Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Surgical Endoscopy
Published in: Surgical Endoscopy 5/2018

01-05-2018

Comparison of clinical efficacies and safeties of lumen-apposing metal stent and conventional-type metal stent-assisted EUS-guided pancreatic wall-off necrosis drainage: a real-life experience in a tertiary hospital

Authors: Siu Tong Law, Carlos De La SernaHiguera, Paula Gil Simón, Manuel Pérez-MirandaCastillo

Published in: Surgical Endoscopy | Issue 5/2018

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided drainage of pancreatic wall-off necrosis (WON) with transmural stent is regarded as firstline therapy. We aimed at comparing its efficacy and safety with using fully covered self-expandable metal stent (FCSEMS) and lumen-apposing metal stent (LAMS).

Methods

A retrospective review was performed on all consecutive patients with pancreatic WONs who underwent EUS-guided drainage by either FCSEMS or LAMS.

Results

From 2011 to 2016, 68 patients (66.2% male, median age, 66.5 years) underwent WON drainage (22/68 (32.4%) using FCSEMSs of size 10 × 60 mm (14/22, Hanarostent; 8/22 Wallflex); 46/68 (67.6%) using LAMSs (38/46 and 8/46 with AXIOS of size 15 × 10 mm and 10 × 10 mm, respectively). These two groups were matched for age (66 vs. 70 years, p 0.514), APACHE II (11.5 vs. 10, p 0.693), causes [72.7 vs. 80.4% by gallstone pancreatitis (p 0.472); 9.1 vs. 10.9% by alcoholism (p 0.818)], WON size (8.5 vs. 9 cm, p 0.322), location (36.4 vs. 26.1% at pancreatic head, p 0.384; 54.5 vs. 65.2% at body/tail, p 0.395), and enterostomy site [63.6 vs. 76.1% via transgastric (p 0.285); 31.8 vs. 19.6% via transduodenal (p 0.267)] and their number of necrosectomy (p 0.978). The technical (100 vs. 93.5%, p 0.219) and clinical (95.5 vs. 93.5%, p 0.749) success and adverse event (22.7 vs. 39.1%, p 0.180; 9.1 vs. 19.6% with bleeding, p 0.271; 4.5 vs. 13% with spontaneous stent migration, p 0.28; 9.1 vs. 6.5% with dislodgement during necrosectomy, p 0.704) of the two groups were comparable without significant different. However, the LAMS group associated with early stent revision compared with FCSEMS group (log rank p 0.048).

