Endosonography-guided transmural drainage of pancreatic fluid collections: comparative outcomes by stent type

Comparative Efficacy and Safety of Different Stent Types for Pancreatic Fluid Collections: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Drainage of pancreatic fluid collections (PFCs) is required in select cases including infected or symptomatic collections. In this network meta-analysis, we have compared lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMS), fully covered self-expandable metal stents (FCSEMS), and double-pigtail stents (DPS) to identify the most useful stent type in the management of PFCs.

METHODS

We reviewed several databases to identify studies that compared DPS or FCSEMS with LAMS and the ones which compared DPS with FCSEMS for the treatment of PFCs. Our outcomes of interest were clinical success, adverse events, technical success, recurrence of PFCs, and procedure duration. Random effects model and frequentist approach were used for statistical analysis.

RESULTS

We included 28 studies with 2974 patients. Rate of clinical success was significantly lower with DPS compared to LAMS, OR (95% CI): 0.43 (0.32, 0.59). Rate of recurrence was higher with DPS compared to LAMS, OR (95% CI): 2.06 (1.19, 3.57). We found no significant difference in rate of adverse events between groups. Rate of technical success was higher for FCSEMS compared to LAMS. Procedure duration was significantly shorter for LAMS compared to DPS and FCSEMS. Based on frequentist approach, LAMS was found to be superior to DPS and FCSEMS in achieving higher clinical success, lower rate of adverse events and recurrence, and shorter procedure time.

CONCLUSIONS

This network meta-analysis demonstrates the superiority of LAMS over DPS and FCSEMS in the management of PFCs in achieving a higher clinical success, shorter procedure time, and lower rate of recurrence. Some of the analyses are not adequately powered to make firm conclusions, and future large multicenter RCTs are required to further evaluate this issue.

Endoscopic management of pancreatic collections. Endoscopic Ultrasound Group, 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 few 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, Spanish Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (GSEED-USE) are intended 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.

Impact of the Timing of Percutaneous Catheter Drainage following Endoscopic Drainage on Outcomes in Acute Necrotizing Pancreatitis

Background  The role of dual-modality drainage of walled-off necrosis (WON) in patients with acute pancreatitis (AP) is established. However, there are no data on the association of clinical outcomes with the timing of percutaneous catheter drainage (PCD). We investigated the impact of the timing of PCD following endoscopic drainage of WON on clinical outcomes in AP. Materials and Methods  This retrospective study comprised consecutive patients with necrotizing AP who underwent endoscopic cystogastrostomy (CG) of WON followed by PCD between September 2018 and March 2023. Based on endoscopic CG to PCD interval, patients were divided into groups (≤ and >3 days, ≤ and >1 week, ≤ and >10 days, and ≤ and >2 weeks). Baseline characteristics and indications of CG and PCD were recorded. Clinical outcomes were compared between the groups, including length of hospitalization, length of intensive care unit stay, need for surgical necrosectomy, and death during hospitalization. Results  Thirty patients (mean age ± standard deviation, 35.5 ± 12.7 years) were evaluated. The mean CG to PCD interval was 11.2 ± 7.5 days. There were no significant differences in baseline characteristics and indications of CG and PCD between the groups. The mean pain to CG interval was not significantly different between the groups. Endoscopic necrosectomy was performed in a significantly greater proportion of patients undergoing CG after 10 days ( p  = 0.003) and after 2 weeks ( p  = 0.032). There were no significant differences in the complications and clinical outcomes between the groups. Conclusion  The timing of PCD following endoscopic CG does not affect clinical outcomes.

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.

A novel lumen-apposing metal stent for endoscopic drainage of symptomatic pancreatic fluid collections: a retrospective study

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Previous studies showed that lumen-apposing metal stent (LAMS) provides a feasible route to perform direct endoscopic necrosectomy. However, the high risk of bleeding and migration induced by the placement of LAMS attracted attention. The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of a novel LAMS.

METHODS

In this retrospective study, we enrolled patients with symptomatic pancreatic fluid collections (PFCs) to perform EUS-guided drainage with a LAMS in our hospital. Evaluation variables included technical success rate, clinical success rate, and adverse events.

