Treatment of pancreatic strictures

Percutaneous transluminal angioplasty balloons for endoscopic ultrasound-guided pancreatic duct interventions

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided main pancreatic duct (PD) access may be used when conventional endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) techniques fail. The use of a percutaneous transluminal angioplasty balloon (PTAB), originally developed for vascular interventions, can be used to facilitate transmural (e.g., transgastric) PD access and to dilate high-grade pancreatic strictures.

AIM

To describe the technique, efficacy, and safety of PTABs for EUS-guided PD interventions.

METHODS

Patients who underwent EUS with use of a PTAB from March 2011 to August 2021 were retrospectively identified from a tertiary care medical center supply database. PTABs included 3-4 French angioplasty catheters with 3-4 mm balloons designed to use over a 0.018-inch guidewire. The primary outcome was technical success. Secondary outcomes included incidence of adverse events (AEs) and need for early reintervention.

RESULTS

A total of 23 patients were identified (48% female, mean age 55.8 years). Chronic pancreatitis was the underlying etiology in 13 (56.5%) patients, surgically altered anatomy (SAA) with stricture in 7 (30.4%), and SAA with post-operative leak in 3 (13.0%). Technical success was achieved in 20 (87%) cases. Overall AE rate was 26% (n = 6). All AEs were mild and included 1 pancreatic duct leak, 2 cases of post-procedure pancreatitis, and 3 admissions for post-procedural pain. No patients required early re-intervention.

CONCLUSION

EUS-guided use of PTABs for PD access and/or stricture management is feasible with an acceptable safety profile and can be considered in patients when conventional ERCP cannulation fails.

Approach to management of pancreatic strictures: the gastroenterologist's perspective

Pancreatic strictures represent a complex clinical problem which often requires multidisciplinary management with a team of gastroenterologists, surgeons and radiologists. Dominant strictures are largely due to inflammatory processes of the pancreas like chronic pancreatitis. However, differentiating benign from malignant processes of the pancreas, leading to strictures is imperative and remains a challenge. With advances in endoscopic management, options for therapy include endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), and endoscopic ultrasound-guided pancreatic drainage (EUS-PD) in situations where ERCP is not feasible or fails. However, endoscopic therapy is suited for a select group of patients and surgery remains key to management in many patients. In this narrative review, we look at the gastroenterologist's perspective and approach to pancreatic ductal strictures, including endoscopic and surgical management.

Management of Benign and Malignant Pancreatic Duct Strictures

The diagnosis and management of pancreatic strictures, whether malignant or benign, remain challenging. The last 2 decades have seen dramatic progress in terms of both advanced imaging and endoscopic therapy. While plastic stents remain the cornerstone of the treatment of benign strictures, the advent of fully covered metal stents has initiated a new wave of interest in calibrating the pancreatic duct with fewer sessions. In malignant disease, palliation remains the priority and further data are necessary before offering systematic pancreatic stenting.

Endoscopic sphincterotomy (ES) may not alter the natural history of idiopathic recurrent acute pancreatitis (IRAP)

BACKGROUND

The role of endoscopic sphincterotomy (ES) in idiopathic recurrent acute pancreatitis (IRAP) is unclear. We hypothesized that ES will alter the natural history of IRAP.

METHODS

We retrospectively studied the course of 50 IRAP patients from the NAPS2 study from UPMC based on whether they underwent ES or were managed medically. Data included age at first AP, rate of attacks, and history of severe AP. Primary outcomes were any subsequent AP and rate of attacks; secondary outcome was chronic pancreatitis (CP) diagnosis during follow-up. Similar data was abstracted for alcoholic RAP.

RESULTS

When compared with medically managed IRAP patients (n = 24, 48%), those who underwent ES (n = 26, 52%) had similar rate of attacks/year (median 1.54 vs. 1.41, p = 0.63), but significantly more attacks (median 3 vs. 2, p = 0.04) at baseline. During follow-up (median 7 years), rate of attacks/year decreased significantly, and were similar in both groups (median 0.16 vs. 0, p = ns). Predictors for rate of attacks during follow-up were sex (ratio 0.54 in females, p = 0.045) and rate of attacks at baseline (ratio for doubling 1.2, p = 0.025), but not ES. Alcoholic RAP patients had lower rate of attacks at baseline, but higher risk of subsequent AP (80 vs. 46%, p = 0.021) and rate of attacks/year (median 0.25 vs. 0, p = 0.016) during follow-up. Progression to CP occurred in IRAP and ES, medically managed IRAP, and alcoholic RAP in 27%, 8% and 27% respectively (p = ns).

CONCLUSIONS

ES, chosen in patients with higher burden of attacks, does not seem to impact the natural history of IRAP.