Cumbersome removal of a lumen-apposing metal stent in a case of refractory pancreatic pseudocyst

Consensus guidelines on the diagnosis and treatment of pancreatic pseudocyst and walled-off necrosis from a Chinese multiple disciplinary team expert panel

Objective

To prepare a set of practice guidelines to standardize the entire process, from diagnosis to treatment and follow-up, for pancreatic pseudocysts and walled-off necrosis.

Methods

Thirty-six experts in the fields of digestive endoscopy, pancreatic surgery, interventional radiology, and others presented their opinions via discussions in online conferences by referring to the patient, intervention, comparison, and outcomes principles and then reviewed the evidence and statements using the Delphi method to reach a consensus. The consensus of >80% was finally achieved for the items.

Results

The experts discussed and reached a consensus on 29 statements including 10 categories: (1) definition and classification, (2) imaging and endoscopic diagnosis, (3) therapeutic implications, (4) surgical therapy, (5) percutaneous catheter drainage, (6) endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, (7) EUS-guided drainage, (8) stent selection for EUS-guided drainage, (9) complication related to stents for cyst drainage, and (10) drug treatment and follow-up.

Conclusion

This consensus based on the clinical experience of experts in various fields and international evidence-based medicine further standardizes the multidisciplinary diagnosis and treatment processes for pancreatic pseudocysts and walled-off necrosis.

The role of solid debris in endoscopic ultrasound-guided drainage of walled-off necrosis: A large cohort study

BACKGROUND AND AIM

The effect of solid debris on walled-off necrosis (WON) drainage remains unknown. Our study evaluated the role of solid debris in endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided drainage of WON compared lumen-apposing metal stent (LAMS) with double-pigtail plastic stent (DPPS).

METHODS

We retrospectively evaluated consecutive patients with WON who underwent EUS-guided drainage in our endoscopic center over a 9-year period. The amount of solid debris in WON was assessed with computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging and EUS images.

RESULTS

From 2011 to 2019, 84 WON patients were included. In WON with < 20% solid debris, the short-term clinical success of LAMSs (96.8%) was significantly higher than DPPSs (66.7%) (P = 0.03), and LAMSs were safer than DPPSs with less early adverse events (P = 0.02) and late adverse events (P = 0.03). On multivariable analysis, DPPS (odds ratio [OR], 0.16; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.04-0.65; P = 0.01) and solid debris > 40% (OR, 0.11; 95% CI, 0.02-0.62; P = 0.01) were the predictors for failure of resolution of WON after adjusting for age and cyst size. The number of DPPSs used was significantly higher than LAMSs in managing WONs (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

For WON with < 20% solid debris, LAMSs might superior to DPPSs in terms of efficacy and safety.

Advancements in the endoscopic treatment of pancreatic fluid collections

Endoscopic drainage of pancreatic fluid collections (PFCs) with fewer complications and less trauma has gradually replaced surgery or percutaneous drainage to become the first-line treatment for PFCs. In recent years, the differential efficacy of various stent techniques to drain different types of PFCs has been controversial. This review summarizes the clinical applications of endoscopic ultrasound-guided stent placement for PFCs drainage.

Lumen-apposing metal stents in management of pancreatic fluid collections: The nobody's land of removal timing

Pancreatic fluid collections (PFCs) develop as a result of damage to the major or peripheral pancreatic ducts, complication due to acute or chronic pancreatitis, trauma or iatrogenic causes. PFCs include pancreatic pseudocysts (PPs) and walled-off necrosis (WON). PFCs usually resolve spontaneously and are asymptomatic, but if they persist, increase in dimension or became symptomatics, therapeutic intervention is required. Available therapeutic interventions include surgical, percutaneous, and endoscopic drainage. The endoscopic approach is nowadays considered the first line-treatment of PFCs due to various advantages when compared with surgical or percutaneous drainage: decreased morbidity, length of hospital stay, and reduced costs. In the last few years, the endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided transmural drainage, initially with plastic stents, gained popularity. More recently, fully covered self-expanding lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMS) have been demonstrated to be both, safe and effective with high clinical and technical success, reducing the risk of perforation, peritoneal leakage, migration and facilitating the drainage of necrotic contents. In the last few years, several studies evaluating the safety and efficacy of LAMS and their differences with plastic stents have been performed, but literature on the removal timing of this device and associated complications is still limited. The aim of this review is to analyze studies reporting information about the retrieval timing of LAMS and the related adverse events.

Comparison of three different stents for endoscopic ultrasound-guided drainage of pancreatic fluid collection: A large retrospective study

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Endoscopic transmural drainage has been recognized as the first-line treatment for pancreatic fluid collection (PFC). Currently, three different types of stents have been extensively applied, including double pigtail plastic stent (PS), fully covered self-expanding metal stent (FCSEMS), and novel lumen-apposing metal stent (LAMS). Nonetheless, limited data are available about the comparison among them in terms of their clinical outcomes and safety for endoscopic ultrasound-guided drainage of PFC.

METHODS

The current retrospective study was carried on 160 PFC patients undergoing endoscopic ultrasound-guided drainage from 2010 to 2018 at a single tertiary care center. Patients were divided into three groups based on different drainage ways: drainage using PS, FCSEMS, or LAMS.

RESULTS

A total of 160 PFC patients (104 male and 56 female) were analyzed in this retrospective study, including 62 patients drained with PS, 28 with FCSEMS, and 70 with LAMS. Typically, the technical success (93.5% vs 96.4% vs 94.3%, P = 1.000) and treatment success rates (84.6% vs 85.2% vs 89.2%, P = 0.763) were similar between PS, FCSEMS, and LAMS. With regard to major adverse events, four patients (FCSEMS: n = 2 and LAMS: n = 2) with pseudoaneurysms developed severe bleeding; among them, 75% (3/4) of patients were observed within 2 weeks after intervention, and two patients in LAMS group died.

CONCLUSIONS

There are no significant differences in the clinical outcomes of PFC patients treated with PS, FCSEMS, or LAMS. Nonetheless, severe (or even fatal) bleeding may occur at the early stage after metal stent placement, which should be paid particular attention to.