Gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2017
EUS-guided drainage of peripancreatic fluid collections with lumen-apposing metal stents and plastic double-pigtail stents: comparison of efficacy and adverse event rates.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Lang Gabriel D, Fritz Cassandra, Bhat Trisha, Das Koushik K, Murad Faris M, Early Dayna S, Edmundowicz Steven A, Kushnir Vladimir M, Mullady Daniel K
Аннотация
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Transmural drainage with double-pigtail plastic stents (DPPSs) was the mainstay of endoscopic therapy for symptomatic peripancreatic fluid collections (PPFCs) until the introduction of lumen-apposing covered self-expanding metal stents (LAMSs). Currently, there are limited data regarding the efficacy and adverse event rate of LAMSs compared with DPPSs.
METHODS: A retrospective analysis of EUS-guided PPFC drainage at a single tertiary care center between 2008 and 2015 was performed. Patients were classified based on drainage method: DPPSs and LAMSs. Adverse event rates, unplanned endoscopic procedures/necrosectomies, and PPFC resolution within 6 months were recorded. Significant bleeding was defined as necessitating transfusion or requiring endoscopic treatment/radiographic embolization. Subsequent endoscopic procedures were defined as unplanned procedures; stent removals were excluded.
RESULTS: A total of 103 patients met inclusion criteria (84 DPPSs, 19 LAMSs). PPFCs were classified as walled-off necrosis (WON) in 23 (14 DPPSs, 9 LAMSs). There were significantly more bleeding episodes in the LAMS group (4 [19%]: 2 splenic artery pseudo-aneurysms, 1 collateral vessel bleed, 1 intracavitary variceal bleed; P = .0003) than in the DPPS group (1 (1%]: stent erosion into the gastric wall). One perforation occurred in the DPPS group. Unplanned repeat endoscopy was more frequent in the LAMS group (10% vs 26%, P = .07). Among retreated LAMS patients in with WON, 5 (56%) had obstruction by necrotic debris. In patients for whom follow-up was available, 67 of 70 (96%) with DPPSs and 16 of 17 (94%) with LAMSs had resolution of PPFCs within 6 months (P = .78).
CONCLUSIONS: DPPSs and LAMSs are effective methods for treatment of PPFCs. In our cohort, use of LAMSs was associated with significantly higher rates of procedure-related bleeding and greater need for repeat endoscopic intervention.
METHODS: A retrospective analysis of EUS-guided PPFC drainage at a single tertiary care center between 2008 and 2015 was performed. Patients were classified based on drainage method: DPPSs and LAMSs. Adverse event rates, unplanned endoscopic procedures/necrosectomies, and PPFC resolution within 6 months were recorded. Significant bleeding was defined as necessitating transfusion or requiring endoscopic treatment/radiographic embolization. Subsequent endoscopic procedures were defined as unplanned procedures; stent removals were excluded.
RESULTS: A total of 103 patients met inclusion criteria (84 DPPSs, 19 LAMSs). PPFCs were classified as walled-off necrosis (WON) in 23 (14 DPPSs, 9 LAMSs). There were significantly more bleeding episodes in the LAMS group (4 [19%]: 2 splenic artery pseudo-aneurysms, 1 collateral vessel bleed, 1 intracavitary variceal bleed; P = .0003) than in the DPPS group (1 (1%]: stent erosion into the gastric wall). One perforation occurred in the DPPS group. Unplanned repeat endoscopy was more frequent in the LAMS group (10% vs 26%, P = .07). Among retreated LAMS patients in with WON, 5 (56%) had obstruction by necrotic debris. In patients for whom follow-up was available, 67 of 70 (96%) with DPPSs and 16 of 17 (94%) with LAMSs had resolution of PPFCs within 6 months (P = .78).
CONCLUSIONS: DPPSs and LAMSs are effective methods for treatment of PPFCs. In our cohort, use of LAMSs was associated with significantly higher rates of procedure-related bleeding and greater need for repeat endoscopic intervention.