Large-caliber metal stents versus plastic stents for the management of pancreatic walled-off necrosis.

Symptomatic pancreatic walled-off necrosis (WON) may be managed by endoscopic transmural drainage and endoscopic transmural necrosectomy, with stent placement at endoscopic drainage sites. The optimal stent choice is yet to be determined. We compared outcomes after endoscopic management of WON using either large-caliber fully covered self-expandable metal stents (LC-SEMSs) or double-pigtail plastic stents (DPPSs). We performed a retrospective comparison of outcomes among patients who received LC-SEMSs or DPPSs before endoscopic transmural necrosectomy for WON. Among 94 patients included, WON resolution rates did not differ between the DPPS (36 patients) and LC-SEMS (58 patients) groups, whether concomitant percutaneous drainage was considered a failure (75% vs 82.8%; P = .36) or not (91.7% vs 94.8%; P = .55). Of 75 patients (80%) successfully treated without percutaneous drainage, 37 (49%) underwent endoscopic transmural drainage without subsequent endoscopic transmural necrosectomy. WON was more likely to resolve without subsequent endoscopic transmural necrosectomy in the LC-SEMS group than the DPPS group (60.4% vs 30.8%; P = .01). WON resolution without subsequent endoscopic transmural necrosectomy remained more likely with LC-SEMSs (odds ratio, 4.5 [95% confidence interval, 1.5-15.5]) after adjusting for patient age and size and location of WON. Rates of adverse events were similar except for clinically significant bleeding requiring endoscopic intervention, which was higher with DPPSs than LC-SEMSs (14% vs 2%; P = .02). Management of pancreatic WON with LC-SEMSs appears to decrease both the need for repeated necrosectomy procedures and the risk of intervention-related hemorrhage.

Abu Dayyeh BK ，Mukewar S ，Majumder S ，Zaghlol R ，Vargas Valls EJ ，Bazerbachi F ，Levy MJ ，Baron TH ，Gostout CJ ，Petersen BT ，Martin J ，Gleeson FC ，Pearson RK ，Chari ST ，Vege SS ，Topazian MD ... -  《-》

Fully covered self-expanding metal stents versus lumen-apposing fully covered self-expanding metal stent versus plastic stents for endoscopic drainage of pancreatic walled-off necrosis: clinical outcomes and success.

Endoscopic transmural drainage/debridement of pancreatic walled-off necrosis (WON) has been performed using double-pigtail plastic (DP), fully covered self-expanding metal stents (FCSEMSs), or the novel lumen-apposing fully covered self-expanding metal stent (LAMS). Our aim was to perform a retrospective cohort study to compare the clinical outcomes and adverse events of EUS-guided drainage/debridement of WON with DP stents, FCSEMSs, and LAMSs. Consecutive patients in 2 centers with WON managed by EUS-guided debridement were divided into 3 groups: (1) those who underwent debridement using DP stents, (2) debridement using FCSEMSs, (3) debridement using LAMSs. Technical success (ability to access and drain a WON by placement of transmural stents), early adverse events, number of procedures performed per patient to achieve WON resolution, and long-term success (complete resolution of the WON without need for further reintervention at 6 months after treatment) were evaluated. From 2010 to 2015, 313 patients (23.3% female; mean age, 53 years) underwent WON debridement, including 106 who were drained using DP stents, 121 using FCSEMSs, and 86 using LAMSs. The 3 groups were matched for age, cause of the pancreatitis, WON size, and location. The cause of the patients' pancreatitis was gallstones (40.6%), alcohol (30.7%), idiopathic (13.1%), and other causes (15.6%). The mean cyst size was 102 mm (range, 20-510 mm). The mean number of endoscopy sessions was 2.5 (range, 1-13). The technical success rate of stent placement was 99%. Early adverse events were noted in 27 of 313 (8.6%) patients (perforation in 6, bleeding in 8, suprainfection in 9, other in 7). Successful endoscopic therapy was noted in 277 of 313 (89.6%) patients. When comparing the 3 groups, there was no difference in the technical success (P = .37). Early adverse events were significantly lower in the FCSEMS group compared with the DP and LAMS groups (1.6%, 7.5%, and 9.3%; P < .01). At 6-month follow-up, the rate of complete resolution of WON was lower with DP stents compared with FCSEMSs and LAMSs (81% vs 95% vs 90%; P = .001). The mean number of procedures required for WON resolution was significantly lower in the LAMS group compared with the FCSEMS and DP groups (2.2 vs 3 vs 3.6, respectively; P = .04). On multivariable analysis, DP stents remain the sole negative predictor for successful resolution of WON (odds ratio [OR], 0.18; 95% confidence interval, 0.06-0.53; P = .002) after adjusting for age, sex, and WON size. Although there was no significant difference between FCSEMSs and LAMSs for WON resolution, the LAMS was more likely to have early adverse events (OR, 6.6; P = .02). EUS-guided drainage/debridement of WON using FCSEMSs and LAMSs is superior to DP stents in terms of overall treatment efficacy. The number of procedures required for WON resolution was significantly lower with LAMSs compared with FCSEMSs and DP stents.