RESULTS

Thirty-two patients with a mean age of 41.38 ± 10.72 years (53.1% males) were included in our study, and the mean size of PFC was 10.06 ± 3.03 cm. Technical success rate and clinical success rate reached 96.9% and 93.8%, respectively. Stent migration occurred in 1 patient (3.1%), and no stent-induced bleeding occurred. The outcomes of using LAMS in 10 patients with pancreatic pseudocyst and 22 patients with walled-off necrosis were comparable. Compared with pancreatic pseudocyst, walled-off necrosis needed more direct endoscopic necrosectomy times to achieve resolution (P = 0.024).

CONCLUSIONS

Our study showed that the novel LAMS is effective and safe for endoscopic drainage of PFCs with a relatively low rate of adverse events. Further large-scale multicenter studies are needed to confirm the present findings.

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.

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.

Clinical Outcomes of the Endoscopic Step-Up Approach with or without Radiology-Guided Percutaneous Drainage for Symptomatic Walled-Off Pancreatic Necrosis

Background and objectives: Symptomatic walled-off pancreatic necrosis is a serious local complication of acute necrotising pancreatitis. The endoscopic step-up approach is the standard treatment for symptomatic walled-off pancreatic necrosis; however, adjunctive radiologic percutaneous drainage for this condition is controversial. This study compared the clinical and radiologic resolution of walled-off pancreatic necrosis achieved with the endoscopic step-up approach with or without radiology-guided percutaneous drainage. Material and Methods: This retrospective, single-centre cohort study enrolled patients with symptomatic walled-off pancreatic necrosis who underwent endoscopic transmural drainage (ETD) followed by directed endoscopic necrosectomy (DEN) with or without radiology-guided drainage. A total of 34 patients (endoscopic approach, n = 22; combined modality approach, n = 12) underwent the endoscopic step-up approach (ETD followed by DEN). Baseline characteristics, clinical success, and resolution of necrosis were compared between groups. Results: All patients achieved symptom resolution from walled-off pancreatic necrosis. The mean patient age was 58.4 years, and 21 (61.8%) were men. Following treatment with the endoscopic approach and combined modality approach, clinical success was achieved in 90.9% of patients within 11.5 days, and 66.7% of patients within 16.5 days, respectively. Both length of hospital stay (55 days vs. 71 days; p = 0.071) and time to complete radiologic resolution were shorter (93 days vs. 124 days; p = 0.23) in the endoscopic approach group. Conclusion: Both the endoscopic step-up approach and the CMD approach resulted in a favourably high clinical resolution rates in patients with symptomatic WON. However, clinical success rates seemed to be higher, and the length of hospital stay tended to be shorter in the endoscopic approach than in the CMD approach, as well as the significantly shorter necrosectomy time in each procedure was observed. Of note, these findings might be from some inherited differences in baseline characteristics of the patients between the two groups, and a randomized controlled trial with a larger sample size to verify these results is warranted.

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.

Lumen Apposition: A Changing Landscape in Therapeutic Endoscopy

The concept of endoscopic lumen apposition has seen a dramatic shift in the last several decades. Early natural orifice trans-luminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) concepts have transformed into specialized lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMSs) and delivery devices, which provide endoscopists a minimally invasive alternative to surgical intervention. These LAMSs have become the bedrock of therapeutic endoscopy and provide treatment for a wide spectrum of gastrointestinal disorders. In this review, we summarize the changing landscape of therapeutic endoscopy by highlighting the use of LAMS and future directions as well as alternative devices to achieve lumen apposition.

Lumen-apposing metal stents (with videos)

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMSs) are a novel class of devices that have expanded the spectrum of endoscopic GI interventions. LAMSs with their dumbbell configuration, short saddle length, and large inner luminal diameter provide favorable stent characteristics to facilitate anastomosis formation between the gut lumen and adjacent structures.

