Efficacy and Safety of Lumen-Apposing Stents for Management of Pancreatic Fluid Collections in a Community Hospital Setting

EUS-guided interventional therapies for pancreatic diseases

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) is an integrated diagnostic technique merging endoscope and ultrasound to examine the digestive system. EUS has emerged as a primary diagnostic method for pancreatic diseases due to its distinctive benefits. Over the past four decades, EUS has undergone a transformation, shifting its role from primarily diagnostic to increasingly therapeutic. Additionally, in recent years, EUS has emerged as an increasingly prominent adjunctive or alternative approach to conventional surgical interventions. This review provides a comprehensive analysis of current technological approaches in the treatment of pancreatic diseases. The dynamic interplay with diverse therapeutic approaches has reinvigorated EUS and shaped its trajectory in the management of pancreatic diseases.

Lumen-apposing-metal stent misdeployment in endoscopic ultrasound-guided drainages: A systematic review focusing on issues and rescue management

BACKGROUND

The introduction of lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMS) for endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided drainages has marked a turning point in the field of interventional ultrasound and it is gathering worldwide diffusion in different clinical settings. Nevertheless, the procedure may conceal unexpected pitfalls. LAMS misdeployment is the most frequent cause of technical failure and it can be considered a procedure-related adverse event when it hampers the conclusion of the planned procedure or results in significant clinical consequences. Stent misdeployment can be managed successfully by endoscopic rescue maneuvers to allow the completion of the procedure. To date, no standardized indication is available to guide an appropriate rescue strategy depending on the type of procedure or of misdeployment.

AIM

To evaluate the incidence of LAMS misdeployment during EUS-guided choledochoduodenostomy (EUS-CDS), gallbladder drainage (EUS-GBD) and pancreatic fluid collections drainage (EUS-PFC) and to describe the endoscopic rescue strategies adopted under the circumstance.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of the literature on PubMed by searching for studies published up to October 2022. The search was carried out using the exploded medical subject heading terms “lumen apposing metal stent”, “LAMS”, “endoscopic ultrasound” and “choledochoduodenostomy” or “gallbladder” or “pancreatic fluid collections”. We included in the review on-label EUS-guided procedures namely EUS-CDS, EUS-GBD and EUS-PFC. Only those publications reporting EUS-guided LAMS positioning were considered. The studies reporting a technical success rate of 100% and other procedure-related adverse events were considered to calculate the overall rate of LAMS misdeployment, while studies not reporting the causes of technical failure were excluded. Case reports were considered only for the extraction of data regarding the issues of misdeployment and rescue techniques. The following data were collected from each study: Author, year of publication, study design, study population, clinical indication, technical success, reported number of misdeployment, stent type and size, flange misdeployed and type of rescue strategy.

RESULTS

The overall technical success rate of EUS-CDS, EUS-GBD and EUS-PFC was 93.7%, 96.1%, and 98.1% respectively. Significant rates of LAMS misdeployment have been reported for EUS-CDS, EUS-GBD and EUS-PFC drainage, respectively 5.8%, 3.4%, and 2.0%. Endoscopic rescue treatment was feasible in 86.8%, 80%, and 96.8% of cases. Non endoscopic rescue strategies were required only in 10.3%, 16% and 3.2% for EUS-CDS, EUS-GBD, and EUS-PFC. The endoscopic rescue techniques described were over-the-wire deployment of a new stent through the created fistula tract in 44.1%, 8% and 64.5% and stent-in-stent in 23.5%, 60%, and 12.9%, respectively for EUS-CDS, EUS-GBD, and EUS-PFC. Further therapeutic option were endoscopic rendezvous in 11.8% of EUS-CDS and repeated procedure of EUS-guided drainage in 16.1% of EUS-PFC.

CONCLUSION

LAMS misdeployment is a relatively common adverse event in EUS-guided drainages. There is no consensus on the best rescue approach in these cases and the choice is often made by the endoscopist relying upon the clinical scenario, anatomical characteristics, and local expertise. In this review, we investigated the misdeployment of LAMS for each of the on-label indications focusing on the rescue therapies used, with the aim of providing useful data for endoscopists and to improve patient outcomes.

Lumen-apposing metal stents: How far are we from standardization? An Italian survey

Background and Objectives:

EUS-guided transluminal drainage has increasingly developed, especially after the era of lumen-apposing metal stent (LAMS): a fully covered, barbell-shaped, metal stent with anti-migratory properties allowing direct therapeutic interventions through a wide and short channel. The aim of this survey is to investigate the current management of patients undergoing LAMS placement nationwide.

Materials and Methods:

Forty-eight questions were submitted to Italian centers about expertise, peri- and intra-procedural aspects, budget/refund, and future perspectives. Statistical analyzer was SPSS®.

Results:

Thirty-six centers completed the survey. Indications for LAMS positioning are pancreatic fluid collection drainage (PFCD, 97.2%), biliary drainage (BD, 80.5%), gallbladder drainage (GBD, 75%), and gastroentero-anastomosis (GEA, 19.4%). A total of 77.7% of the endoscopists perform only on-label procedures and 22.2% both on-label and off-label. 38.8% attended a training preliminary course, 27.7% were just supported by an expert, 22.2% had both the opportunities, and 8.3% none of them. Management of antiplatelets and sedation protocol is very heterogeneous. Only 50% involves a multidisciplinary meeting and 30.5% has a specialized clinic for follow-up. Acid suppression is usually continued after PFCD. The type and timing of postprocedural imaging varies widely. 8.3% of the endoscopists work without fluoroscopy. Refund for LAMS is mostly not guaranteed. Main future growing indications appear to be BD, GBD, and GEA (69.4%, 55.5%, and 55.5%, respectively).

