overview of different techniques in the treatment of post-acute complications of acute pancreatitis. The endoscopic treatment of those complications is currently standard of care. EUS opened up the broad implementation of internal drainage methods to make them safe and effective. Due to different endoscopic approaches worldwide, controversies have arisen that are pointed out in this paper. The main focus was placed on weighing up evidence to find the optimal approach. However, if no evidence can be provided, the authors, experienced in the field, give their personal advice.

Early versus delayed interventions for necrotizing pancreatitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Objectives

Interventions for necrotizing pancreatitis are generally postponed until 4 weeks after the onset of acute pancreatitis, but there remains controversy about whether we should always wait >4 weeks or can intervene early when necessary. This meta‐analysis was conducted to evaluate treatment outcomes of necrotizing pancreatitis according to the cut‐off defined in the revised Atlanta classification (≤4 vs. >4 weeks).

Methods

Using PubMed, Web of Science, and the Cochrane database, we identified clinical studies published until March 2022 with data comparing outcomes of early and delayed interventions of necrotizing pancreatitis. We pooled data on adverse events, mortality, technical and clinical success rates, and needs for necrosectomy and open surgery, using the random‐effects model.

Results

We identified 11 retrospective studies, including 775 patients with early interventions and 725 patients with delayed interventions. Patients with early interventions tended to be complicated by organ failure. The rate of adverse events was comparable (OR 1.41, 95% CI 0.66–3.01; p = 0.38) but the rate of mortality was significantly higher (OR 1.70, 95% CI 1.21–2.40; p < 0.01) in early interventions. Technical success rates were similarly high but clinical success rates tended to be low (OR 0.39, 95% CI 0.15–1.00; p = 0.05) in early interventions, though not statistically significant. Pooled ORs for necrosectomy and open surgery were 2.14 and 1.23, respectively.

Conclusions

Early interventions for necrotizing pancreatitis were associated with higher mortality rates and did not reduce adverse events or improve clinical success. However, our results should be confirmed in prospective studies.

Endoscopic step up: When and how

The management of (peri)pancreatic collections has undergone a paradigm shift from open surgical drainage to minimally invasive endoscopic, percutaneous, or surgical interventions. Minimally invasive interventions are associated with less morbidity and mortality compared to open necrosectomy. The (peri)pancreatic collections are currently treated with a “step-up approach” of an initial drainage procedure followed, if necessary, by a more invasive debridement. The step-up approach for management of (peri)pancreatic collections is mainly of two types, namely, surgical and endoscopic. Surgical step up includes initial image-guided percutaneous catheter drainage followed, if necessary, by minimally invasive video-assisted retroperitoneal debridement. Endoscopic step-up approach includes endoscopic transluminal drainage followed, if necessary by direct endoscopic necrosectomy. The development of endoscopic ultrasound and lumen apposing metal stents (LAMSs) has revolutionized the endoscopic management of (peri)pancreatic collections. Compared to surgical step-up approach, endoscopic step-up treatment approach has been reported to be associated with less new-onset organ failure, pancreatic fistula, enterocutaneous fistula, or perforation of visceral organ and shorter hospital/intensive care unit stay. This review will mainly focus on indications, techniques, timing, and recent advances related to endoscopic step-up approach in management of symptomatic(peri)pancreatic collections.

Endotherapy in Pancreatic Diseases

Interventional endoscopy is now considered an effective minimally invasive treatment modality for the management of pancreatic diseases. It is important for the clinician to know the indications and contraindications as well as the timing of various endoscopic interventions. This will help in its safe and effective use and consequently decrease morbidity and mortality from various pancreatic diseases. This review will provide a broad overview of the indications, techniques, and outcomes of pancreatic endotherapy.

The Role of EUS-Guided Drainage in the Management of Postoperative Fluid Collections after Pancreatobiliary Surgery

Postoperative fluid collection (POFC) is a challenging complication following pancreatobiliary surgery. Traditional treatment with surgical drainage is associated with significant morbidity, while percutaneous drainage is associated with a higher rate of recurrence and the need for repeated interventions. Studies have shown that endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided drainage may offer a promising solution to this problem. There are limited data on the ideal therapeutic protocol for EUS-guided drainage of POFC including the timing for drainage; type, size, and number of stents to use; and the need for endoscopic debridement and irrigation. Current practices extrapolated from the treatment of pancreatic pseudocysts and walled-off necrosis may not be applicable to POFC. There are increasing data to suggest that drainage procedures may be performed within two weeks after surgery. While most authors advocate the use of double pigtail plastic stents (DPPSs), there have been a number of reports on the use of novel lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMSs), although no direct comparisons have been made between the two.

Editors' Choice of Noteworthy Clinical Endoscopy Publications in the First Decade

This is a special review to celebrate the 10^th anniversary of Clinical Endoscopy. Each deputy editor has selected articles from one’s subspecialty that are significant in terms of the number of downloads, citations, and clinical importance. The articles included original articles, review articles, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses.