Search

Background and study aims The use of lumen apposing metal stents (LAMS) during EUS-guided transmural drainage (EUS-TD) of pancreatic walled-off necrosis (WON) has gained popularity. Data supporting their use in WON over plastic stents (PS), however, remain scarce. The aim of this study was to compare the clinical efficacy of LAMS (Axios, Boston Scientific) with PS in WON. Patients and methods This was a multicenter, retrospective study involving 14 centers. Consecutive patients who underwent EUS-TD of WON (2012 – 2016) were included. The primary end point was clinical success defined as WON size ≤ 3 cm within a 6-month period without need for percutaneous drainage (PCD) or surgery. Results A total of 189 patients (mean age 55.2 ± 15.6 years, 34.9 % female) were included (102 LAMS and 87 PS). Technical success rates were similar: 100 % in LAMS and 98.9 % in PS (P = 0.28). Clinical success was attained in 80.4 % of LAMS and 57.5 % of PS (P = 0.001). Rate of PCD was similar (13.7 % LAMS vs. 16.3 % PS, P = 0.62), while PS was associated with a greater need for surgery (16.1 % PS vs. 5.6 % LAMS, P = 0.02). Adverse events (AEs) were observed in 9.8 % of LAMS and 10.3 % of PS (P = 0.90) and were rated as severe in 2.0 % and 6.9 %, respectively (P = 0.93). After excluding patients with Conclusions When compared to PS, LAMS in WON is associated with higher clinical success, shorter procedure time, lower need for surgery, and lower rate of recurrence.

For patients recovering from acute pancreatitis, the development of a pancreatic fluid collection (PFC) predicts a more complex course of recovery, and introduces difficult management decisions with regard to when, whether, and how the collection should be drained. Most PFCs resolve spontaneously and drainage is indicated only in pseudocysts and walled-off pancreatic necrosis when the collections are causing symptoms and/or local complications such as biliary obstruction. Historical approaches to PFC drainage have included surgical (open or laparoscopic cystgastrostomy or pancreatic debridement), and the placement of percutaneous drains. Endoscopic drainage techniques have emerged in the last several years as the preferred approach for most patients, when local expertise is available. Lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMS) have recently been developed as a tool to facilitate potentially safer and easier endoscopic drainage of pancreatic fluid collections, and less commonly, for other indications, such as gallbladder drainage. Physicians considering LAMS placement must be aware of the complications most commonly associated with LAMS including bleeding, migration, buried stent, stent occlusion, and perforation. Because of the patient complexity associated with severe pancreatitis, management of pancreatic fluid collections can be a complex and multidisciplinary endeavor. Successful and safe use of LAMS for patients with pancreatic fluid collections requires that the endoscopist have a full understanding of the potential complications of LAMS techniques, including how to recognize and manage expected complications.

Background and Objectives: EUS-guided drainage, and direct endoscopic necrosectomy (DEN) of walled-off necrosis (WON) using a lumen-apposing metal stent (LAMS) is safe and effective. Early debridement of WON may improve overall clinical outcomes. The aim of this study is to perform a multicenter retrospective study to compare the clinical outcomes and predictors of success for endoscopic drainage of WON with LAMS followed by immediate or delayed DEN performed at standard intervals. Methods: Patients with WON managed by EUS-guided drainage with LAMS were divided into 2 groups: (1) those that underwent immediate DEN at the time of stent placement and (2) those that underwent delayed DEN 1 week after stent placement. DEN was subsequently performed every 1–2 week (s). Technical success (successful placement of LAMS), adverse events (AEs), and clinical success (complete resolution of the WON) were evaluated. Results: Totally, 271 patients underwent WON drainage with LAMS: 69 who underwent immediate DEN and 202 who underwent delayed DEN. The technical success for LAMS placement was 100% in both groups. There was no significant difference in the overall procedural AEs between the immediate and delayed DEN groups (P = 7.2% vs. 9.4%; P = 0.81). Stent dislodgement during index endoscopy occurred in three patients in the immediate DEN group compared to zero in the delayed DEN group (P = 0.016); all three dislodgements occurred during necrosectomy. Clinical success for WON resolution in the immediate DEN group was 91.3% compared to 86.1% in the delayed DEN group (P = 0.3). The mean number of necrosectomy sessions for WON resolution was significantly lower in the immediate DEN group compared to the delayed DEN group (3.1 vs. 3.9, P < 0.001). Performing DEN at the time of stent placement was an independent predictor for resolution of WON with lesser number of DEN sessions (odds ratio 2.3; P = 0.004). Conclusions: DEN at the time of initial stent placement reduces the number of necrosectomy sessions required for successful clinical resolution of WON.