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.

Safety and efficacy of lumen-apposing metal stents and double-pigtail plastic stents for endoscopic ultrasound-guided drainage of walled-off necrosis; a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Patients with walled-off necrosis (WON) are still challenging to treat safely and effectively. Recently, double-pigtail plastic stents (DPS), bi-flanged metallic stents (BFMS), and lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMS) have been employed with endoscopic ultrasound-guided (EUS-guided) drainage. However, there is little solid evidence to support the effectiveness and safety of using stents. This study aims to compare the outcomes of the LAMS and the PS.

METHOD

Till July 2022, a thorough database search was done, and studies that met the criteria were chosen. By using the RevMan software, the technical and clinical success and other secondary outcomes were calculated. Subgroup analysis was performed between the LAMS and the BFMS.

RESULTS

Fifteen studies (two randomized controlled trials and thirteen observational) with 687 patients receiving metal stents and 771 patients receiving plastic stents were selected for final analysis. There was no significant risk of bias or publication bias. The odds ratios (OR) for technical and clinical success were 0.36 (95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.08, 1.52) and 2.26 (95%CI 1.62, 3.15), respectively. The OR for overall adverse events was 0.74 (95% CI 0.41, 1.34). In subgroup analysis, the LAMS and the BFMS showed the same outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Compared to DPS, LAMS had better clinical outcomes and fewer side effects when treating patients with WON.