Conclusions

EUS-guided drainage of WON using FCSEMSs and LAMSs are comparable in efficacy and safety; however, the latter is associated with early stent revision.
Literature
1.
2.
Fagenholz PJ, Fernandez-del Castillo C, Harris NS et al (2007) Direct medical costs of acute pancreatitis hospitalizations in the United States. Pancreas 35:302–307CrossRefPubMed
3.
Banks PA, Freeman ML (2006) Practice guidelines in acute pancreatitis. Am J Gastroenterol 101:2379–2400CrossRefPubMed
4.
Beger HG, Rau B, Mayer J et al (1997) Natural course of acute pancreatitis. World J Surg 21:130–135CrossRefPubMed
5.
Forsmark CE, Baillie J (2007) AGA Institute technical review on acute pancreatitis. Gastroenterology 132:2022–2044CrossRefPubMed
6.
Banks PA (1993) The role of needle-aspiration bacteriology in the management of necrotizing pancreatitis. In: Bradley EL, III, (ed) Acute Pancreatitis: diagnosis and therapy. Raven, New York, pp 99–104
7.
Baron TH, Harewood GC, Morgan DE, Yates MR (2002) Outcome differences after endoscopic drainage of pancreatic necrosis, acute pancreatic pseudocysts, and chronic pancreatic pseudocysts. Gastrointest Endosc 56:7–17CrossRefPubMed
8.
Varadarajulu S, Bang JY, Phadnis MA, Christein JD, Wilcox CM (2011) Endoscopic transmural drainage of peripancreatic fluid collections: outcomes and predictors of treatment success in 211 consecutive patients. J Gastrointest Surg 15:2080–2088CrossRefPubMed
9.
Harrison S, Kakade M, Varadarajulu S, Parden J, Morgan D, Christein J (2010) Characteristics and outcomes of patients undergoing debridement of pancreatic necrosis. J Gastrointest Surg 14:245–251CrossRefPubMed
10.
van Santvoort HC, Besselink MG, Bakker OJ et al (2010) A step-up approach or open necrosectomy for necrotizing pancreatitis. New Engl J Med 362:1491–1502CrossRefPubMed
11.
Gardner TB, Coelho-Prabhu N, Gordon SR et al (2011) Direct endoscopic necrosectomy for the treatment of walled-off pancreatic necrosis: Results from a multicenter U.S. series. Gastrointest Endosc 73:718–726CrossRefPubMed
12.
Penn DE, Draganov PV, Wagh MS, Forsmark CE, Gupte AR, Chauhan SS (2012) Prospective evaluation of the use of fully covered self-expanding metal stents for EUS-guided transmural drainage of pancreatic pseudocysts. Gastrointest Endosc 76:679–684CrossRefPubMed
13.
Talreja JP, Shami VM, Ku J, Morris TD, Ellen K, Kahaleh M (2008) Transenteric drainage of pancreatic-fluid collections with fully covered self-expanding metallic stents (with video). GastrointestEndosc 68:1199–1203
14.
Weilert F, Binmoeller KF, Shah JN, Bhat YM, Kane S (2012) Endoscopic ultrasound-guided drainage of pancreatic fluid collections with indeterminate adherence using temporary covered metal stents. Endoscopy 44:780–783CrossRefPubMed
15.
Yamamoto N, Isayama H, Kawakami H et al (2013) Preliminary report on a new, fully covered, metal stent designed for the treatment of pancreatic fluid collections. Gastrointest Endosc 77:809–814CrossRefPubMed
16.
Shah RJ, Shah JN, Waxman I et al (2015) Safety and efficacy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided drainage of pancreatic fluid collections with lumen-apposing covered self-expanding metal stents. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 13:747–752CrossRefPubMed
17.
Siddiqui AA, Adler DG, Nieto J et al (2016) EUS-guided drainage of peripancreatic fluid collections and necrosis by using a novel lumenapposing stent: a large retrospective, multicenter U.S. experience (with videos). Gastrointest Endosc 83:699–707CrossRefPubMed
18.
19.
20.
Tsiotos GG, Sarr MG (1999) Management of fluid collections and necrosis in acute pancreatitis. Curr Gastroenterol Rep 1:139–144CrossRefPubMed
21.
Vitas GJ, Sarr MG (1992) Selected management of pancreatic pseudocysts: operative versus expectant management. Surgery 111: 123–130PubMed
22.
Bakker OJ, van Santvoort HC, van Brunschot S et al (2012) Endoscopic transgastric vs surgical necrosectomy for infected necrotizing pancreatitis: a randomized trial. JAMA 307:1053–1061CrossRefPubMed
23.
Mortele KJ, Girshman J, Szejnfeld D et al (2009) CT-guided percutaneous catheter drainage of acute necrotizing pancreatitis: clinical experience and observations in patients with sterile and infected necrosis. AJR Am J Roentgenol 192:110–116CrossRefPubMed
24.
Varadarajulu S, Bang JY, Sutton BS et al (2013) Equal efficacy of endoscopic and surgical cystogastrostomy for pancreatic pseudocyst drainage in a randomized trial. Gastroenterology 145:583–590CrossRefPubMed
25.
Gerolami R, Giovannini M, Laugier R (1997) Endoscopic drainage of pancreatic pseudocysts guided by endosonography. Endoscopy 29:106–108CrossRefPubMed
26.
27.
Jacobson BC, Baron TH, Adler DG et al (2005) ASGE guideline: the role of endoscopy in the diagnosis and the management of cystic lesions and inflammatory fluid collections of the pancreas. Gastrointest Endosc 61:363–370CrossRefPubMed
28.
Kahaleh M, Shami VM, Conaway MR et al (2006) Endoscopic ultrasound drainage of pancreatic pseudocyst: a prospective comparison with conventional endoscopic drainage. Endoscopy 38:355–359CrossRefPubMed
29.
Itoi T, Binmoeller KF, Shah J et al (2012) Clinical evaluation of a novel lumenapposing metal stent for endosonography-guided pancreatic pseudocyst and gallbladder drainage (with videos). Gastrointest Endosc 75:870–876CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Comparison of clinical efficacies and safeties of lumen-apposing metal stent and conventional-type metal stent-assisted EUS-guided pancreatic wall-off necrosis drainage: a real-life experience in a tertiary hospital
Authors
Siu Tong Law
Carlos De La SernaHiguera
Paula Gil Simón
Manuel Pérez-MirandaCastillo
Publication date
01-05-2018
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Surgical Endoscopy / Issue 5/2018
Print ISSN: 0930-2794
Electronic ISSN: 1432-2218
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-017-5946-6

Other articles of this Issue 5/2018

Surgical Endoscopy 5/2018 Go to the issue

OriginalPaper

Impact of incisional hernia development following abdominal operations on total healthcare cost

OriginalPaper

Resection outcomes and recurrence rates of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) and hybrid ESD for colorectal tumors in a single Italian center

OriginalPaper

Robotic-assisted modified radical neck dissection using a bilateral axillo-breast approach (robotic BABA MRND) for papillary thyroid carcinoma with lateral lymph node metastasis

OriginalPaper

Laparoscopy-assisted distal gastrectomy versus laparoscopy-assisted total gastrectomy with D2 lymph node dissection for middle-third advanced gastric cancer

OriginalPaper

Control of inferior vena cava injury during laparoscopic surgery using a double balloon-equipped central venous catheter: proof of concept in a live porcine model

OriginalPaper

Comparison of laparoscopic jejunostomy tube to percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy tube with jejunal extension: long-term durability and nutritional outcomes