Management of walled-off necrosis with nasocystic irrigation with hydrogen peroxide versus biflanged metal stent: randomized controlled trial

Efficacy and Safety of Anhydrous Ethanol-Assisted Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Transluminal Necrosectomy in Infected Necrotizing Pancreatitis

AIM

Endoscopic necrosectomy has become the first-line treatment option for infectious necrotizing pancreatitis (INP), especially walled-off necrosis. However, the problems, including operation-related adverse events (AEs) and the need for multiple endoscopic procedures, have not been effectively addressed. We sought to evaluate the clinical safety and efficacy of anhydrous ethanol-assisted endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided transluminal necrosectomy in INP.

METHODS

A single-center observational cohort study of INP patients was conducted in a tertiary endoscopic center. Anhydrous ethanol-assisted EUS-guided transluminal necrosectomy (modified group) and conventional endoscopic necrosectomy (conventional group) were retrospectively compared in INP patients. The technical and clinical success rates, operation time, perioperative AEs, postoperative hospital stay, and recurrent INP rates were analyzed, respectively.

RESULTS

A total of 55 patients were enrolled. No statistically significant differences were observed between the two groups regarding baseline characteristics. Compared to patients in the conventional group, patients in the modified group demonstrated significantly reduced times of endoscopic transluminal necrosectomies (1.96 ± 0.89 vs. 2.73 ± 0.98; P = 0.004) and comparable perioperative AEs (P = 0.35). Meanwhile, no statistically significant differences were observed in the technical and clinical success rates (P = 0.92), operation time (P = 0.59), postoperative hospital stay (P = 0.36), and recurrent INP rates (P = 1.00) between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

Anhydrous ethanol-assisted EUS-guided transluminal necrosectomy seemed safe and effective in treating INP. Compared with conventional endoscopic transluminal necrosectomy, its advantage was mainly in reducing the number of endoscopic necrosectomies without increasing perioperative AEs.

Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Drainage of Pancreatic Fluid Collections: Not All Queries Are Already Solved

Pancreatic fluid collections (PFCs) are well-known complications of acute pancreatitis. The overinfection of these collections leads to a worsening of the prognosis with an increase in the morbidity and mortality rate. The primary strategy for managing infected pancreatic necrosis (IPN) or symptomatic PFCs is a minimally invasive step-up approach, with endosonography-guided (EUS-guided) transmural drainage and debridement as the preferred and less invasive method. Different stents are available to drain PFCs: self-expandable metal stents (SEMSs), double pigtail stents (DPPSs), or lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMSs). In particular, LAMSs are useful when direct endoscopic necrosectomy is needed, as they allow easy access to the necrotic cavity; however, the rate of adverse events is not negligible, and to date, the superiority over DPPSs is still debated. Moreover, the timing for necrosectomy, the drainage technique, and the concurrent medical management are still debated. In this review, we focus attention on indications, timing, techniques, complications, and particularly on aspects that remain under debate concerning the EUS-guided drainage of PFCs.

Time to think prime times for treatment of necrotizing pancreatitis: Pendulum conundrum

Pancreatic fluid collections (PFCs) typically develop as local complications of acute pancreatitis and complicate the clinical course of patients with acute pancreatitis and potentially fatal clinical outcomes. Interventions are required in cases of symptomatic walled-off necrosis (WON) (matured PFCs with necrosis) and pancreatic pseudocysts (matured PFCs without necrosis). In the management of necrotizing pancreatitis and WON, endoscopic ultrasound-guided transluminal drainage combined with on-demand endoscopic necrosectomy (i.e. the step-up approach) is increasingly used as a less invasive treatment modality compared with a surgical or percutaneous approach. Through the substantial research efforts and development of specific devices and stents (e.g. lumen-apposing metal stents), endoscopic techniques of PFC management have been standardized to some extent. However, there has been no consensus about timing of carrying out each treatment step; for instance, it is uncertain when direct endoscopic necrosectomy should be initiated and finished and when a plastic or metal stent should be removed following clinical treatment success. Despite emerging evidence for the effectiveness of noninterventional supportive treatment (e.g. antibiotics, nutritional support, irrigation of the cavity), there has been only limited data on the timing of starting and stopping the treatment. Large studies are required to optimize the timing of those treatment options and improve clinical outcomes of patients with PFCs. In this review, we summarize the current available evidence on the indications and timing of interventional and supportive treatment modalities for this patient population and discussed clinical unmet needs that should be addressed in future research.

Endoscopic treatment of pancreatic necrosis: Still searching for perfection!

Over last few years, there has been a paradigm shift in the management of infected pancreatic necrosis with endoscopic and minimally invasive "step-up" management approach replacing open surgical necrosectomy. Because of being associated with reduced occurrence of new onset multi-organ failure, external pancreatic fistulae, shorter hospital stay, lower costs, and better quality of life compared with minimally invasive surgical approach, endoscopic "step-up" management approach is the preferred intervention for endoscopically accessible pancreatic necrotic collections at expert centers with endoscopic expertise. Development of lumen apposing metal stents and improvised accessories for interventional endoscopic ultrasound has revolutionized the endoscopic management of pancreatic necrosis making it more effective and safer. Despite these promising developments, endoscopic transluminal necrosectomy (ETN) remains the Achilles heel. Lack of dedicated endoscopic accessories, poor endoscopic visualization within the necrotic cavity, limited diameter of the instrument channel of the endoscope that is a significant impediment to remove large amount of necrotic material, and uncertain ability to avoid vessels and vital structures in the necrotic cavity are important limitations during endoscopic necrosectomy. Recent devices and solutions including use of cap assisted necrosectomy, over the scope grasper and powered endoscopic debridement device are welcome steps in our pursuit for an ideal, safer, and efficacious ETN device. This review will discuss recent advances as well as challenges in the endoscopic management of pancreatic necrosis.