Conclusions:

This is the first survey assessing the state of the art on LAMS almost 10 years after their advent. There are currently wide variations in practice nationwide, which demonstrates a pressing need to define technical, qualitative, and peri-procedural requirements to carry out this procedure, toward a standardization.

Editors' Choice of Noteworthy Clinical Endoscopy Publications in the First Decade

This is a special review to celebrate the 10^th anniversary of Clinical Endoscopy. Each deputy editor has selected articles from one’s subspecialty that are significant in terms of the number of downloads, citations, and clinical importance. The articles included original articles, review articles, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses.

Comparative outcomes of endoscopic ultrasound-guided lumen-apposing mental stents drainage for pancreatic pseudocysts and walled-off necrosis: Case series and meta-analysis

Background

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided transmural drainage for pancreatic fluid collections (PFCs) has become the first-line treatment with quicker recovery and more minor injury compared with surgery and percutaneous drainage. The efficacy of stents implantation and drainage for different PFCs remains controversial, especially lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMS). This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of LAMS drainage for pancreatic pseudocysts (PPC) and walled-off necrosis (WON).

Methods

A meta-analysis was performed for LAMS drainage for WON and PPC by systematically searching PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase databases from January 2010 to January 2020. From 2017 to 2019, 12 patients who were treated with LAMS drainage for PFCs in our medical center were also reviewed and included in this study.

Results

Combining 11 copies of documents with the data from our medical center, a total of 585 patients with PFCs were enrolled in this meta-analysis, including 343 patients with WON and 242 with PPC. The technical success rate in WON is not significantly different from that of PPC (P = 0.08 > 0.05). The clinical success of LAMS placement was achieved in 99% vs 89% in PPC and WON, respectively (RR = 0.92, 95% CI: 0.86-0.98, P = 0.01 < 0.05). The further intervention of direct endoscopic necrosectomy was required by 60% of patients in WON group. There was no significant difference in the incidence of adverse events, including infection, bleeding, stent migration and stent occlusion, after LAMS placement between WON and PPC.

Conclusions

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided LAMS for PFCs are feasible, effective with preferable technical and clinical success rates. The clinical effect of LAMS on PPC is slightly better than that of WON, but its adverse reactions still need to be verified in a large-sample prospective study.

Endoscopic Drainage of Giant Pancreatic Pseudocysts Using Both Lumen-Apposing Metal Stent and Plastic Stent: A Report of Two Cases and Review of the Current Literature

Introduction

A pancreatic pseudocyst (PP) with major diameter equal to 10 cm or more is called a giant pseudocyst. The ideal management for giant PPs is controversial. Endoscopic drainage is an alternative nonsurgical approach for PP management. Only a few cases of giant PPs were reported to be managed by endoscopic drainage. Case Presentation. We reported two cases of giant PPs following an episode of acute pancreatitis. Both were resolved following endoscopic cystogastrostomy using metallic and double-pigtail stents with excellent outcomes. There was no history of recurrence or complications on follow-up. In addition, we extensively reviewed all available literature studies of giant pancreatic pseudocyst presentation, management, and complications. We summarized all reported cases and presented them in a comprehensive table.

Conclusion

The endoscopic cystogastrostomy approach is cost saving, can avoid surgical complications, and offers an early hospital discharge.

Safety and efficacy of lumen-apposing metal stents versus plastic stents to treat walled-off pancreatic necrosis: systematic review and meta-analysis

Background and study aims  Lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMS) are increasingly used for drainage of walled-off pancreatic necrosis (WON). Recent studies suggested greater adverse event (AE) rates with LAMS for WON. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the safety and efficacy of LAMS with double-pigtail plastic stents (DPPS) for endoscopic drainage of WON. The primary aim was to evaluate stent-related AEs. Methods  In October 2019, we searched the Ovid (Embase, MEDLINE, Cochrane) and Scopus databases for studies assessing a specific LAMS or DPPS for WON drainage conducted under EUS guidance. Safety outcomes were AE rates of bleeding, stent migration, perforation, and stent occlusion. Efficacy outcomes were WON resolution and number of procedures needed to achieve resolution. A subanalysis including non-EUS-guided cases was performed. Results  Thirty studies including one randomized controlled trial (total 1,524 patients) were analyzed. LAMS were associated with similar bleeding (2.5 % vs. 4.6 %, P =  0.39) and perforation risk (0.5 % vs. 1.1 %, P =  0.35) compared to DPPS. WON resolution (87.4 % vs. 87.5 %, P =  0.99), number of procedures to achieve resolution (2.09 vs. 1.88, P =  0.72), stent migration (5.9 % vs. 6.8 %, P =  0.79), and stent occlusion (3.8 % vs. 5.2 %, P =  0.78) were similar for both groups. Inclusion of non-EUS-guided cases led to significantly higher DPPS bleeding and perforation rates. Conclusions  LAMS and DPPS were associated with similar rates of AEs and WON resolution when limiting analysis to EUS-guided cases. Higher bleeding rates were seen in historical studies of DPPS without EUS guidance. Additional high-quality studies of WON treatment using consistent outcome definitions are needed.