Safety and Efficacy of Early (<4 Weeks of Illness) Endoscopic Transmural Drainage of Post-acute Pancreatic Necrosis Predominantly Located in the Body of the Pancreas

When to Intervene in Acute Necrotizing Pancreatitis: A Narrative Review of the Optimal Timing for Intervention Strategies

Introduction: Acute necrotizing pancreatitis (ANP) is the acute inflammation of pancreatic parenchyma, most commonly due to alcohol abuse or cholelithiasis. The treatment can be either conservative or invasive, including a variety of techniques; however, it has not yet been established if the intervention should be early or if it should be delayed. The aim of this review is to investigate the optimal time for intervention in ANP. Methods: A literature search was conducted in PubMed and Scopus from inception until September 2024 for studies reporting the comparison between early and late intervention. Results: Early intervention, within 4 weeks of symptom onset, often involves drainage via percutaneous, endoscopic, or combined methods. Delayed intervention occurs after 4 weeks of symptom onset. This can be conducted either surgically or via minimally invasive means. The results of this review reveal that the time of intervention for ANP plays an important role in the prognosis and the course of the disease. In particular, early intervention is associated with higher mortality, which is also the primary clinical outcome. Delayed intervention is also superior regarding secondary clinical outcomes, specifically the complications associated with the intervention. Thus, it is accompanied by fewer episodes of new-onset organ failure, bleeding, gastrointestinal fistula, pancreatic fistula, wound infection, endocrine pancreatic insufficiency, and other complications. Finally, delayed intervention results in shorter stays, both in hospitals and the ICU. Conclusions: Delayed intervention is clearly more effective than early intervention and should be preferred. However, early intervention appears to be both safe and effective, and it is feasible.

Consensus guidelines on the diagnosis and treatment of pancreatic pseudocyst and walled-off necrosis from a Chinese multiple disciplinary team expert panel

Objective

To prepare a set of practice guidelines to standardize the entire process, from diagnosis to treatment and follow-up, for pancreatic pseudocysts and walled-off necrosis.

Methods

Thirty-six experts in the fields of digestive endoscopy, pancreatic surgery, interventional radiology, and others presented their opinions via discussions in online conferences by referring to the patient, intervention, comparison, and outcomes principles and then reviewed the evidence and statements using the Delphi method to reach a consensus. The consensus of >80% was finally achieved for the items.

Results

The experts discussed and reached a consensus on 29 statements including 10 categories: (1) definition and classification, (2) imaging and endoscopic diagnosis, (3) therapeutic implications, (4) surgical therapy, (5) percutaneous catheter drainage, (6) endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, (7) EUS-guided drainage, (8) stent selection for EUS-guided drainage, (9) complication related to stents for cyst drainage, and (10) drug treatment and follow-up.

Conclusion

This consensus based on the clinical experience of experts in various fields and international evidence-based medicine further standardizes the multidisciplinary diagnosis and treatment processes for pancreatic pseudocysts and walled-off necrosis.

Repetitive endoscopic drainage as initial intervention is safe and effective for early treatment of pancreatic necrotic collections

BACKGROUND

While endoscopic step-up approach with delayed drainage (more than 28 days from diagnosis) was shown to produce the best outcomes in the treatment of pancreatic walled-off necrosis (WON), we assessed our single centre experience of early versus delayed endoscopic drainage of pancreatic necrotic collections.

METHODS

Patients who underwent endoscopic drainage of pancreatic necrotic collections between 2011 and 2022 under Monash Health were identified. They were excluded if below 18 years old or their follow up data were missing. The included patients' medical records, pathology results, and imaging findings were retrospectively reviewed.

RESULTS

A total of 60 patients were included. 31.58% required percutaneous drainage and 15% received either endoscopic or surgical necrosectomy. The disease related mortality was 8.47% and the average length of stay (LOS) was 70.92 days. No significant difference was shown in disease-related mortality (10.5% vs. 7.5%, P = 0.697) or LOS (75.35 vs. 68.7, P = 0.644) between early and delayed drainage cohorts, but patients who received early drainage have higher qSOFA score on the day of drainage (2 vs. 0, P = 0.004).

DISCUSSION

Repetitive endoscopic drainage with selective percutaneous drainage is effective in the management of pancreatic necrotic collections. Early drainage should be considered in patients who developed severe sepsis.

