Endoscopic therapy for infected pancreatic necrosis using fully covered self-expandable metal stents: combination of transluminal necrosectomy, transluminal and percutaneous drainage

Efficacy and safety of endoscopic drainage versus percutaneous drainage for pancreatic fluid collection; a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Pancreatic fluid collections (PFC) are debris or fluid of the pancreas that needs to be drained out. This may result from surgery or necrotizing pancreatitis. This meta-analysis compared the outcomes of PFC through endoscopic and percutaneous interventions.

METHODS

A medical database was searched up to June 2022, comparing the outcomes of endoscopic drainage (ED) and percutaneous drainage (PD) for the PFC. Eligible studies reporting clinical and technical success and adverse events were selected.

RESULTS

Seventeen studies with 1170 patients were included for meta-analysis, of which 543 patients underwent ED and 627 underwent PD. The odd ratio (OR) of technical success was 0.81 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.31, 2.1) and clinical success was in the favor of the ED group at OR 2.23 (95% CI 1.45, 3.41). Adverse events OR 0.62 (95% CI 0.27, 1.39) and stent migration OR 0.61 (95% CI 0.10, 3.88) were the same in both groups, but hospital stay pooled mean difference of 15.02 days (95% CI 9.86, 20.18), mortality OR 0.24 (95% CI 0.09, 0.67), and re-interventions OR 0.25 (95% CI 0.16, 0.40) favored ED.

CONCLUSIONS

ED is safe and efficient for PFC with higher clinical success, lower mortality rate, hospital stay, and re-interventions compared with PD.

Management of Pancreatic Fluid Collections: An Evidence-based Approach

Managing pancreatic fluid collections (PFCs) remains a challenge for many clinicians. Recently, significant progress has been made in the therapy of PFCs, including improvements in technology and devices, as well as in the development of minimally invasive endoscopic techniques, many of which are proven less traumatic when compared with surgical options and more efficacious when compared with percutaneous techniques. This review will explore latest developments in the management of PFCs and how they incorporate into the current treatment algorithm.

Is endoscopic drainage better than percutaneous drainage for patients with pancreatic fluid collections? A comparative meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

though endoscopic and percutaneous drainage have emerged as the most common minimally invasive treatments for pancreatic fluid collections (PFCs), estimates of therapeutic superiority for either treatment have yielded inconsistent results.

METHODS

we retrieved studies comparing the efficacy and safety of these two approaches in PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library. Primary outcomes were differences in technical success, clinical success, and adverse events, and secondary outcomes included differences in reintervention, need for surgical intervention, mortality, recurrence rate, and length of hospital stay.

RESULTS

there were nonsignificant differences in technical success rate (OR 0.54; CI: 0.15-1.86), clinical success rate (OR 1.39; CI: 0.82-2.37), adverse events rate (OR 1.21; CI: 0.70-2.11), mortality rate (OR 0.81; CI: 0.30-2.16), and recurrence rate (OR 1.94; CI 0.74-5.07) between the two groups. Reintervention rate (OR 0.19; CI: 0.08-0.45) and percentage of need for surgical intervention (OR 0.08; CI: 0.02-0.39) in the endoscopic drainage group were much lower than in the percutaneous drainage group. Total length of hospital stay (standard mean difference [SMD] -0.60; CI: -0.84 to -0.36) in the endoscopic drainage group was shorter; however, there was a nonsignificant difference in the length of post-procedure hospital stay (SMD: -0.30; CI: -1.05-0.44) between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

endoscopic drainage is effective for PFCs, and superior in terms of lower reintervention and need for surgery rates over traditional percutaneous drainage, despite a similar clinical efficacy and safety compared with traditional percutaneous drainage.

Management of Inflammatory Fluid Collections and Walled-Off Pancreatic Necrosis. ACTA ACUST UNITED AC. 2017;15:576-586. [PMID: 29103188 DOI: 10.1007/s11938-017-0161-z]

OPINION STATEMENT

Pancreatic fluid collections are a frequent complication of acute pancreatitis. The revised Atlanta criterion classifies chronic fluid collections into pseudocysts and walled-off pancreatic necrosis (WON). Symptomatic PFCs require drainage options that include surgical, percutaneous, or endoscopic approaches. With the advent of newer and more advanced endoscopic tools and expertise, minimally invasive endoscopic drainage has now become the preferred approach. An endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS)-guided approach for pancreatic fluid collection drainage is now the preferred endoscopic approach. Both plastic stents and metal stents are efficacious and safe; however, metal stents may offer an advantage, especially in infected pseudocysts and in WON. Direct endoscopic necrosectomy is often required in WON. Lumen apposing metal stents allow for direct endoscopic necrosectomy and debridement through the stent lumen and are now preferred in these patients. Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography with pancreatic duct exploration should be performed concurrent to PFC drainage in patients with suspected PD disruption. PD disruption is associated with an increased severity of pancreatitis, an increased risk of recurrent attacks of pancreatitis and long-term complications, and a decreased rate of PFC resolution after drainage. Ideally, pancreatic ductal disruption should be bridged with endoscopic stenting.

Predictive factors of pancreatic necrosectomy following percutaneous catheter drainage as a primary treatment of patients with infected necrotizing pancreatitis

Pancreatic necrosectomy (PN) following percutaneous catheter drainage (PCD) is an effective method of treating patients with necrotizing pancreatitis, however, the predictive factors for PN after PCD have not yet been identified. A total of 74 patients with suspected infected necrotizing pancreatitis (INP) and peripancreatic fluid collection were enrolled in the current study between October 2010 and October 2015. These patients received ultrasound or computer topography guided PCD followed by PN. Patients were divided into two groups: i) A PCD-alone group (n=32) and ii) a PCD+necrosectomy group (n=42). Multivariate analysis revealed that reduction of fluid collection after PCD (P=0.021), maximum extent of peripancreatic necrosis (P=0.019) and multiple organ failure (P=0.017) were predictors of PN following PCD. A prediction model was produced to evaluate the aforementioned factors and indicated that the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.827. The probability of successful PCD was determined using a prognostic nomogram. Thus, the results of the current study demonstrated that a reduction of fluid collection by <50% following PCD, a maximum extent of peripancreatic necrosis of >50% and multiple organ failure are effective predictors of necrosectomy in patients with INP following PCD failure.