Equivalent efficacy and safety of plastic stents and lumen-apposing metal stents in the treatment of peripancreatic fluid collections: a prospective cohort study.

Background Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided transmural drainage using double pigtail plastic stents (DPPS) has been routine for the treatment of peripancreatic fluid collections (PFC). Lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMS) have since their introduction been the preferred choice; however, their superiority has not been proven. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of DPPS and LAMS. Methods This was a single-center, prospective study that included consecutive patients undergoing EUS-guided drainage between January 2010 and December 2020. The primary endpoints were technical success, clinical success and adverse event rate, while the secondary endpoints included symptomatic relief, length of hospital stay, and need for adjunct drainage. A subgroup analysis of walled-off necrosis (WON) was performed. Results A total of 89 patients (median age 56 years) underwent EUS-guided transmural drainage (DPPS: n=53; LAMS: n=36) because of a pseudocyst (n=37) or a WON (n=52). Both DPPS and LAMS had a 100% technical success rate and a comparable adverse event rate (4% vs. 6%, P=0.24). An equivalent efficacy was recorded for the drainage of PFC comparing DPPS and LAMS, and no significant statistical difference was recorded in clinical success (DPPS 60% vs. LAMS 61%, P=0.94) or the need for reintervention (DPPS 11% vs. LAMS 13%, P=0.72). Conclusions In this large, prospective study of EUS-guided drainage of peripancreatic fluid collections, LAMS and DPPS showed equivalent safety, technical success, clinical success and hospital stay. Both techniques were associated with a comparable need for complementary necrosectomy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]