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

Metal stents versus plastic stents for drainage of pancreatic fluid collections: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials with trial sequential analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Pancreatic fluid collections (PFCs), including walled-off necrosis (WON), are significant complications of acute pancreatitis, and their management often involves drainage, although the optimal type of stent for this purpose remains uncertain. This meta-analysis aimed to compare metal versus plastic stents for endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided drainage of PFCs.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing metal with plastic stents for drainage of PFCs. The odds ratio (OR) was used for binary outcomes and the mean difference (MD) for continuous outcomes with their respective 95% confidence interval (CI).

RESULTS

This study included eight RCTs and over 500 patients. Procedure duration was shorter in the metal stent arm compared with the plastic stent arm (MD - 10.63; 95% CI - 16.12 to - 5.15, p < 0.001). However, there was no statistically significant difference between metal and plastic stents in clinical success (OR 1.10; 95% CI 0.56 to 2.14), technical success (OR 1.53; 95% CI 0.23 to 10.0), overall mortality (OR 0.75; 95% CI 0.34 to 1.67), recurrence (OR 1.76; 95%CI 0.70 to 4.44), total number of interventions (MD 0.06; 95% CI - 0.52 to 0.64), need of necrosectomy (OR 1.27; 95% CI 0.77 to 2.11), length of hospitalization (MD - 0.41; 95% CI - 5.10 to 4.27), exocrine insufficiency (OR 1.37; 95% CI 0.50 to 3.71), endocrine insufficiency (OR 1.11; 95% CI 0.57 to 2.16), and adverse events (OR 0.74; 95% CI 0.39 to 1.41).

CONCLUSION

Metal stents for EUS-guided drainage of WON are associated with a shorter procedure duration. Besides that, it may not improve other clinically relevant outcomes in comparison with plastic stents.

Pancreatoscopy-Guided Lithotripsy for Pancreatic Duct Stones: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background/Aims

Pancreatic duct stones (PDS) are one of the leading complications of chronic pancreatitis, causing intractable upper abdominal pain, aggravating the underlying disease, and even increasing the risk of pancreatic cancer. At present, pancreatoscopyguided lithotripsy is considered the second-line endoscopic treatment for pancreatic duct stones. In this systematic review and metaanalysis, we evaluated the efficacy and safety of pancreatoscopy-guided lithotripsy.

Materials and Methods

A systematic search was conducted across several medical electronic databases, including PubMed, Web of Science, Medline, and Embase, encompassing publications up to December 2022. Studies reporting complete stone clearance rate, clinical success rate, and adverse event rate were included for analysis. We further aimed to compare the outcomes between electrohydraulic lithotripsy and laser lithotripsy treatment groups.

Results

A total of 17 studies (5 prospective studies and 12 retrospective studies) with 441 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Pooled complete stone clearance rate was 81% (95% CI, 0.74-0.88), pooled clinical success rate was 90% (95% CI, 0.84-0.95), while the pooled adverse event rate was 12% (95% CI, 0.07-0.19).

Conclusion

Pancreatoscopy-guided lithotripsy is a safe and effective treatment for pancreatic duct stones. This is evidenced by high pooled rates of complete stone clearance and clinical success, combined with a relatively low incidence of adverse events.

Outcomes and Post-removal Course of Lumen-Apposing Metal Stent Placement for Peripancreatic Fluid Collections: A Comparative Study of Pancreatic Pseudocysts and Walled-Off Necrosis

AIM

Pancreatic fluid collections (PFCs) are common local complications of pancreatitis that may require interventional therapy. Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided transluminal drainage from the digestive tract, particularly with lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMS), is the first-line therapy due to its safety and efficacy. However, adverse events and post-removal courses remain uncertain. This study aimed to clarify the characteristics of LAMS placement and its removal, comparing pancreatic pseudocysts (PPC) and walled-off necrosis (WON).

METHODS

This single-center retrospective study included 23 patients who underwent transgastric LAMS placement for PFCs under EUS guidance. The patients were categorized into the PPC group (n = 14) and the WON group (n = 9). Backgrounds and clinical outcomes were analyzed and compared.