Endoscopic transluminal drainage and necrosectomy for infected necrotizing pancreatitis: Progress and challenges

Infected necrotizing pancreatitis (INP) represents a severe condition in patients with acute pancreatitis. Invasive interventions are recommended in symptomatic INP. Growing evidence has suggested interventional strategies of INP evolving from traditional surgery to minimally invasive step-up endoscopic procedures. However, there is still no standardized protocol for endoscopic interventions. Recently, various studies have been published about the endoscopic management of INP. This article reviews published articles and guidelines to present the progress and challenges of endoscopic transluminal drainage and necrosectomy in INP.

Endoscopic transluminal drainage and necrosectomy for infected necrotizing pancreatitis: Progress and challenges

Infected necrotizing pancreatitis (INP) represents a severe condition in patients with acute pancreatitis. Invasive interventions are recommended in symptomatic INP. Growing evidence has suggested interventional strategies of INP evolving from traditional surgery to minimally invasive step-up endoscopic procedures. However, there is still no standardized protocol for endoscopic interventions. Recently, various studies have been published about the endoscopic management of INP. This article reviews published articles and guidelines to present the progress and challenges of endoscopic transluminal drainage and necrosectomy in INP.

Endoscopic transluminal drainage and necrosectomy for infected necrotizing pancreatitis: Progress and challenges

Infected necrotizing pancreatitis (INP) represents a severe condition in patients with acute pancreatitis. Invasive interventions are recommended in symptomatic INP. Growing evidence has suggested interventional strategies of INP evolving from traditional surgery to minimally invasive step-up endoscopic procedures. However, there is still no standardized protocol for endoscopic interventions. Recently, various studies have been published about the endoscopic management of INP. This article reviews published articles and guidelines to present the progress and challenges of endoscopic transluminal drainage and necrosectomy in INP.

Supportive treatment during the periprocedural period of endoscopic treatment for pancreatic fluid collections: a critical review of current knowledge and future perspectives

Pancreatic fluid collections (PFCs) commonly develop as complications of acute pancreatitis and ductal disruption due to chronic pancreatitis. In the revised Atlanta classification, PFCs were classified based on the presence of necrosis and duration following the onset of acute pancreatitis. Interventions are required in cases of symptomatic pancreatic pseudocysts or walled-off necrosis (WON). In the management of these PFCs, endoscopic ultrasound-guided transluminal drainage and subsequent direct endoscopic necrosectomy for WON are increasingly utilized as less invasive treatment modalities compared to surgical debridement. To date, researchers have focused predominantly on the technical aspects of endoscopic therapy for symptomatic PFCs. Given the poor physical condition of patients receiving endoscopic treatment for PFCs, systemic support may have a substantial impact on the short- and long-term outcomes of these patients. A multidisciplinary approach is required to improve the clinical outcomes of patients with infected PFCs and their associated comorbidities. However, non-interventional support during the periprocedural period of endoscopic treatment of PFCs has not been fully discussed, and there have been considerable variations in the selection of treatment options between endoscopists and centers. To address these unmet needs in the clinical management of PFCs and promote future research to improve the clinical outcomes, we conducted a review of the literature within a multicenter consortium of expert endoscopists with specific expertise in the endoscopic treatment of PFCs. In this review, we summarize the current evidence on non-interventional supportive care (e.g., continuous lavage, medications, nutritional support, and antimicrobials) and propose potential topics for future research.

Hydrogen peroxide-assisted endoscopic necrosectomy of pancreatic walled-off necrosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Use of hydrogen peroxide (H₂O₂) has been reported in direct endoscopic necrosectomy (DEN) of pancreatic walled-off necrosis (WON). The aim of this meta-analysis was to study the pooled clinical outcomes of H₂O₂-assisted DEN of pancreatic WON.

METHODS

We conducted a comprehensive search of several databases (inception to July 2021) to identify studies reporting on the use of H₂O₂ in DEN of WON. A random-effects model was used to calculate pooled rates and I² values, and 95% prediction intervals were used to assess heterogeneity. The outcomes studied were technical success, clinical success, and adverse events in H₂O₂-assisted DEN of pancreatic WON.

RESULTS

In 7 analyzed studies, 186 patients underwent H₂O₂-assisted DEN of WON. The pooled rate of technical success was 95.8% (95% confidence interval [CI], 88.5-98.5), clinical success was 91.6% (95% CI, 86.1-95), and cumulative rate of overall adverse events was 19.3% (95% CI, 7.6-41). The pooled rate of bleeding was 7.9% (95% CI, 2.4-22.7), stent migration was 11.3% (95% CI, 4.9-23.9), perforation 5.4% (95% CI, 1.7-15.7), infection 5.7% (95% CI, 2-15.1), and pulmonary adverse event 2.9% (95% CI, 1.3-6.1). Mean treatment sessions ranged from 2 to 5.

CONCLUSIONS

H₂O₂-assisted DEN of WON demonstrated excellent clinical outcomes, with minimal heterogeneity. No adverse events attributable to H₂O₂ were reported. Future controlled studies are warranted comparing the clinical outcomes with and without H₂O₂ before H₂O₂ use can be established in DEN of pancreatic WON.