Search

Background: One‐stage endoscopic management, where papillary interventions and stone removal are simultaneously performed, has been reported to be an effective treatment for acute cholangitis caused by common bile duct stones (CBDS). However, there have been few reports comparing it with two‐stage management, and there is no established strategy for the indication of one‐stage management. The aim of the present study was to compare the short‐ and long‐term outcomes between one‐ and two‐stage management for acute cholangitis caused by CBDS. Methods: We retrospectively studied 577 patients who underwent one‐ or two‐stage endoscopic management for acute cholangitis between May 2010 and December 2020. The patients were divided into one‐ and two‐stage groups by endoscopic management. The clinical outcomes were compared between groups. Results: The technical and clinical success were similar in both groups, although the length of hospital stay was significantly shorter in the one‐stage group. Although there was no difference in the early adverse event (AE) between two groups, post‐ERCP pancreatitis was recognized in 3.4% and 10.0%, which was significantly higher in the two‐stage group. The cumulative late AE rate was 22.6% and 14.1%, which was significantly higher in the one‐stage group. In the multivariate analyses, intervention (one‐stage), number of CBDS ≥2, biliary drainage, the use of ML, and gallbladder stone were identified as significant factors associated with the recurrence of CBDS. Conclusion: Although one‐stage endoscopic management is useful and safe with reducing hospital stays, diligent postoperative follow‐up with consideration to recurrence of CBDS is essential. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: No comprehensive study has examined short‐ and long‐term adverse outcomes of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)‐guided treatment of pancreatic fluid collections (PFCs) including walled‐off necrosis (WON) and pseudocysts. Methods: In a multi‐institutional cohort of 357 patients receiving EUS‐guided treatment of PFCs (228 with WON and 129 with pseudocysts), we examined PFC type‐specific risk factors for procedure‐related adverse events (AEs), clinical failure, and recurrence. Odds ratios (ORs) and hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were computed using the logistic and Cox regression models, respectively, adjusting for potential confounders. Results: Adverse events were observed predominantly in WON, and risk factors were WON extension to the pelvis (OR 2.49; 95% CI 1.00–6.19) and endoscopic necrosectomy (OR 5.15; 95% CI 1.61–16.5). Risk factors for clinical failure in WON treatment included higher Charlson Comorbidity Index (OR for ≥3 vs. ≤2, 2.58; 95% CI 1.05–6.35), extension to the pelvis (OR 3.63; 95% CI 1.57–8.43), nonuse of a lumen‐apposing metal stent (OR 2.88; 95% CI 1.10–7.54), and percutaneous drainage (OR 3.73; 95% CI 1.27–10.9). Patients with pseudocysts extending to the paracolic gutter and the need for more than two endoscopic/percutaneous procedures had ORs for clinical failure of 5.28 (95% CI 1.10–25.3) and 5.52 (95% CI 1.61–18.9), respectively. Pseudocysts requiring the multigateway approach were associated with a high risk of recurrence (HR 4.00; 95% CI 1.11–11.6). Conclusion: The adverse outcomes at various phases of EUS‐guided PFC treatment may be predictable based on clinical parameters. Further research is warranted to optimize treatment strategies for high‐risk patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) is a common treatment for pancreatic stones in chronic pancreatitis. In contrast, peroral pancreatoscopy-guided lithotripsy (POPS-L) remains underexplored, with limited comparative studies to ESWL. This study compared the treatment outcomes of disposable POPS-L tools and ESWL for pancreatic stones. Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted on 66 patients who had undergone pancreatic stone treatment at three institutions between 2006 and 2022. The treatment outcomes of POPS-L and ESWL were compared. Results: This study included 19 and 47 patients who had undergone POPS-L and ESWL, respectively. In a comparison between POPS-L and ESWL, the stone clearance rates were 78.9% vs. 70.2% (p = 0.55), while the procedure-related complication rates were 21% vs. 6.3% (p = 0.09). The median total session counts were 1 vs. 5 (p < 0.01). The cumulative stone recurrence rates were comparable in both groups. Multivariate analysis revealed no significant factors influencing the stone clearance rates, and the choice between POPS-L and ESWL did not affect the stone clearance rates. Conclusions: POPS-L and ESWL exhibited comparable treatment outcomes in terms of stone clearance, complications, and recurrence rates. Furthermore, POPS-L is advantageous due to the need for fewer sessions to achieve pancreatic stone clearance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Although intraductal plastic stent (IS) placement is an effective treatment for unresectable malignant hilar biliary obstruction (UMHBO), the effectiveness of unilateral and bilateral IS drainage remains controversial. This retrospective study investigated the effectiveness of bilateral IS placement for UMHBO using the propensity score matching method. Methods: Patients who underwent transpapillary endoscopic stenting for UMHBO were analyzed for technical and clinical success, adverse events, and time to recurrent biliary obstruction (TRBO). Results: A total of 321 patients were enrolled in the study with 27 patients in each unilateral and bilateral IS group in the propensity score‐based cohort. Technical success was 100%, while clinical success was 93% and 96% in the unilateral and bilateral IS groups, respectively (p = 1.0). Cholecystitis occurred in 4% and 7%, respectively (p = 1.0). The median TRBO was shorter in the unilateral group (129 [5–383] days) than that in the bilateral group (226 [16–563] days) (p =.0281). Bilateral IS placement was an independent long TRBO factor (hazard ratio [HR] 0.46; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.21–0.97; p =.041). Conclusions: Unilateral and bilateral IS placement had high technical and clinical success rates in primary stent placement. However, bilateral IS placement showed a longer TRBO. Bilateral IS placement may be a good option for initial UMHBO drainage. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Pancreatic fluid collections (PFCs) typically develop as local complications of acute pancreatitis and complicate the clinical course of patients with acute pancreatitis and potentially fatal clinical outcomes. Interventions are required in cases of symptomatic walled‐off necrosis (WON) (matured PFCs with necrosis) and pancreatic pseudocysts (matured PFCs without necrosis). In the management of necrotizing pancreatitis and WON, endoscopic ultrasound‐guided transluminal drainage combined with on‐demand endoscopic necrosectomy (i.e. the step‐up approach) is increasingly used as a less invasive treatment modality compared with a surgical or percutaneous approach. Through the substantial research efforts and development of specific devices and stents (e.g. lumen‐apposing metal stents), endoscopic techniques of PFC management have been standardized to some extent. However, there has been no consensus about timing of carrying out each treatment step; for instance, it is uncertain when direct endoscopic necrosectomy should be initiated and finished and when a plastic or metal stent should be removed following clinical treatment success. Despite emerging evidence for the effectiveness of noninterventional supportive treatment (e.g. antibiotics, nutritional support, irrigation of the cavity), there has been only limited data on the timing of starting and stopping the treatment. Large studies are required to optimize the timing of those treatment options and improve clinical outcomes of patients with PFCs. In this review, we summarize the current available evidence on the indications and timing of interventional and supportive treatment modalities for this patient population and discussed clinical unmet needs that should be addressed in future research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]