RESULTS

The mean procedure time was 19 minutes in the PPC group and 25 minutes in the WON group, with no significant difference (p = 0.11). The overall incidence of adverse events during LAMS placement was 14.3% in the PPC group and 33.3% in the WON group, with no significant difference (p = 0.28), but the incidence of infection of noninfected fluid collections was 0% in the PPC group and 55.5% in the WON group, significantly higher in the WON group (p = 0.0016). At the time of LAMS removal, a double-pigtail plastic stent (DPS) was replaced in 53.8% of the PPC group and 57.1% of the WON group. Within one year, 57.1% of the replaced DPS in the PPC group and 25.0% in the WON group became dislocated. There were no adverse events due to the dislocation of the replaced DPS. Adverse events occurred in one patient in each group after LAMS removal: 7.7% in the PPC group and 14.3% in the WON group (p = 0.64), which consisted of peritonitis in the PPC group and recurrent infection of fluid collection in the WON group, and both of these events occurred when the replaced DPS was still in place after LAMS removal.

CONCLUSIONS

Although there was no significant difference in the overall incidence of adverse events between PPC and WON, the incidence of infection after LAMS placement was significantly higher in WON. Regarding the replaced DPS, there were some cases of dislocation within one year, but there were no related adverse events. Adverse events occurred even after the removal of LAMS and replacement with DPS, so careful follow-up is required.

Safety and efficacy of side-by-side versus stent-in-stent stenting for malignant hilar biliary obstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Objectives

Stenting of the malignant hilar biliary obstruction (MHBO) area for bile drainage is challenging. Bilateral stenting techniques of stent-in-stent (SIS) and stent-by-stent (SBS) have shown promising results. This study evaluates the efficacy of different stenting methods for MHBO.

Design

A meta-analysis was performed to determine the efficacy of SIS and SBS stenting strategies for MHBO.

Data sources and methods

Medical databases such as PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Scopus, were searched up to August 2023. We selected eligible studies reporting the data on technical and clinical success, adverse events, and incidence of re-obstruction (RO) of SBS and SIS groups in MHBO patients. We compared the outcomes of SBS and SIS groups.

Results

A total of 9 studies comparing the data of 545 patients (268 in the SBS group and 277 in the SIS stenting group) were analyzed. There was no significant difference (p > 0.05) in the odds ratio (OR) of Re-obstruction (RO) 0.87 (95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.6-1.25), technical success 0.58 (95% CI 0.16-2.11), clinical success 1.13 (95% CI 0.62-2.07), and adverse events 1.53 (95% CI 0.88-2.64). The mean difference in procedure time was -12.25 min (95% CI -18.39, -6.12), and the hazard ratio of stent patency was 1.22 (95% CI 1.01-1.47), favoring SBS, with high heterogeneity (I 2 = 94%). There was no significant difference in HR for survival 1.05 (95% CI 0.95-1.16) with high heterogeneity (I 2 = 84%).

Conclusion

Compared with SIS, SBS showed better stent patency with comparable technical and clinical success and adverse events.

Prospero registration

The registration number for this study on PROSPERO is CRD42024523230.

Endoscopic treatment for early duodenal papillary carcinoma: long-term outcomes

BACKGROUND AND AIM

This study aims to determine whether endoscopic papillectomy (EP) is a safe and effective treatment for early duodenal papillary carcinoma with long-term follow-up.

METHODS

From June 2012 to September 2022, 48 patients with early duodenal papilloma carcinoma who received endoscopic treatment were included. The histological types, percentage of complete resections, postoperative residuals, adverse events, and recurrences were evaluated.

RESULTS

EP was successful in all patients; 46 were lumped, and two were fragmented, with a 95.8% intact removal rate (46/48). The preoperative biopsy pathological positive rate was 70.8% (34/48). The incidence of early postoperative adverse events (within 1 month after EP) were 16.7% (8/48), including four cases of acute pancreatitis, three cases of delayed bleeding, and one case of acute cholangitis. In addition, 4.2% (2/48) of the late adverse events were bile duct stenosis. After 6 months, the postoperative residual rate was 0%. The median time to recurrence was 17.5 months, and the postoperative recurrence rate was 16.7% (8/48) in patients treated with radiofrequency ablation. The median progression-free survival was 18.6 months (95% CI, 12.1-25.1), and the median overall survival was 121.5 months (95% CI, 105.6-120.9).

