Lumen-apposing metal stents for the treatment of pancreatic and peripancreatic fluid collections and bleeding risk: a propensity matched study.

INTRODUCTION: Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided drainage of symptomatic pancreatic fluid collections (PFCs) using the Hot-Axios device has recently been associated with a significant risk of bleeding. This adverse event (AE) seems to occur less frequently with the use of a different device, the Spaxus stent. The aim of the current study was to compare the rates of bleeding between the two stents. METHODS: Patients admitted for treatment of PFCs by EUS plus lumen-apposing metal stent in 18 endoscopy referral centers between 10 July 2019 and 28 February 2022 were identified and their outcomes compared using a propensity-matching analysis. RESULTS: 363 patients were evaluated. After a 1-to-1 propensity score match, 264 patients were selected (132 per group). The technical and clinical success rates were comparable between the two groups. Significantly more bleeding requiring transfusion and/or intervention occurred in the Hot-Axios group than in the Spaxus group (6.8% vs. 1.5%; P = 0.03); stent type was a significant predictor of bleeding in both univariate and multivariate regression analyses (P = 0.03 and 0.04, respectively). Bleeding necessitating arterial embolization did not however differ significantly between the two groups (3.0% vs. 0%; P = 0.12). In addition, the Hot-Axios was associated with a significantly higher rate of overall AEs compared with the Spaxus stent (9.8% vs. 3.0%; P = 0.04). CONCLUSION: Our study showed that, in patients with PFCs, bleeding requiring transfusion and/or intervention occurred significantly more frequently with use of the Hot-Axios stent than with the Spaxus stent, although this was not the case for bleeding requiring embolization.

Establishing the optimal number of passes during EUS-FNB for diagnosis of pancreatic solid lesions: Prospective multicenter study.

Background and study aims The optimal number of needle passes during endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) is not yet established. We aimed to perform a per-pass analysis of the diagnostic accuracy of EUS-FNB of solid pancreatic lesions using a 22G Franseen needle. Patients and methods Consecutive patients with solid pancreatic lesions referred to 11 Italian centers were prospectively enrolled. Three needle passes were performed; specimens were collected after each pass and processed individually as standard histology following macroscopic on-site evaluation (MOSE) by the endoscopist. The primary endpoint was diagnostic accuracy of each sequential pass. Final diagnosis was established based on surgical pathology or a clinical course of at least 6 months. Secondary endpoints were specimen adequacy, MOSE reliability, factors impacting diagnostic accuracy, and procedure-related adverse events. Results A total of 504 samples from 168 patients were evaluated. Diagnostic accuracy was 90.5% (85.0%-94.1%) after one pass and 97.6% (94.1%-99.3%) after two passes ( P =0.01). Similarly, diagnostic sensitivity and sample adequacy were significantly higher adding the second needle pass (90.2%, 84.6%-94.3% vs 97.5%, 93.8%-99.3%, P =0.009 and 91.1%, 85.7%-94.9% vs 98.2%, 95.8%-99.3%, P =0.009, one pass vs two passes, respectively). Accuracy, sensitivity, and adequacy remained the same after the third pass. The concordance between MOSE and histological evaluation was 89.9%. The number of passes was the only factor associated with accuracy. One case of mild acute pancreatitis (0.6%) was managed conservatively. Conclusions At least two passes should be performed for the diagnosis of solid pancreatic lesions. MOSE is a reliable tool to predict the histological adequacy of specimens.