Early Endoscopic Interventions for Pancreatic Necrosis: Indications, Technique, and Outcomes

Endoscopic transmural drainage is usually performed for symptomatic well-encapsulated walled-off necrosis (WON) that usually develops in the delayed phase (> 4 weeks after disease onset) of acute necrotising pancreatitis (ANP). Endoscopic drainage is usually not advocated in the early (< 4 weeks after disease onset) stage of illness because of the risk of complications due to an incompletely formed encapsulating wall and poor demarcation of viable from necrotic tissue. However, emerging data from expert tertiary care centres over the last few years shows that the early endoscopic transluminal drainage approach is effective and safe. The development of lumen-apposing metal stents and better accessories for endoscopic necrosectomy has fuelled the expansion of indications of endoscopic drainage of pancreatic necrosis. However, early endoscopic drainage is associated with higher rates of adverse events; therefore, careful patient selection is paramount. This article will review the current indications, techniques and outcomes of early endoscopic transluminal drainage in pancreatic necrotic collections.

Long-Term Outcome of Immediate Versus Postponed Intervention in Patients With Infected Necrotizing Pancreatitis (POINTER): Multicenter Randomized Trial

OBJECTIVE

To compare the long-term outcomes of immediate drainage versus the postponed-drainage approach in patients with infected necrotizing pancreatitis.

BACKGROUND

In the randomized POINTER trial, patients assigned to the postponed-drainage approach using antibiotic treatment required fewer interventions, as compared with immediate drainage, and over a third were treated without any intervention.

METHODS

Clinical data of those patients alive after the initial 6-month follow-up were re-evaluated. The primary outcome was a composite of death and major complications.

RESULTS

Out of 104 patients, 88 were re-evaluated with a median follow-up of 51 months. After the initial 6-month follow-up, the primary outcome occurred in 7 of 47 patients (15%) in the immediate-drainage group and 7 of 41 patients (17%) in the postponed-drainage group (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.33-2.28; P =0.78). Additional drainage procedures were performed in 7 patients (15%) versus 3 patients (7%) (RR 2.03; 95% CI 0.56-7.37; P =0.34). The median number of additional interventions was 0 (IQR 0-0) in both groups ( P =0.028). In the total follow-up, the median number of interventions was higher in the immediate-drainage group than in the postponed-drainage group (4 vs. 1, P =0.001). Eventually, 14 of 15 patients (93%) in the postponed-drainage group who were successfully treated in the initial 6-month follow-up with antibiotics and without any intervention remained without intervention. At the end of follow-up, pancreatic function and quality of life were similar.

CONCLUSIONS

Also, during long-term follow-up, a postponed-drainage approach using antibiotics in patients with infected necrotizing pancreatitis results in fewer interventions as compared with immediate drainage and should therefore be the preferred approach.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN33682933.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided drainage of early pancreatic necrotic collection: Single-center retrospective study

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided drainage is the standard of care for drainage of pancreatic necrosis. Though initially it was mainly used for drainage of only walled-off necrosis, recently, a few studies have also shown its safety in the management of acute necrotic collections. We did a retrospective study to evaluate the safety and efficacy of EUS-guided drainage in the early phase of pancreatitis as compared to interventions in the late phase.

METHODS

We retrieved baseline disease-related, procedure-related and outcome-related details of patients who underwent EUS-guided drainage of pancreatic necrosis. Patients were divided into early (≤ 28 days from onset of pancreatitis) or delayed (> 28 days) drainage groups. Both groups were compared for disease-related characteristics and outcomes.

RESULTS

Total 101 patients were included in the study. The mean age of included patients was 35.54 ± 13.58 years and 75 were male. Thirty-five patients (34.7%) underwent early drainage. In the early group, a majority of patients underwent intervention due to infected collection (88.6% vs. 18.2%; p < 0.001). More patients in the early group had < 30% wall formation (28.6% vs. 0%; p < 0.001) and > 30% solid debris within the collection (42.9% vs. 15.2%; p = 0.005). Patients in the early group were also more likely to require endoscopic necrosectomy (57.1% vs. 27.3%; p = 0.003) and additional percutaneous drainage (31.4% vs. 12.1%; p = 0.018). Overall, three patients in the early group and one patient in the delayed group had procedure-related complications. Four patients in the early group and one patient in the delayed group succumbed to illness (p = 0.029).

CONCLUSION

Though delayed interventions remain standard of care in the management of acute pancreatitis, some patients may require early intervention due to infected collection with deteriorating clinical status. Early EUS-guided interventions in such carefully selected patients have in similar clinical outcomes and complication rates compared to delayed intervention. However, such patients are more likely to require additional endoscopic or percutaneous interventions.