CONCLUSIONS

EP is a safe and efficient alternative therapy for early duodenal papillary carcinoma. Endoscopic follow-up and treatment are essential because of the potential for recurrence.

Indications, Techniques and Future Perspectives of Walled-off Necrosis Management

Necrotizing pancreatitis is a complex clinical condition burdened with significant morbidity and mortality. In recent years, the huge progress of interventional endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) has allowed a shift in the management of pancreatic necrotic collections from surgical/percutaneous approaches to mini-invasive endoscopic internal drainage and debridement procedures. The development of lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMSs), devices specifically dedicated to transmural EUS interventions, further prompted the diffusion of such techniques. Several studies have reported excellent outcomes of endoscopic interventions, in terms of technical success, clinical efficacy and safety compared to surgical interventions, and thus endoscopic drainage of walled-off necrosis (WON) has become a fundamental tool for the management of such conditions. Despite these advancements, some critical unresolved issues remain. Endoscopic therapeutic approaches to WON are still heterogeneous among different centers and experts. A standardized protocol on indication, timing and technique of endoscopic necrosectomy is still lacking, and experts often adopt a strategy based on personal experience more than robust data from well-conducted studies. In this review, we will summarize the available evidence on endoscopic management of WON and will discuss some unanswered questions in this rapidly evolving field.

Evaluation of exclusive internal endoscopic drainage for complex biloma with transluminal and transpapillary stenting

Background and study aims Biloma is treated endoscopically with endoscopic retrograde cholangiography (ERCP) or endoscopi ultrasound-guided transluminal biloma drainage (EUS-TBD). However, almost all previous studies have used both internal and external drainage. External drainage has the disadvantages of poor cosmetic appearance and self-tube removal. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the internal endoscopic drainage for complex biloma after hepatobiliary surgery with an ERCP- or EUS-guided approach, without external drainage. Patients and methods This retrospective study included consecutive patients who had bilomas. A 7F plastic stent was deployed from the biloma to the duodenum in the ERCP group and the metal stent was deployed from the biloma to the stomach in the EUS-TBD group. Results Forty-seven patients were enrolled. The technical success rate was similar between the groups (ERCP 94% vs EUS-TBD 100%, P =0.371); however, mean procedure time was significantly shorter in the EUS-TBD group (16.9 minutes) than in the ERCP group (26.6 minutes) ( P =0.009). The clinical success rate was 87% (25 of 32 patients) in the ERCP group and 84% (11 of 13 patients) in the EUS-TBD group ( P =0.482). The duration of median hospital stay was significantly shorter in the EUS-TBD group (22 days) than in the ERCP group (46 days) ( P =0.038). There was no significant difference in procedure-associated adverse events between the groups. Conclusions In conclusion, ERCP and EUS-TBD are complementary techniques, each with its own merits in specific clinical scenarios. If both techniques can be performed, EUS-TBD should be considered because of the short times for the procedure, hospital stay. and biloma resolution.

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.

Endoscopic versus minimally invasive surgical approach for infected necrotizing pancreatitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Acute pancreatitis is a common condition of the digestive system, but sometimes it develops into severe cases. In about 10-20% of patients, necrosis of the pancreas or its periphery occurs. Although most have aseptic necrosis, 30% of cases will develop infectious necrotizing pancreatitis. Infected necrotizing pancreatitis (INP) requires a critical treatment approach. Minimally invasive surgical approach (MIS) and endoscopy are the management methods. This meta-analysis compares the outcomes of MIS and endoscopic treatments.

