Plastic pigtail vs lumen-apposing metal stents for drainage of walled-off necrosis (PROMETHEUS study): an open-label, multicenter randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMS) have displaced double-pigtail plastic stents (DPS) as the standard treatment for walled-off necrosis (WON),ß but evidence for exclusively using LAMS is limited. We aimed to assess whether the theoretical benefit of LAMS was superior to DPS. METHODS: This multicenter, open-label, randomized trial was carried out in 9 tertiary hospitals. Between June 2017, and Oct 2020, we screened 99 patients with symptomatic WON, of whom 64 were enrolled and randomly assigned to the DPS group (n = 31) or the LAMS group (n = 33). The primary outcome was short-term (4-weeks) clinical success determined by the reduction of collection. Secondary endpoints included long-term clinical success, hospitalization, procedure duration, recurrence, safety, and costs. Analyses were by intention-to-treat. CLINICALTRIALS: gov, NCT03100578. RESULTS: A similar clinical success rate in the short term (RR, 1.41; 95% CI 0.88-2.25; p = 0.218) and in the long term (RR, 1.2; 95% CI 0.92-1.58; p = 0.291) was observed between both groups. Procedure duration was significantly shorter in the LAMS group (35 vs. 45-min, p = 0.003). The hospital admission after the index procedure (median difference, - 10 [95% CI - 17.5, - 1]; p = 0.077) and global hospitalization (median difference - 4 [95% CI - 33, 25.51]; p = 0.82) were similar between both groups. Reported stent-related adverse events were similar for the two groups (36 vs.45% in LAMS vs. DPS), except for de novo fever, which was significantly 26% lower in LAMS (RR, 0.26 [0.08-0.83], p = 0.015). CONCLUSIONS: The clinical superiority of LAMS over DPS for WON therapy was not proved, with similar clinical success, hospital stay and similar safety profile between both groups, yet a significant reduction in procedure time was observed. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03100578.

Management of small subepithelial tumors by endoscopic banding without resection and single-incision needle-knife-assisted biopsy sampling: a prospective multicenter study.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Endoscopic band ligation (EBL) without resection combined with single-incision needle-knife (SINK) biopsy sampling may have a positive impact on small GI subepithelial tumor (SET) management, but the method needs to be tested. The aim was to evaluate the feasibility of this strategy in small-sized SETs. METHODS: This prospective multicenter observational cohort study in 7 centers included patients with SETs ≤15 mm (confirmed by EUS) between March 2017 and March 2020. The primary outcome was clinical success at 4 weeks, defined as complete SET disappearance on EUS. Secondary outcomes were long-term (1-year) clinical success, technical difficulty level, clinical impact, yield pathology, and safety. RESULTS: Of 273 patients screened, 122 (62.3% women; mean age, 60.9 ± 13.2 years) were included with SETs (mean size, 9 ± 2.8 mm; gastric location, 77%; superficial layer dependence, 63%). The primary endpoint was achieved in 73.6% of patients (95% confidence interval [CI], 64.8-81.2). At the 1-year follow-up, the success rate was 68.4% (95% CI, 59.1-76.8). A favorable clinical impact was observed in 97 cases (79.5%; 95% CI, 71.3-86.3). Pathology diagnosis was known in 70%. Potentially malignant lesions were present in 24.7%. The related adverse events rate was 4.1% (95% CI, 1.3-9.3; all mild: 2 bleeding, 2 abdominal pain). On multivariable analysis, the ≤10-mm SET group was associated with a greater success rate (1 year, 87%; relative risk, 5.07; 95% CI, 2.63-9.8) and clinical impact rate (92.7%; relative risk, 6.15; 95% CI, 2.72-13.93). CONCLUSIONS: EBL plus SINK biopsy sampling seems to be feasible and safe, and it may offer a favorable clinical impact in small-sized SETs. In particular, SETs ≤10 mm are the best candidates. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT03247231.).

Endoscopic removal of lumen-apposing metal stents - risk factors for stent embedment, complex removals, and adverse events: analysis from a multicenter prospective case series.