Time to think prime times for treatment of necrotizing pancreatitis: Pendulum conundrum

Pancreatic fluid collections (PFCs) typically develop as local complications of acute pancreatitis and complicate the clinical course of patients with acute pancreatitis and potentially fatal clinical outcomes. Interventions are required in cases of symptomatic walled-off necrosis (WON) (matured PFCs with necrosis) and pancreatic pseudocysts (matured PFCs without necrosis). In the management of necrotizing pancreatitis and WON, endoscopic ultrasound-guided transluminal drainage combined with on-demand endoscopic necrosectomy (i.e. the step-up approach) is increasingly used as a less invasive treatment modality compared with a surgical or percutaneous approach. Through the substantial research efforts and development of specific devices and stents (e.g. lumen-apposing metal stents), endoscopic techniques of PFC management have been standardized to some extent. However, there has been no consensus about timing of carrying out each treatment step; for instance, it is uncertain when direct endoscopic necrosectomy should be initiated and finished and when a plastic or metal stent should be removed following clinical treatment success. Despite emerging evidence for the effectiveness of noninterventional supportive treatment (e.g. antibiotics, nutritional support, irrigation of the cavity), there has been only limited data on the timing of starting and stopping the treatment. Large studies are required to optimize the timing of those treatment options and improve clinical outcomes of patients with PFCs. In this review, we summarize the current available evidence on the indications and timing of interventional and supportive treatment modalities for this patient population and discussed clinical unmet needs that should be addressed in future research.

Therapeutic Endoscopic Ultrasound: Current Indications and Future Perspectives

The transcendence of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) from diagnostic to therapeutic tool has revolutionized management options in the field of gastroenterology. Through EUS-guided methods, pancreaticobiliary obstruction can now be utilized as an alternative to surgical and percutaneous approaches. This modality also allows for gallbladder drainage in patients who are not ideal operative candidates. By utilizing its unique imaging capabilities, EUS also allows for drainage access points in cases of gastric outlet obstruction as well as windows to ablate pancreatic cystic lesions. As technical progress continues to evolve, interventional gastroenterology continues to push the envelope of minimally invasive therapeutic procedures in a multidisciplinary setting. In this comprehensive review, we set out to describe current indications and innovations through EUS.

Early versus late endoscopic treatment of pancreatic necrotic collections: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background and study aims Recently studies have compared early (<4 weeks) vs. late or standard (>4 weeks) endoscopic treatment of pancreatic necrotic collections (PNC) and have reported favorable results for early treatment. In this meta-analysis, we compared the efficacy and safety of early vs. late endoscopic treatment of PNC. Patients and methods We reviewed several databases from inception to September 30, 2021 to identify studies that compared early with late endoscopic treatment of PNC. Our outcomes of interest were adverse events (AEs), resolution of PNC, performance of direct endoscopic necrosectomy, need for further interventions, and mean number of endoscopic necrosectomy sessions. We calculated pooled risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for categorical variables and mean differences (MDs) with 95% CIs for continuous variables. Data were analyzed by random effect model. Heterogeneity was assessed by I 2 statistic. Results We included four studies with 427 patients. We found no significant difference in rates of AEs, RR (95% CI) 1.70 (range, 0.56-5.20), resolution of necrotic or fluid collections, RR (95% CI) 0.89 (range, 0.71-1.11), need for further interventions, RR (95% CI) 1.47 (range, 0.70-3.08), direct necrosectomy, RR (95% CI) 1.39 (range, 0.22-8.80), mortality, RR (95% CI) 2.37 (range, 0.26-21.72) and mean number of endoscopic necrosectomy sessions, MD (95% CI) 1.58 (range,-0.20-3.36) between groups. Conclusions Early endoscopic treatment of PNC can be considered for indications such as infected necrosis or sterile necrosis with symptoms or complications; however, future large multicenter studies are required to further evaluate its safety.

Endoscopic treatment of pancreatic necrosis: Still searching for perfection!

Over last few years, there has been a paradigm shift in the management of infected pancreatic necrosis with endoscopic and minimally invasive "step-up" management approach replacing open surgical necrosectomy. Because of being associated with reduced occurrence of new onset multi-organ failure, external pancreatic fistulae, shorter hospital stay, lower costs, and better quality of life compared with minimally invasive surgical approach, endoscopic "step-up" management approach is the preferred intervention for endoscopically accessible pancreatic necrotic collections at expert centers with endoscopic expertise. Development of lumen apposing metal stents and improvised accessories for interventional endoscopic ultrasound has revolutionized the endoscopic management of pancreatic necrosis making it more effective and safer. Despite these promising developments, endoscopic transluminal necrosectomy (ETN) remains the Achilles heel. Lack of dedicated endoscopic accessories, poor endoscopic visualization within the necrotic cavity, limited diameter of the instrument channel of the endoscope that is a significant impediment to remove large amount of necrotic material, and uncertain ability to avoid vessels and vital structures in the necrotic cavity are important limitations during endoscopic necrosectomy. Recent devices and solutions including use of cap assisted necrosectomy, over the scope grasper and powered endoscopic debridement device are welcome steps in our pursuit for an ideal, safer, and efficacious ETN device. This review will discuss recent advances as well as challenges in the endoscopic management of pancreatic necrosis.