METHODS

We searched a medical database until December 2022 to compare the results of endoscopic and MIS procedures for INP. We selected eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that reported treatment complications for the meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Five RCTs comparing a total of 284 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Among them, 139 patients underwent MIS, while 145 underwent endoscopic procedures. The results showed significant differences (p < 0.05) in the risk ratios (RRs) for major complications (RR: 0.69, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.49-0.97), new onset of organ failure (RR: 0.29, 95% CI: 0.11-0.82), surgical site infection (RR: 0.26, 95% CI: 0.07-0.92), fistula or perforation (RR: 0.27, 95% CI: 0.12-0.64), and pancreatic fistula (RR: 0.14, 95% CI: 0.05-0.45). The hospital stay was significantly shorter for the endoscopic group compared to the MIS group, with a mean difference of 6.74 days (95% CI: -12.94 to -0.54). There were no significant differences (p > 0.05) in the RR for death, bleeding, incisional hernia, percutaneous drainage, pancreatic endocrine deficiency, pancreatic exocrine deficiency, or the need for enzyme use.

CONCLUSIONS

Endoscopic management of INP performs better compared to surgical treatment due to its lower complication rate and higher patient life quality.

Correlation between prescribing doctor attributes and intestinal cleanliness in colonoscopy: a study of 22522 patients

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to analyze the correlation between different attributes of doctors who prescribe colonoscopies and the cleanliness of the intestine to guide the development of colonoscopy application protocols.

METHODS

Data on colonoscopy cases conducted in the gastroenterology department of Hangzhou First People's Hospital between April 2018 and March 2021 were collected. The gender, age, professional attributes of the prescribing doctors, and Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) score were recorded. In addition, the correlation between the prescribing doctors' characteristics and the intestine's cleanliness was analyzed.

RESULTS

The study included 22,522 patients with a mean BBPS score of 6.83 ± 1.94. There were 16,459 male and 6,063 female doctors with similar BBPS scores (p = 0.212). The study found no significant difference in BBPS scores between 19,338 internist and 3,184 non-internist (p = 0.154). However, BBPS scores differed significantly between 18,168 gastroenterologists and 4,354 non-gastroenterologists (p = 0.016) and between 19,990 intestinal-related specialties(gastroenterology and gastrointestinal surgery) and 2,532 non-intestinal-related specialties (p = 0.000). In addition, BBPS scores were significantly different between 18,126 prescribing endoscopiests and 4,396 non-endoscopiests (p = 0.014). However, there was no significant difference in BBPS scores among doctors of different ages (p = 0.190). The study found significant differences in BBPS scores between male and female patients and those under or over 40 years (p = 0.000).

CONCLUSION

To improve colonoscopy preparation quality, priority should be given to doctors in gastroenterology, intestinal-related specialties, and endoscopiests. Their expertise may result in better education and improved bowel cleanliness.

Self-Expandable Metal Stent (SEMS) Versus Lumen-Apposing Metal Stent (LAMS) for Drainage of Pancreatic Fluid Collections: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Background and aim Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided drainage is the gold standard approach for the treatment of encapsulated pancreatic collections (EPCs) including pseudocyst and walled-off pancreatic necrosis (WON), and is associated with an equivalent clinical efficacy to surgical drainage with fewer complications and less morbidity. Drainage may be achieved via several types of stents including a fully covered self-expandable metallic stent (SEMS) and lumen-apposing metal stent (LAMS). However, to date there have been no randomized trials to compare these devices. This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of the SEMS versus LAMS for EUS-guided drainage of EPCs. Methods A phase IIB randomized trial was designed to compare the SEMS versus LAMS for the treatment of EPCs. Technical success, clinical success, adverse events (AEs), and procedure time were evaluated. A sample size of 42 patients was determined. Results There was no difference between the two groups in technical (LAMS 80.95% vs 100% SEMS, p=0.107), clinical (LAMS 85.71% vs 95.24% SEMS, p=0.606) or radiological success (LAMS 92.86% vs 83.33% SEMS, p=0.613). There was no difference in AEs including stent migration rate and mortality. The procedure time was longer in the LAMS group (mean time 43.81 min versus 24.43 min, p=0.001). There was also a difference in the number of intra-procedure complications (5 LAMS vs 0 SEMS, p=0.048). Conclusion SEMS and LAMS have similar technical, clinical, and radiological success as well as AEs. However, SEMS has a shorter procedure time and fewer intra-procedure complications compared to non-electrocautery-enhanced LAMS in this phase IIB randomized controlled trial (RCT). The choice of the type of stent used for EUS drainage of EPCs should consider device availability, costs, and personal and local experience.