Endoscopic Ultrasonography-Guided Versus Percutaneous Drainage for the Recurrent Pancreatic Fluid Collections

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 transgastric fenestration versus percutaneous drainage for management of (peri)pancreatic fluid collections adjacent to gastric wall (with video)

BACKGROUND

Percutaneous drainage (PCD) and endoscopic approaches have largely replaced surgical drainage as the initial approach for (peri) pancreatic fluid collections (PFC)s, while complications associated with endoscopic stent implantation are common.

AIM

To introduce a novel endoscopic therapy named endoscopic transgastric fenestration (ETGF), which involves resection of tissue by endoscopic accessory between gastric and PFCs without stent implantation, and to evaluate its efficacy and safety compared with PCD for the management of PFCs adjacent to the gastric wall.

METHODS

Patients diagnosed with PFCs adjacent to the gastric wall and who subsequently received ETGF or PCD were restrospectively enrolled. Indications for intervention were consistent with related guidelines. We analyzed patients baseline characteristics, technical and clinical success rate, recurrence and reintervention rate, procedure-related complications and adverse events.

RESULTS

Seventy-two eligible patients were retrospectively identified (ETGF = 34, PCD = 38) from October 2017 to May 2021. Patients in the ETGF group had a significantly higher clinical success rate than those in the PCD group (97.1 vs 76.3%, P = 0.01). There were no statistically significant differences regarding recurrence, reintervention and incidence of complication between the two groups. While long-term catheter drainage was very common in the PCD group.

CONCLUSION

Compared with PCD, ETGF has a higher clinical success rate in the management of PFCs adjacent to the gastric wall. ETGF is an alternative effective strategy for the treatment of PFCs adjacent to the gastric wall.

Role of interventional endoscopic ultrasound in a developing country

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) has become an essential diagnostic and therapeutic tool. EUS was introduced in 2013 in Indonesia and is considered relatively new. This study aimed to describe the current role of interventional EUS at our hospital as a part of the Indonesian tertiary health center experience.

METHODS

This retrospective study included all patients who underwent interventional EUS (n=94) at our center between January 2015 and December 2020. Patient characteristics, technical success, clinical success, and adverse events associated with each type of interventional EUS procedure were evaluated.

RESULTS

Altogether, 94 interventional EUS procedures were performed at our center between 2015 and 2020 including 75 cases of EUS-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD), 14 cases of EUS-guided pancreatic fluid drainage, and five cases of EUS-guided celiac plexus neurolysis. The technical and clinical success rates of EUS-BD were 98.6% and 52%, respectively. The technical success rate was 100% for both EUS-guided pancreatic fluid drainage and EUS-guided celiac plexus neurolysis. The adverse event rates were 10.6% and 7.1% for EUS-BD and EUS-guided pancreatic fluid drainage, respectively.

CONCLUSION

EUS is an effective and safe tool for the treatment of gastrointestinal and biliary diseases. It has a low rate of adverse events, even in developing countries.

Efficacy and safety of endoscopic ultrasound guided drainage of pseudocysts and walled-off necrosis after failure of percutaneous drainage

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic Ultrasound (EUS) represents the gold standard for initial drainage of pancreatic fluid collections (PFC) due to various etiologies. However, data concerning salvage EUS drainage after initial percutaneous drainage are limited. The purpose of our study was to evaluate the clinical outcomes and safety of EUS-guided drainage of pancreatic collections after failure of percutaneous drainage.

METHODS

This retrospective study was conducted in a single, tertiary university center from August 2013 to January 2020. Indication was pancreatic collection after acute pancreatitis with PFC requiring EUS-guided drainage after failure of percutaneous drainage.

RESULTS

Twenty-two patients with PFC after acute pancreatitis were included (mean age 64.1 ± 11.3 years) of which 4/22 (18.2%) had pancreatic pseudocyst and 18/22 (81.8%) presented with a walled-off necrosis. Seventy-six interventions were performed among the 22 patients. Lumen-Apposing Metal Stent (LAMS) were used in 5/22 (22.7%) and double pigtail plastic stents in 17/22 (77.3%) of interventions with a median number intervention of 3 per patient (range 1 to 7). Technical success rate was 98.7% (75/76) with an overall clinical success of 81.8% (18/22). Procedure related adverse events rate was 9.1% (2/22) including one bleeding and one pancreatic fistula. Two non-procedure related deaths were observed.

CONCLUSION

EUS-guided pancreatic collection drainage is clinically effective and safe after clinical/technical failure of radiological percutaneous management.

Role of endoscopic ultrasonography in the management of peripancreatic collections. Diagnostic and therapeutic approach

Pancreatic fluid collections are surrounded by a wall of granulation tissue and may contain necrotic debris. They occur following a severe acute pancreatitis and most of the cases resolve spontaneously after several weeks. However, their management may lead to a very hardto-treat condition, requiring a multidisciplinary approach. During the last decades we assisted to a change of paradigm involving Endoscopic Ultrasonography, from a pure diagnostic technique to an interventional-therapeutic one, allowing an effective, safe and less invasive approach than other existing treatment standards, historically consisting of surgical and percutaneous drainage. Treatment of pancreatic fluid collections is indicated if they become infected or symptomatic. Over the past years, exponential developments were done in interventional endoscopic approach, making it the first line suggested modality. The use of endoscopic ultrasound allows assessment of the collection, even when it is not directly bulging on gastrointestinal wall, creation of an internal fistulous tract, checking for surrounding vessels with the use of Doppler, and deployment of a stent avoiding the discomfort of external tubes. Several types of stent have been used for endoscopic drainage: plastic double pigtail stents, fully covered self-expanding metal stents and, more recently, lumen apposing metal stents, which are considered revolutionary because of their two-side flanges and wide and short internal channel, a new design that made easier direct endoscopic necrosectomy. This review aims to go through currently available literature on the diagnostic and therapeutic role of Endoscopic Ultrasonography to handle pancreatic fluid collections.

Is endoscopic drainage better than percutaneous drainage for patients with pancreatic fluid collections? A comparative meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

though endoscopic and percutaneous drainage have emerged as the most common minimally invasive treatments for pancreatic fluid collections (PFCs), estimates of therapeutic superiority for either treatment have yielded inconsistent results.

METHODS

we retrieved studies comparing the efficacy and safety of these two approaches in PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library. Primary outcomes were differences in technical success, clinical success, and adverse events, and secondary outcomes included differences in reintervention, need for surgical intervention, mortality, recurrence rate, and length of hospital stay.

RESULTS

there were nonsignificant differences in technical success rate (OR 0.54; CI: 0.15-1.86), clinical success rate (OR 1.39; CI: 0.82-2.37), adverse events rate (OR 1.21; CI: 0.70-2.11), mortality rate (OR 0.81; CI: 0.30-2.16), and recurrence rate (OR 1.94; CI 0.74-5.07) between the two groups. Reintervention rate (OR 0.19; CI: 0.08-0.45) and percentage of need for surgical intervention (OR 0.08; CI: 0.02-0.39) in the endoscopic drainage group were much lower than in the percutaneous drainage group. Total length of hospital stay (standard mean difference [SMD] -0.60; CI: -0.84 to -0.36) in the endoscopic drainage group was shorter; however, there was a nonsignificant difference in the length of post-procedure hospital stay (SMD: -0.30; CI: -1.05-0.44) between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

endoscopic drainage is effective for PFCs, and superior in terms of lower reintervention and need for surgery rates over traditional percutaneous drainage, despite a similar clinical efficacy and safety compared with traditional percutaneous drainage.