Lumen-apposing metal stents with or without coaxial plastic stent placement for the management of pancreatic fluid collections

Analysis of Adverse Events of Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Lumen-Apposing Metal Stent Placement: Insights Across Various Indications and Techniques

Background

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided lumen-apposing metal stent (LAMS) placement is increasingly being used in lieu of surgery for multiple procedures, including transmural fluid drainage. However, few studies have evaluated adverse events (AEs) associated with LAMS placement. Our aim was to characterize the rates of AEs associated with several LAMS placement strategies across different procedures and indications.

Methods

A single-center retrospective cross-sectional study was conducted on patients who underwent EUS-guided LAMS placement between 2015 and 2023 at a single institution. Technical and clinical success rates and rates of early and late AEs were analyzed. Comparisons of AE rates were determined for patients who had LAMS dilation versus those without dilation, patients who had plastic stent placement in addition to LAMS placement versus those with no plastic stents, and patients who had combined dilation and plastic stent procedures versus those with LAMS dilation only.

Results

A total of 243 patients underwent EUS-guided LAMS interventions: 110 (45.3%) women and 133 (54.7%) men (mean age 53.7 ± 15.9 years). There were 96 (39.5%) patients who had at least one AE. Abdominal pain was the most common early and late AE. Plastic stent placement alongside LAMS placement was associated with a significantly higher rate of overall AEs (48.3% vs 29.9%; P = 0.009), late AEs (33% vs 17.9%; P = 0.021), and stent occlusion (5.7% vs 0%; P = 0.046). LAMS dilation was associated with higher rates of late AEs (34.2% vs 20.6%; P = 0.022) and stent occlusion (6.2% vs 1.0%; P = 0.049).

Conclusions

LAMS placement showed high technical and clinical success rates across different indications with mostly mild AEs, suggesting that LAMSs may be safe and effective for pancreatic and biliary drainage.

EUS-guided Drainage of Pancreatic Fluid Collections Using Lumen Apposing Metal Stents With or Without Coaxial Plastic Stents: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Co-axial plastic double pigtail stents (DPSs) are commonly placed through lumen apposing metal stents (LAMS) in patients with pancreatic fluid collections (PFCs) to decrease the risk of adverse events. In this meta-analysis, we have compared the outcomes of LAMS plus co-axial DPS versus LAMS alone in patients with PFCs.

METHODS

We reviewed several databases to identify the studies that compared outcomes of LAMS with DPS to LAMS without DPS in the treatment of PFCs. Our outcomes of interest were overall adverse events, clinical success and individual adverse events such as stent (LAMS) migration, stent occlusion, bleeding, and infection. We calculated pooled risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the analysis of outcomes. We used a random effects model to analyze the data. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I 2 statistic.

RESULTS

We included 10 studies with 685 patients. Rate of overall adverse events was significantly lower in the LAMS+DPS group compared with LAMS alone, RR (95% CI) 0.58 (0.40, 0.87). There was no significant difference in the rate of clinical success between groups, RR (95% CI) 1.03 (0.94, 1.13). We found no significant difference in rate of stent occlusion between groups. Rate of infection was significantly lower in LAMS+DPS group, RR (95% CI) 0.46 (0.24, 0.85). There was no significant difference in rate of bleeding and stent (LAMS) migration between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Addition of co-axial DPS to LAMS decreases the risk of adverse events in patients with PFCs and should be considered in all patients with PFCs.

The i-EUS consensus on the management of pancreatic fluid collections - Part 1

Pancreatic fluid collections (PFCs), including pancreatic pseudocysts (PPs) and walled-off pancreatic necrosis (WON), are common complications of pancreatitis and pancreatic surgery. Historically, the treatment of these conditions has relied on surgical and radiological approaches; however, it has later shifted toward an endoscopy-based approach. With the development of dedicated lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMS), interventional Endoscopic Ultrasound (EUS)-guided procedures have become the standard approach for PFC drainage. However, there is still limited consensus on several aspects of the multidisciplinary management of PFCs. The interventional endoscopy and ultrasound (i-EUS) group is an Italian network of clinicians and scientists with special interest in biliopancreatic interventional endoscopy, especially interventional EUS. This manuscript describes the first part of the results of a consensus conference organized by i-EUS with the aim of providing evidence-based guidance on aspects such as indications for treating PFCs, the timing of intervention, and different technical strategies for managing patients with PFCs.

Coaxial plastic stent placement within lumen-apposing metal stents for the management of pancreatic fluid collections: a systemic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Coaxial placement of double pigtail plastic stents (DPPS) through lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMSs) is commonly performed to reduce the risk of LAMS obstruction, bleeding, and stent migration when used for the drainage of pancreatic fluid collections (PFCs). A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed to compare the outcomes of LAMS alone and LAMS with coaxial DPPS placement in the management of PFCs.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted to identify studies comparing LAMS and LAMS/DPPS for PFC drainage. Primary outcomes included the rate of clinical success, overall adverse events (AEs), bleeding, infection, occlusion, and stent migration. The pooled effect size was summarized using a random-effects model and compared between LAMS and LAMS/DPPS by calculating odds ratios (ORs).

RESULTS

Nine studies involving 709 patients were identified (338 on LAMS and 371 on LAMS/DPPS). LAMS/DPPS was associated with a reduced risk of stent obstruction (OR, 0.59; p=0.004) and infection (OR, 0.55; p=0.001). No significant differences were observed in clinical success (OR, 0.96; p=0.440), overall AEs (OR, 0.57; p=0.060), bleeding (OR, 0.61; p=0.120), or stent migration (OR, 1.03; p=0.480).

CONCLUSIONS

Coaxial DPPS for LAMS drainage of PFCs is associated with a reduced risk of stent occlusion and infection; however, no difference was observed in the overall AE rates or bleeding.

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.