Comparison Between Lumen-Apposing Metal Stents and Plastic Stents in Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Drainage of Pancreatic Fluid Collection: A Meta-analysis and Systematic Review

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.

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.

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.

Lumen-Apposing Metal Stent With and Without Concurrent Double-Pigtail Plastic Stent for Pancreatic Fluid Collections: A Comparative Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background

Lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMSs) are often used to drain pancreatic fluid collections (PFCs). However, adverse events, such as stent obstruction, infection, or bleeding, have been reported. Concurrent double-pigtail plastic stent (DPPS) deployment has been suggested to prevent these adverse events. This meta-analysis aimed to compare the clinical outcomes of LAMS with DPPS vs. LAMS alone in the drainage of PFCs.

Methods

An extensive search was conducted in the literature to include all the eligible studies that compared LAMS with DPPS vs. LAMS alone for drainage of PFCs. Pooled risk ratios (RRs) with the 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were obtained within a random-effect model. The outcomes were technical and clinical success, and overall adverse events, including stent migration and occlusion, bleeding, infection, and perforation.

Results

Five studies involving 281 patients with PFCs (137 received LAMS plus DPPS vs. 144 received LAMS alone) were included. LAMS plus DPPS group was associated with comparable technical success (RR: 1.01, 95% CI: 0.97 - 1.04, P = 0.70) and clinical success (RR: 1.01, 95% CI: 0.88 - 1.17). Lower trends of overall adverse events (RR: 0.64, 95% CI: 0.32 - 1.29), stent occlusion (RR: 0.63, 95% CI: 0.27 - 1.49), infection (RR: 0.50, 95% CI: 0.15 - 1.64), and perforation (RR: 0.42, 95% CI: 0.06 - 2.78) were observed in LAMS with DPPS group compared to LAMS alone but without a statistical significance. Stent migration (RR: 1.29, 95% CI: 0.50 - 3.34) and bleeding (RR: 0.65, 95% CI: 0.25 - 1.72) were similar between the two groups.

Conclusions

Deployment of DPPS across LAMS for drainage of PFCs has no significant impact on efficacy or safety outcomes. Randomized, controlled trials are necessary to confirm our study results, especially in walled-off pancreatic necrosis.

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.

Does a coaxial double pigtail stent reduce adverse events after lumen apposing metal stent placement for pancreatic fluid collections? A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Lumen apposing metal stents (LAMSs) have a higher clinical success rate for managing pancreatic fluid collections. But they are associated with adverse events (AEs) like bleeding, migration, buried stent, occlusion, and infection. It has been hypothesized that placing a double pigtail stent (DPS) within LAMS may mitigate these AEs. The present systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to compare the outcome and AEs associated with LAMS with or without a coaxial DPS (LAMS-DPS).

Methods

A comprehensive literature search of three databases from January 2010 to August 2022 was conducted for studies comparing the outcome and AEs of LAMS alone and LAMS-DPS. Pooled incidence and risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for all the dichotomous outcomes.

Results

Overall, eight studies (n = 460) were included in the final analysis. The clinical success rate (RR 1.00, 95% CI: 0.87-1.14) and the risk of overall AEs (RR 1.60, 95% CI: 0.95-2.68) remained comparable between both groups. There was no difference in the risk of bleeding between LAMS alone and LAMS-DPS (RR 1.80, 95% CI: 0.83-3.88). Individual analysis of other AEs, including infection, stent migration, occlusion, and reintervention, showed no difference in the risk between both procedures.

Conclusion

The present meta-analysis shows that coaxial DPS within LAMS may not reduce AE rates or improve clinical outcomes. Further larger studies, including patients with walled-off necrosis, are required to demonstrate the benefit of coaxial DPS within LAMS.

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.

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.

Adverse events associated with AXIOS stents: Insights from the manufacturer and user facility device experience database

Background and Objectives:

Materials and Methods:

Results:

Conclusions:

[Chronic pancreatitis: update diagnostic and therapeutic concepts]

INTRODUCTION

Chronic pancreatitis (CP) is a frequent cause for hospitalization and is associated with impaired quality of life and reduced overall survival. The German Society for Gastroenterology (DGVS) has recently completed the S3-Guideline "Pancreatitis" that summarizes key findings on epidemiology, diagnostic and therapeutic concepts for acute and chronic pancreatitis. Here, we recapitulate the most relevant findings for clinicians regarding CP.

RESULTS

The most common cause of CP is chronic alcohol abuse, other causes are hereditary pancreatitis, autoimmune pancreatitis, hyperparathyroidism and idiopathic forms. Apart from the classical hereditary pancreatitis (PRSS1 mutation), a number of genetic associations have been discovered over the last years that are associated with an increased risk to develop idiopathic CP. The conservative management of CP is focused on the appropriate management of exocrine and endocrine insufficiency, and the prevention and treatment of secondary complications such as osteoporosis, vitamin deficiencies and malnutrition. Local complications (bile duct stenosis, duodenal stenosis, pseudocysts and chronic pain) should be managed in multidisciplinary teams in specialized pancreas centres with expert surgeons, radiologists and gastroenterologists. Infected or symptomatic pseudocysts should be primarily addressed by endoscopic drainage. In contrast, patients with chronic pain, dilated pancreas duct and opioid use should be considered for early surgical intervention.

CONCLUSION

Chronic pancreatitis is associated with increased morbidity and mortality and often leads to hospital admissions. The clinical management of complex patients with local complications requires an interdisciplinary approach to tailor available therapeutic modalities depending on the stage of the disease and pre-existing comorbidities.

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.