METHODS

The MEDLINE database was searched through April 2021 for articles related to LAMSs by using additional relevant keywords such as "walled-off pancreatic necrosis," "pseudocysts," "pancreatic fluid collection," "cholecystitis," "gastroenterostomy," in addition to "endoscopic treatment" and "endoscopic management," among others.

RESULTS

This technology review describes the full spectrum of LAMS designs and delivery systems, techniques for deployment, procedural outcomes, safety, training issues, and financial considerations.

CONCLUSIONS

Although LAMSs were initially introduced for drainage of pancreatic pseudocysts and walled-off necrosis, the versatility of these devices has led to a variety of off-label uses including gallbladder drainage, enteric bypass with the creation of gastroenterostomies, and treatment of luminal GI strictures.

Endoscopic Transmural Drainage and Necrosectomy in Acute Necrotizing Pancreatitis: A Review

Acute necrotizing pancreatitis occurs in 10%-20% of patients with acute pancreatitis (AP) which is one of the most important acute abdominal diseases that require hospital admission. Pancreatic necrosis is also associated with high mortality and morbidity. In the past 20 years, the treatment of pancreatic necrosis has shifted from open necrosectomy to minimally invasive techniques, such as endoscopic interventions. With the development of endoscopic techniques, the safety and effectiveness of endoscopic interventions have improved, but there exist several unresolved problems. Currently, there is no unified standard approach for endoscopic treatment of pancreatic necrosis that takes into account local expertise, anatomical features of necrosis, patients' preferences, and comorbidity profile. We reviewed the current status of endoscopic therapy for acute necrotizing pancreatitis, focusing on the new endoscopic drainage technique and necrosectomy protocol.

Metal Versus Plastic Stents for Pancreatic Fluid Collection Drainage: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

The therapeutic efficacy of metal stents (MSs) for pancreatic fluid collections (PFCs) is invariably controversial. Here, we conducted a meta-analysis to summarize the results of efficacy of MSs and plastic stents (PSs) in PFC drainage.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

We performed a literature search of PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, and COCHRANE for all of the published studies regarding the use of MSs and PSs for endoscopic transmural drainage of PFCs from January, 1 2015 to June 1, 2020. We extracted data from 9 studies (1359 patients) that met the inclusion criteria. The main outcome measures were the rates of treatment success, including technique success and clinical success (CS), adverse events, recurrence, procedure time, and length of hospital stay (LOS).

RESULTS

There was no difference in overall technique success between patients treated with MSs and PSs for PFCs. However, MSs showed a higher CS rate 92% versus 82% (P<0.01) and a lower overall adverse event rate 20% versus 31% (P<0.01) than PSs. The recurrence rate of PFCs using MSs also had significant advantages over PSs 3% versus 10% (P<0.01) and MSs needed a shorter procedure time than PSs (26.73 vs. 45.40 min, P<0.01). In comparing direct endoscopic necrosectomy use and LOS, there was no difference between MSs and PSs.

CONCLUSIONS

Bringing together the results of the current study, endoscopic ultrasound-guided drainage of PFCs using MSs may be superior to PSs in terms of CS, adverse events rates and recurrence rate, with similar LOS and direct endoscopic necrosectomy use.

When Should We Perform Endoscopic Drainage and Necrosectomy for Walled-Off Necrosis?

Endoscopic drainage and necrosectomy are now accepted treatment approaches for patients with symptomatic walled-off pancreatic necrosis (WON). The current recommendations advocate step-up approaches for the treatment of symptomatic WON. Previous recommendations stipulated that endoscopic intervention should be delayed until more than four weeks after the onset. Recent data on early drainage have been increasing and this option might be considered in well-encapsulated cases, but the percutaneous route is preferred if the drainage is performed within two weeks after onset or in nonencapsulated cases. Recently, additional drainage methods, such as the multiple gateway technique and multiple stent placement, have been developed to open up multiple dead spaces in the WON cavity. Endoscopic necrosectomy could be performed via the transluminal route or percutaneous route after failed initial and additional drainage procedures. The use of novel lumen-apposing stents is a promising treatment option that could reduce the number of steps, the procedure time, and the overall number of necrosectomies.