Comparison of early and late intervention for necrotizing pancreatitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

Postponed open necrosectomy or minimally invasive intervention has become the treatment option for necrotizing pancreatitis. Nevertheless, several studies point to the safety and efficacy of early intervention for necrotizing pancreatitis. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare clinical outcomes of acute necrotizing pancreatitis between early and late intervention.

METHODS

Literature search was performed in multiple databases for articles that compared the safety and clinical outcomes of early (<4 weeks from the onset of pancreatitis) versus late intervention (≥4 weeks from the onset of pancreatitis) for necrotizing pancreatitis published up to August 31, 2022. The meta-analysis was performed to determine pooled odds ratio (OR) of mortality rate and procedure-related complications.

RESULTS

Fourteen studies were included in the final analysis. For open necrosectomy intervention, the overall pooled OR of mortality rate with the late intervention compared with early intervention was 7.09 (95% confidence interval [CI] 2.33-21.60; I2  = 54%; P = 0.0006). For minimally invasive intervention, the overall pooled OR of mortality rate with the late intervention compared with early intervention was 1.56 (95% CI 1.11-2.20; I2  = 0%; P = 0.01). The overall pooled OR of pancreatic fistula with the late minimally invasive intervention compared with early intervention was 2.49 (95% CI 1.75-3.52; I2  = 0%; P < 0.00001).

CONCLUSION

These results showed the benefit of late interventions in patients with necrotizing pancreatitis in both minimally invasive procedures and open necrosectomy. Late intervention is preferred in the management of necrotizing pancreatitis.

Early (<4 weeks) versus standard (≥4 weeks) endoscopic drainage of pancreatic walled-off fluid collections: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Previous studies have demonstrated that the ideal time for drainage of walled-off pancreatic fluid collections is 4 to 6 weeks after their development. However, some pancreatic collections, notably infected pancreatic fluid collections, require earlier drainage. Nevertheless, the optimal timing of the first intervention is unclear, and consensus data are sparse. The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of EUS-guided drainage of pancreatic fluid collections <4 weeks after development compared with ≥4 weeks after development.

METHODS

Search strategies were developed for PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases from inception. Outcomes of interest were technical success, defined as successful endoscopic placement of a lumen-apposing metal stent; clinical success, defined as a reduction in cystic collection size; and procedure-related adverse events. A random-effects model was used for analysis, and results are expressed as odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI).

RESULTS

Six studies (630 patients) were included in our final analysis, in which 182 patients (28.9%) were enrolled in the early drainage cohort and 448 patients (71.1%) in the standard drainage cohort. The mean fluid collection size was 143.4 ± 18.8 mm for the early cohort versus 128 ± 19.7 mm for the standard cohort. Overall, technical success was equal in both cohorts. Clinical success did not favor either standard drainage or early drainage (OR, .39; 95% CI, .13-1.22; P = .11). No statistically significant differences were found in overall adverse events (OR, 1.67; 95% CI, .63-4.45; P = .31) or mortality (OR, 1.14; 95% CI, .29-4.48; P = .85). Hospital stay was longer for patients undergoing early drainage compared with standard drainage (23.7 vs 16.0 days, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Both early (<4 weeks) and standard (≥4 weeks) drainage of walled-off pancreatic fluid collections offer similar technical and clinical outcomes. Patients requiring endoscopic drainage should not be delayed for 4 weeks.

Timing of minimally invasive step-up intervention for symptomatic pancreatic necrotic fluid collections: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Minimally invasive step-up interventions are now the standard treatment recommended by current guidelines for symptomatic pancreatic necrotic fluid collections (PNFC); however, it is controversial whether delayed treatment after four weeks should always be used in patients who have failed conservative treatment and whose condition has not improved or worsened. The aim of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the impacts of the different timing of interventions on the clinical outcomes and prognosis of patients with symptomatic PNEC requiring intervention.

METHODS

We searched Embase, Cochrane Library, PubMed and Web of Science databases to identify comparative studies assessing the safety and efficacy of early and postponed interventions in treating symptomatic PNFC.

PRIMARY OUTCOME

Mortality. Secondary outcomes included some major complications, need for further minimally invasive necrosectomy and length of hospital stay.