BACKGROUND: Removing lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMSs) may be difficult and even harmful, but these features have seldom been analyzed. We aimed to generate a comprehensive assessment of the feasibility and safety of LAMS retrieval procedures. METHODS: A prospective multicenter case series including all technically successfully deployed LAMSs between January 2019 and January 2020 that underwent endoscopic stent removal. All retrieval-related data were prospectively recorded using standardized telephone questionnaires as part of centralized follow-up that ended after stent removal had been performed. Multivariable logistic regression models assessed the potential risk factors for complex removal. RESULTS: For the 407 LAMSs included, removal was attempted in 158 (38.8 %) after an indwell time of 46.5 days (interquartile range [IQR] 31-70). The median (IQR) removal time was 2 (1-4) minutes. Removal was labelled as complex in 13 procedures (8.2 %), although advanced endoscopic maneuvers were required in only two (1.3 %). Complex removal risk factors were stent embedment (relative risk [RR] 5.84, 95 %CI 2.14-15.89; P = 0.001), over-the-wire deployment (RR 4.66, 95 %CI 1.60-13.56; P = 0.01), and longer indwell times (RR 1.14, 95 %CI 1.03-1.27; P = 0.01). Partial and complete embedment were observed in 14 (8.9 %) and five cases (3.2 %), respectively. The embedment rate during the first 6 weeks was 3.1 % (2/65), reaching 15.9 % (10/63) during the following 6 weeks (P = 0.02). The adverse event rate was 5.1 %, including seven gastrointestinal bleeds (5 mild, 2 moderate). CONCLUSIONS: LAMS removal is a safe procedure, mostly requiring basic endoscopic techniques attainable in conventional endoscopy rooms. Referral to advanced endoscopy units should be considered for stents with known embedment or long indwell times, which may require more technically demanding procedures.

Is a coaxial plastic stent within a lumen-apposing metal stent useful for the management of distal malignant biliary obstruction?

BACKGROUND: There are uncertainties concerning the possible benefits derived from the insertion of double-pigtail plastic stents (DPS) within lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMS) in EUS-guided choledochoduodenostomy (CDS). The aim of this study was to determine whether a DPS within a biliary LAMS offers a potential benefit in EUS-guided CDS for the palliative management of malignant biliary obstruction. METHODS: This was a multicentre retrospective study at three tertiary institutions. PERIOD: May 2015 to August 2020. Two interventional strategies (LAMS alone and LAMS plus DPS) were compared. The choice was the endoscopist's discretion. Inclusion: unresectable/inoperable biliopancreatic tumours with previous failed ERCP. Clinical success: bilirubin decrease > 30% at 4 weeks. RESULTS: Forty-one consecutive cases of EUS-CDS using biliary LAMS were treated (22 women; mean age, 72.3 years) during the study period. The procedure was technically successful in 39 (95.1%), who were managed using the two strategies (22 LAMS alone; 17 LAMS plus DPS). No differences between the groups, in terms of clinical success (77.3 vs 87.5%, p = 0.67), adverse events (AEs, 13.6 vs 11.8%, p = 0.99), recurrent biliary obstruction (RBO, 13.6 vs 23.5%, p = 0.67), or survival rate (p = 0.67) were encountered. The LAMS alone group had a shorter length of procedure (50 min vs 66 min, p = 0.102). No risk factors related to clinical success, AEs, RBO, or survival were detected. CONCLUSIONS: The technical variant of adding a coaxial DPS within LAMS in EUS-CDS seems not to be enough to prevent biliary morbidities, and it is a time-consuming strategy. Although prospective studies are needed, these results do not support its routine use.

Endoscopic biliary drainage in unresectable biliary obstruction: the role of endoscopic ultrasound-guidance in a cohort study.

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: the use of endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) has increased in cases of failed endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and there are some concerns. The main aim of the study was to determine the role of EUS-BD in a palliative case cohort. The secondary aim was to compare the efficacy, safety and survival of EUS-BD and ERCP procedures. PATIENTS AND METHODS: this was an observational study at a single tertiary institution, with a consecutive inclusion from January 2015 to December 2016. The inclusion criteria were unresectable tumors of the biliopancreatic region with an indication of BD. Statistical comparison analysis was performed between the ERCP and EUS-BD groups. The incidence between groups was compared using the Chi-square and Fisher exact tests. The log rank test was used to compare the risk of death. RESULTS: fifty-two cases with an indication of palliative BD were included in the study. Transpapillary drainage via ERCP was possible in 44 procedures and EUS-BD was required in eight cases; 15.4% of the cohort and seven using lumen apposing metal stent (LAMS). The technical and clinical success of global endoscopic BD was 100% and 88.5% (ERCP: 84.6% and 78.9%; EUS-BD: 100% and 62.5%, respectively). Pancreatitis was the most frequent adverse event (AE) in the ERCP group (9.62%) and bleeding in the EUS-BD (25%). There were fatal AEs in ERCP (1.9%) and EUS-BD (25%) cases. Patient survival was higher with ERCP transpapillary stents compared to EUS-guided stents, which was statistically significant (p = 0.007). CONCLUSIONS: the requirement of EUS-BD in palliative biliopancreatic pathology is not marginal. EUS-BD is associated with a lower survival rate and a higher rate of fatal AE, which argues against its use as a first choice procedure.

Conversion of a dysfunctional choledochoduodenostomy to transpapillary drainage via a trans-lumen-apposing metal stent choledochoduodenoscopy.

Video 1Peroral antegrade cholangioscopy-guided conversion of dysfunctional choledochoduodenostomy to transpapillary drainage via trans-LAMS (lumen-apposing metal stent).