Siddiqui AA ，Kowalski TE ，Loren DE ，Khalid A ，Soomro A ，Mazhar SM ，Isby L ，Kahaleh M ，Karia K ，Yoo J ，Ofosu A ，Ng B ，Sharaiha RZ ... -  《-》

EUS-guided drainage of peripancreatic fluid collections with lumen-apposing metal stents and plastic double-pigtail stents: comparison of efficacy and adverse event rates.

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. 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. 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). 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.

Lang GD ，Fritz C ，Bhat T ，Das KK ，Murad FM ，Early DS ，Edmundowicz SA ，Kushnir VM ，Mullady DK ... -  《-》

American Gastroenterological Association Clinical Practice Update: Management of Pancreatic Necrosis.

The purpose of this American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) Institute Clinical Practice Update is to review the available evidence and expert recommendations regarding the clinical care of patients with pancreatic necrosis and to offer concise best practice advice for the optimal management of patients with this highly morbid condition. This expert review was commissioned and approved by the AGA Institute Clinical Practice Updates Committee and the AGA Governing Board to provide timely guidance on a topic of high clinical importance to the AGA membership, and underwent internal peer review by the Clinical Practice Updates Committee and external peer review through standard procedures of Gastroenterology. This review is framed around the 15 best practice advice points agreed upon by the authors, which reflect landmark and recent published articles in this field. This expert review also reflects the experiences of the authors, who are advanced endoscopists or hepatopancreatobiliary surgeons with extensive experience in managing and teaching others to care for patients with pancreatic necrosis. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 1: Pancreatic necrosis is associated with substantial morbidity and mortality and optimal management requires a multidisciplinary approach, including gastroenterologists, surgeons, interventional radiologists, and specialists in critical care medicine, infectious disease, and nutrition. In situations where clinical expertise may be limited, consideration should be given to transferring patients with significant pancreatic necrosis to an appropriate tertiary-care center. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 2: Antimicrobial therapy is best indicated for culture-proven infection in pancreatic necrosis or when infection is strongly suspected (ie, gas in the collection, bacteremia, sepsis, or clinical deterioration). Routine use of prophylactic antibiotics to prevent infection of sterile necrosis is not recommended. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 3: When infected necrosis is suspected, broad-spectrum intravenous antibiotics with ability to penetrate pancreatic necrosis should be favored (eg, carbapenems, quinolones, and metronidazole). Routine use of antifungal agents is not recommended. Computed tomography-guided fine-needle aspiration for Gram stain and cultures is unnecessary in the majority of cases. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 4: In patients with pancreatic necrosis, enteral feeding should be initiated early to decrease the risk of infected necrosis. A trial of oral nutrition is recommended immediately in patients in whom there is absence of nausea and vomiting and no signs of severe ileus or gastrointestinal luminal obstruction. When oral nutrition is not feasible, enteral nutrition by either nasogastric/duodenal or nasojejunal tube should be initiated as soon as possible. Total parenteral nutrition should be considered only in cases where oral or enteral feeds are not feasible or tolerated. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 5: Drainage and/or debridement of pancreatic necrosis is indicated in patients with infected necrosis. Drainage and/or debridement may be required in patients with sterile pancreatic necrosis and persistent unwellness marked by abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting, and nutritional failure or with associated complications, including gastrointestinal luminal obstruction; biliary obstruction; recurrent acute pancreatitis; fistulas; or persistent systemic inflammatory response syndrome. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 6: Pancreatic debridement should be avoided in the early, acute period (first 2 weeks), as it has been associated with increased morbidity and mortality. Debridement should be optimally delayed for 4 weeks and performed earlier only when there is an organized collection and a strong indication. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 7: Percutaneous drainage and transmural endoscopic drainage are both appropriate first-line, nonsurgical approaches in managing patients with walled-off pancreatic necrosis (WON). Endoscopic therapy through transmural drainage of WON may be preferred, as it avoids the risk of forming a pancreatocutaneous fistula. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 8: Percutaneous drainage of pancreatic necrosis should be considered in patients with infected or symptomatic necrotic collections in the early, acute period (<2 weeks), and in those with WON who are too ill to undergo endoscopic or surgical intervention. Percutaneous drainage should be strongly considered as an adjunct to endoscopic drainage for WON with deep extension into the paracolic gutters and pelvis or for salvage therapy after endoscopic or surgical debridement with residual necrosis burden. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 9: Self-expanding metal stents in the form of lumen-apposing metal stents appear to be superior to plastic stents for endoscopic transmural drainage of necrosis. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 10: The use of direct endoscopic necrosectomy should be reserved for those patients with limited necrosis who do not adequately respond to endoscopic transmural drainage using large-bore, self-expanding metal stents/lumen-apposing metal stents alone or plastic stents combined with irrigation. Direct endoscopic necrosectomy is a therapeutic option in patients with large amounts of infected necrosis, but should be performed at referral centers with the necessary endoscopic expertise and interventional radiology and surgical backup. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 11: Minimally invasive operative approaches to the debridement of acute necrotizing pancreatitis are preferred to open surgical necrosectomy when possible, given lower morbidity. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 12: Multiple minimally invasive surgical techniques are feasible and effective, including videoscopic-assisted retroperitoneal debridement, laparoscopic transgastric debridement, and open transgastric debridement. Selection of approach is best determined by pattern of disease, physiology of the patient, experience and expertise of the multidisciplinary team, and available resources. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 13: Open operative debridement maintains a role in the modern management of acute necrotizing pancreatitis in cases not amenable to less invasive endoscopic and/or surgical procedures. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 14: For patients with disconnected left pancreatic remnant after acute necrotizing mid-body necrosis, definitive surgical management with distal pancreatectomy should be undertaken in patients with reasonable operative candidacy. Insufficient evidence exists to support the management of the disconnected left pancreatic remnant with long-term transenteric endoscopic stenting. BEST PRACTICE ADVICE 15: A step-up approach consisting of percutaneous drainage or endoscopic transmural drainage using either plastic stents and irrigation or self-expanding metal stents/lumen-apposing metal stents alone, followed by direct endoscopic necrosectomy, and then surgical debridement is reasonable, although approaches may vary based on the available clinical expertise.

Baron TH ，DiMaio CJ ，Wang AY ，Morgan KA ... -  《-》

The role of solid debris in endoscopic ultrasound-guided drainage of walled-off necrosis: A large cohort study.

The effect of solid debris on walled-off necrosis (WON) drainage remains unknown. Our study evaluated the role of solid debris in endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided drainage of WON compared lumen-apposing metal stent (LAMS) with double-pigtail plastic stent (DPPS). We retrospectively evaluated consecutive patients with WON who underwent EUS-guided drainage in our endoscopic center over a 9-year period. The amount of solid debris in WON was assessed with computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging and EUS images. From 2011 to 2019, 84 WON patients were included. In WON with < 20% solid debris, the short-term clinical success of LAMSs (96.8%) was significantly higher than DPPSs (66.7%) (P = 0.03), and LAMSs were safer than DPPSs with less early adverse events (P = 0.02) and late adverse events (P = 0.03). On multivariable analysis, DPPS (odds ratio [OR], 0.16; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.04-0.65; P = 0.01) and solid debris > 40% (OR, 0.11; 95% CI, 0.02-0.62; P = 0.01) were the predictors for failure of resolution of WON after adjusting for age and cyst size. The number of DPPSs used was significantly higher than LAMSs in managing WONs (P < 0.001). For WON with < 20% solid debris, LAMSs might superior to DPPSs in terms of efficacy and safety.

Zhu H ，Xie P ，Wang Y ，Jin Z ，Li Z ，Du Y ... -  《-》