RESULTS

This meta-analysis included ten studies (2 RCTs and 8 observational studies) with a total of 1178 symptomatic PNFC patients who required intervention. Pooled results showed that there was no significant difference between early minimally invasive intervention and postponed intervention in mortality(OR 1.41, 95%CI 0.93-2.12;p = 0.10) and the incidence of early and late complications, but the early intervention group had a significantly increased need for further minimally invasive necrosectomy compared with postponed intervention (OR 2.04,95%CI 1.04-4.03; p = 0.04). There was no increase in length of stay for patients who received early intervention compared to postponed drainage (MD 3.53, 95% CI -4.20, 11.27; p = 0.37).

CONCLUSION

Intervention before four weeks should be considered for patients with PNFC complicated by persistent organ failure or infections, who have been treated conservatively to the maximum extent possible.

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.

The clinical outcome from early versus delayed minimally invasive intervention for infected pancreatic necrosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

While the management of infected pancreatic necrosis (IPN) has evolved in the last two decades with the adoption of minimally invasive interventions (drainage ± debridement), it is unknown whether the principle of delaying intervention inherited from the open surgery era still applies. The aim of the current study was to investigate the impact of the timing of minimally invasive intervention on the outcomes of patients with IPN requiring intervention.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, MEDLINE and Web of Science databases were searched for appropriate studies. The primary outcome of interest was hospital mortality, the secondary outcomes were the incidence of complications during the hospitalization, including new-onset organ failure, gastrointestinal fistula or perforation, bleeding and length of hospital or intensive care unit (ICU) stay.

RESULTS

Seven clinical studies were included with a total of 742 patients with IPN requiring intervention, of whom 321 received early intervention and 421 delayed intervention. Results from the meta-analysis showed that early minimally invasive intervention did not increase hospital mortality (odds ratio 1.65, 95% confidence interval 0.97-2.81; p = 0.06) but was associated with a remarkably prolonged hospital stay and an increased incidence of gastrointestinal fistula or perforation when compared with delayed intervention.

CONCLUSIONS

Although no firm conclusion can be drawn because of the quality of available studies, it does appear that timing of intervention is a risk factor for adverse outcomes and ought to be investigated more rigorously in prospective studies.

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.

Novel Resection System for Direct Endoscopic Necrosectomy of Walled-Off Pancreas Necrosis: Have We Conquered the Final Frontier?

Surgical necrosectomy has been the traditional management for pancreatic necrosis and is done using blunt dissection. However, lack of dedicated endoscopic accessories has been a major limitation in direct endoscopic necrosectomy (DEN). Standard endoscopic accessories cannot effectively remove large necrotic material. Also, diameter of instrument channel of the endoscope limits the ability to use large-diameter graspers that can remove large chunks of necrotic material. In this news, we discuss a recent study that has evaluated a new powered endoscopic debridement system for DEN.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of endoscopic ultrasound drainage for the management of fluid collections after pancreas surgery

BACKGROUND

The outcomes of endoscopic ultrasonography-guided drainage (EUSD) in treatment of pancreas fluid collection (PFC) after pancreas surgeries have not been evaluated systematically. The current systematic review and meta-analysis aim to evaluate the outcomes of EUSD in patients with PFC after pancreas surgery and compare it with percutaneous drainage (PCD).

METHODS

PubMed and Web of Science databases were searched for studies reporting outcomes EUSD in treatment of PFC after pancreas surgeries, from their inception until January 2022. Two meta-analyses were performed: (A) a systematic review and single-arm meta-analysis of EUSD (meta-analysis A) and (B) two-arm meta-analysis comparing the outcomes of EUSD and PCD (meta-analysis B). Pooled proportion of the outcomes in meta-analysis A as well as odds ratio (OR) and mean difference (MD) in meta-analysis B was calculated to determine the technical and clinical success rates, complications rate, hospital stay, and recurrence rate. ROBINS-I tool was used to assess the risk of bias.

RESULTS

The literature search retrieved 610 articles, 25 of which were eligible for inclusion. Included clinical studies comprised reports on 695 patients. Twenty-five studies (477 patients) were included in meta-analysis A and eight studies (356 patients) were included in meta-analysis B. In meta-analysis A, the technical and clinical success rates of EUSD were 94% and 87%, respectively, with post-procedural complications of 14% and recurrence rates of 9%. Meta-analysis B showed comparable technical and clinical success rates as well as complications rates between EUSD and PCD. EUSD showed significantly shorter duration of hospital stay compared to that of patients treated with PCD.

CONCLUSION

EUSD seems to be associated with high technical and clinical success rates, with low rates of procedure-related complications. Although EUSD leads to shorter hospital stay compared to PCD, the certainty of evidence was low in this regard.