Head-to-head comparison between endoscopic ultrasound guided lumen apposing metal stent and plastic stents for the treatment of pancreatic fluid collections: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Peripancreatic fluid collections (PFCs) result from acute or chronic pancreatic inflammation that suffers a rupture of its ducts. Currently, there exists three options for drainage or debridement of pancreatic pseudocysts and walled-off necrosis (WON). The traditional procedure is drainage by placing double pigtail plastic stents (DPPS); lumen-apposing metal stent (LAMS) has a biflanged design with a wide lumen that avoids occlusion with necrotic tissue, which is more common with DPPS and reduces the possibility of migration. We performed a systematic review and meta-analyses head-to-head, including only studies that compare the two main techniques to drainage of PFCs: LAMS vs DPPS.
We conducted a systematic review in different databases, such as PubMed, OVID, Medline, and Cochrane Databases. This meta-analysis considers studies published from 2014 to 2020, including only studies that compare the two main techniques to drainage of PFCs: LAMS vs DPPS.
Thirteen studies were included in the meta-analyses. Only one of all studies was a randomized controlled trial. These studies comprise 1584 patients; 68.2% were male, and 31.8% were female. Six hundred sixty-three patients (41.9%) were treated with LAMS, and 921 (58.1%) were treated with DPPS. Six studies included only WON in their analysis, two included only pancreatic pseudocysts, and five studies included both pancreatic pseudocysts and WON. The technical success was similar in patients treated with LAMS and DPPS (97.6% vs 97.5%, respectively, P = .986, RR = 1.00 [95% CI 0.93-1.08]). The clinical success was similar in both groups (LAMS: 90.1% vs DPPS: 84.2%, P = .139, RR = 1.063 [95% CI 0.98-1.15]). Patients treated with LAMS had a lower complication rate than the DPPS groups, with a significant statistical difference (LAMS: 16.0% vs DPPS: 20.2%, P = .009, RR = 0.746 [95% CI 0.60-0.93]). Bleeding was the most common complication in the LAMS group (33 patients, [5.0%]), whereas infection was the most common complication in the DPPS group (56 patients, [6.1%]). The LAMS migration rate was lower than in the DPPS (0.9% vs 2.2%, respectively, P = .05). The mortality rate was similar in both groups, 0.6% in the LAMS group (four patients) and 0.4% in the DPPS group (four patients; P = .640).
The PFCs drainage is an indication when persistent symptoms or PFCs-related complications exist. EUS guided drainage with LAMS has similar technical and clinical success to DPPS drainage for the management of PFCs. The technical and clinical success rates are high in both groups. However, LAMS drainage has a lower adverse events rate than DPPS drainage. More randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm the real advantage of LAMS drainage over DPPS drainage.
Guzmán-Calderón E
，Chacaltana A
，Díaz R
，Li B
，Martinez-Moreno B
，Aparicio JR
... -
《-》
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
... -
《-》
Increased Incidence of Pseudoaneurysm Bleeding With Lumen-Apposing Metal Stents Compared to Double-Pigtail Plastic Stents in Patients With Peripancreatic Fluid Collections.
There have been few studies that compared the effects of lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMS) and double-pigtail plastic stents (DPS) in patients with peripancreatic fluid collections from pancreatitis. We aimed to compare technical and clinical success and adverse events in patients who received LAMS vs DPS for pancreatic pseudocysts and walled-off necrosis.
We performed a retrospective study of endoscopic ultrasound-mediated drainage in 149 patients (65% male; mean age, 47 y) with pancreatic pseudocysts or walled-off necrosis (97 received LAMS and 152 received DPS), from January 2011 through September 2016 at a single center. We collected data on patient characteristics, outcomes, hospitalizations, and imaging findings. Technical success was defined as LAMS insertion or a minimum of 2 DPS. Clinical success was defined as resolution of pancreatic pseudocysts or walled-off necrosis based on imaging results. The primary outcome was resolution of peripancreatic fluid collection with reduced abdominal pain or obstructive signs or symptoms. Secondary outcomes included the identification and management of adverse events, number of additional procedures required to resolve fluid collection, and the recurrence of fluid collection.
Patients who received LAMS had larger peripancreatic fluid collections than patients who received DPS prior to intervention (P = .001), and underwent an average 1.7 interventions vs 1.9 interventions for patients who received DPS (P = .93). Technical success was achieved for 90 patients with LAMS (92.8%) vs 137 patients with DPS (90.1%) (odds ratio [OR] for success with DPS, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.33-2.0; P = .67). Despite larger fluid collections in the LAMS group, there was no significant difference in proportions of patients with clinical success following placement of LAMS (82 of 84 patients, 97.6%) vs DPS (118 of 122 patients, 96.7%) (OR for clinical success with DPS, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.13-4.0; P = .71). Adverse events developed in 24 patients who received LAMS (24.7%) vs 27 patients who received DPS (17.8%) (OR for an adverse event in a patient receiving a DPS, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.33-2.0; P = .67). However, patients with LAMS had a higher risk of pseudoaneurysm bleeding than patients with DPS (OR, 10.0; 95% CI, 1.19-84.6; P = .009).
In a retrospective study of patients undergoing drainage of pancreatic pseudocysts or walled-off necrosis, we found LAMS and DPS to have comparable rates of technical and clinical success and adverse events. Drainage of walled-off necrosis or pancreatic pseudocysts using DPS was associated with fewer bleeding events overall, including pseudoaneurysm bleeding, but bleeding risk with LAMS should be weighed against the trend of higher actionable perforation and infection rates with DPS.
Brimhall B
，Han S
，Tatman PD
，Clark TJ
，Wani S
，Brauer B
，Edmundowicz S
，Wagh MS
，Attwell A
，Hammad H
，Shah RJ
... -
《-》
ResearchGate
(全网免费下载)
钛学术
(全网免费下载)
