Endoscopic Management of Pancreatic Fluid Collections

Mishaps with EUS-guided lumen-apposing metal stents in therapeutic pancreatic EUS: Management and prevention

EUS-guided interventions have become widely accepted therapeutic management options for drainage of peripancreatic fluid collections. Apart from endosonographic skills, EUS interventions require knowledge of the endoscopic stenting techniques and familiarity with the available stents and deployment systems. Although generally safe and effective, technical failure of correct stent positioning or serious adverse events can occur, even in experts' hands. In this article, we address common and rare adverse events in transmural EUS-guided stenting, ways to prevent them, and management options when they occur. Knowing the risks of what can go wrong combined with clinical expertise, high levels of technical skills, and adequate training allows for the safe performance of EUS-guided drainage procedures. Discussing the procedural risks and their likelihood with the patient is a fundamental part of the consenting process.

Head-to-head comparison between endoscopic ultrasound guided lumen apposing metal stent and plastic stents for the treatment of pancreatic fluid collections: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Peripancreatic fluid collections (PFCs) result from acute or chronic pancreatic inflammation that suffers a rupture of its ducts. Currently, there exists three options for drainage or debridement of pancreatic pseudocysts and walled-off necrosis (WON). The traditional procedure is drainage by placing double pigtail plastic stents (DPPS); lumen-apposing metal stent (LAMS) has a biflanged design with a wide lumen that avoids occlusion with necrotic tissue, which is more common with DPPS and reduces the possibility of migration. We performed a systematic review and meta-analyses head-to-head, including only studies that compare the two main techniques to drainage of PFCs: LAMS vs DPPS.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review in different databases, such as PubMed, OVID, Medline, and Cochrane Databases. This meta-analysis considers studies published from 2014 to 2020, including only studies that compare the two main techniques to drainage of PFCs: LAMS vs DPPS.

RESULTS

Thirteen studies were included in the meta-analyses. Only one of all studies was a randomized controlled trial. These studies comprise 1584 patients; 68.2% were male, and 31.8% were female. Six hundred sixty-three patients (41.9%) were treated with LAMS, and 921 (58.1%) were treated with DPPS. Six studies included only WON in their analysis, two included only pancreatic pseudocysts, and five studies included both pancreatic pseudocysts and WON. The technical success was similar in patients treated with LAMS and DPPS (97.6% vs 97.5%, respectively, P = .986, RR = 1.00 [95% CI 0.93-1.08]). The clinical success was similar in both groups (LAMS: 90.1% vs DPPS: 84.2%, P = .139, RR = 1.063 [95% CI 0.98-1.15]). Patients treated with LAMS had a lower complication rate than the DPPS groups, with a significant statistical difference (LAMS: 16.0% vs DPPS: 20.2%, P = .009, RR = 0.746 [95% CI 0.60-0.93]). Bleeding was the most common complication in the LAMS group (33 patients, [5.0%]), whereas infection was the most common complication in the DPPS group (56 patients, [6.1%]). The LAMS migration rate was lower than in the DPPS (0.9% vs 2.2%, respectively, P = .05). The mortality rate was similar in both groups, 0.6% in the LAMS group (four patients) and 0.4% in the DPPS group (four patients; P = .640).

CONCLUSION

The PFCs drainage is an indication when persistent symptoms or PFCs-related complications exist. EUS guided drainage with LAMS has similar technical and clinical success to DPPS drainage for the management of PFCs. The technical and clinical success rates are high in both groups. However, LAMS drainage has a lower adverse events rate than DPPS drainage. More randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm the real advantage of LAMS drainage over DPPS drainage.

Alternative uses of lumen apposing metal stents

The advent of lumen apposing metal stents (LAMS) has revolutionized the management of many complex gastroenterological conditions that previously required surgical or radiological interventions. These procedures have garnered popularity due to their minimally invasive nature, higher technical and clinical success rate and lower rate of adverse events. By virtue of their unique design, LAMS provide more efficient drainage, serve as conduit for endoscopic access, are associated with lower rates of leakage and are easy to be removed. Initially used for drainage of pancreatic fluid collections, the use of LAMS has been extended to gallbladder and biliary drainage, treatment of luminal strictures, creation of gastrointestinal fistulae, pancreaticobiliary drainage, improved access for surgically altered anatomy, and drainage of intra-abdominal and pelvic abscesses as well as post-surgical fluid collections. As new indications of endosonographic techniques and LAMS continue to evolve, this review summarizes the current role of LAMS in the management of these various complex conditions and also highlights clinical pearls to guide successful placement of LAMS.

Imaging of endoscopic cystogastrostomy in pancreatic walled-off necrosis: what the radiologist needs to know

Acute pancreatitis is a frequent entity encountered by radiologists. In 2012, the Atlanta criteria were revised to help radiologists use a common nomenclature when describing acute pancreatitis and its complications. One delayed complication of acute necrotizing pancreatitis in walled-off necrosis, a collection seen at least 4 weeks after an episode of acute pancreatic necrosis and/or acute peripancreatic necrosis. Multiple treatments have been adapted in the setting of walled-off necrosis, including endoscopic cystogastrostomy. The focus of this article is to familiarize the radiologist with the imaging appearance of this procedure as well as, review the outcomes and potential complications of endoscopic cystogastrostomy.

Metal stents versus plastic stents for the management of pancreatic walled-off necrosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Endoscopic transluminal drainage of symptomatic walled-off necrosis (WON) is a good management option, although the optimal choice of drainage site stent is unclear. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare metal stents (MSs) and plastic stents (PSs) in terms of WON resolution, likelihood of resolution after 1 procedure, and adverse events.

METHODS

An expert librarian queried several databases to identify studies that assessed WON management, and selection was according to a priori criteria. Publication bias, heterogeneity, and study quality were evaluated with the appropriate tools. We performed single and 2-arm meta-analyses for noncomparative and comparative studies using event rate random-effects model and odds ratio (OR)/difference in means, respectively.

RESULTS

We included 41 studies involving 2213 patients. In 2-arm study meta-analysis, WON resolution was more likely with MSs compared with PSs (OR, 2.8; 95% confidence interval, 1.7-4.6; P < .001). Resolution with a single endoscopic procedure was similar between stents (47% vs 44%), although for those cases requiring more than 1 intervention, the MS group had fewer interventions, favored by a mean difference of -.9 procedures (95% CI, -1.283 to -.561). In single-arm study meta-analysis, when compared with PSs, MS use was associated with lower bleeding (5.6% vs 12.6%; P = .02), a trend toward lower perforation and stent occlusion (2.8% vs 4.3%, P = .2, and 9.5% vs 17.4%, P = .07), although with higher migration (8.1% vs 5.1%; P = .1).

CONCLUSION

Evidence suggests that MSs are superior for WON resolution, with fewer bleeding events, trend toward less occlusion and perforation rate, but increased migration rate compared with PSs.