Endoscopic ultrasound-guided pancreatic fluid collection drainage: Where are we?

Pancreatic fluid collections (PFCs) result from injury to the pancreas from acute or chronic pancreatitis, surgery, or trauma. Management of these collections has evolved over the last 2 decades. The choice of interventions includes percutaneous, endoscopic, minimally invasive surgery, or a combined approach. Endoscopic drainage is the drainage of PFCs by creating an artificial communication between the collection and gastrointestinal lumen that is maintained by placing a stent across the fistulous tract. In this editorial, we endeavored to update the current status of endoscopic ultrasound-guided drainage of PFCs.

A novel lumen-apposing metal stent for endoscopic drainage of symptomatic pancreatic fluid collections: a retrospective study.

Background and Objectives: Previous studies showed that lumen-apposing metal stent (LAMS) provides a feasible route to perform direct endoscopic necrosectomy. However, the high risk of bleeding and migration induced by the placement of LAMS attracted attention. The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of a novel LAMS. Methods: In this retrospective study, we enrolled patients with symptomatic pancreatic fluid collections (PFCs) to perform EUS-guided drainage with a LAMS in our hospital. Evaluation variables included technical success rate, clinical success rate, and adverse events. Results: Thirty-two patients with a mean age of 41.38 ± 10.72 years (53.1% males) were included in our study, and the mean size of PFC was 10.06 ± 3.03 cm. Technical success rate and clinical success rate reached 96.9% and 93.8%, respectively. Stent migration occurred in 1 patient (3.1%), and no stent-induced bleeding occurred. The outcomes of using LAMS in 10 patients with pancreatic pseudocyst and 22 patients with walled-off necrosis were comparable. Compared with pancreatic pseudocyst, walled-off necrosis needed more direct endoscopic necrosectomy times to achieve resolution (P = 0.024). Conclusions: Our study showed that the novel LAMS is effective and safe for endoscopic drainage of PFCs with a relatively low rate of adverse events. Further large-scale multicenter studies are needed to confirm the present findings.

The 1st i-EUS consensus on the management of pancreatic fluid collections - Part 2.

Pancreatic fluid collections (PFCs), including pancreatic pseudocysts (PPs) and walled-off pancreatic necrosis (WON), are common complications of pancreatitis and pancreatic surgery. Historically, the treatment of these conditions has relied on surgical and radiological approaches. The treatment of patients with PFCs has already focused toward an endoscopy-based approach, and with the development of dedicated lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMS), it has almost totally shifted towards interventional Endoscopic Ultrasound (EUS)-guided procedures. However, there is still limited consensus on several aspects of PFCs treatment within the multidisciplinary management. The interventional endoscopy and ultrasound (i-EUS) group is an Italian network of clinicians and scientists with special interest in biliopancreatic interventional endoscopy, especially interventional EUS. This manuscript focuses on the second part of the results of a consensus conference organized by i-EUS, with the aim of providing evidence-based guidance on several intra- and post-procedural aspects of PFCs drainage, such as clinical management and follow-up.

The i-EUS consensus on the management of pancreatic fluid collections - Part 1.

Pancreatic fluid collections (PFCs), including pancreatic pseudocysts (PPs) and walled-off pancreatic necrosis (WON), are common complications of pancreatitis and pancreatic surgery. Historically, the treatment of these conditions has relied on surgical and radiological approaches; however, it has later shifted toward an endoscopy-based approach. With the development of dedicated lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMS), interventional Endoscopic Ultrasound (EUS)-guided procedures have become the standard approach for PFC drainage. However, there is still limited consensus on several aspects of the multidisciplinary management of PFCs. The interventional endoscopy and ultrasound (i-EUS) group is an Italian network of clinicians and scientists with special interest in biliopancreatic interventional endoscopy, especially interventional EUS. This manuscript describes the first part of the results of a consensus conference organized by i-EUS with the aim of providing evidence-based guidance on aspects such as indications for treating PFCs, the timing of intervention, and different technical strategies for managing patients with PFCs.

Comparative Efficacy and Safety of Different Stent Types for Pancreatic Fluid Collections: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Drainage of pancreatic fluid collections (PFCs) is required in select cases including infected or symptomatic collections. In this network meta-analysis, we have compared lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMS), fully covered self-expandable metal stents (FCSEMS), and double-pigtail stents (DPS) to identify the most useful stent type in the management of PFCs. METHODS: We reviewed several databases to identify studies that compared DPS or FCSEMS with LAMS and the ones which compared DPS with FCSEMS for the treatment of PFCs. Our outcomes of interest were clinical success, adverse events, technical success, recurrence of PFCs, and procedure duration. Random effects model and frequentist approach were used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: We included 28 studies with 2974 patients. Rate of clinical success was significantly lower with DPS compared to LAMS, OR (95% CI): 0.43 (0.32, 0.59). Rate of recurrence was higher with DPS compared to LAMS, OR (95% CI): 2.06 (1.19, 3.57). We found no significant difference in rate of adverse events between groups. Rate of technical success was higher for FCSEMS compared to LAMS. Procedure duration was significantly shorter for LAMS compared to DPS and FCSEMS. Based on frequentist approach, LAMS was found to be superior to DPS and FCSEMS in achieving higher clinical success, lower rate of adverse events and recurrence, and shorter procedure time. CONCLUSIONS: This network meta-analysis demonstrates the superiority of LAMS over DPS and FCSEMS in the management of PFCs in achieving a higher clinical success, shorter procedure time, and lower rate of recurrence. Some of the analyses are not adequately powered to make firm conclusions, and future large multicenter RCTs are required to further evaluate this issue.

Contrast-enhanced guided endoscopic ultrasound procedures.

Contrast-enhanced endoscopic ultrasound (CH-EUS) can overcome the limitations of endoscopic ultrasound-guided acquisition by identifying microvessels inside inhomogeneous tumours and improving the characterization of these tumours. Despite the initial enthusiasm that oriented needle sampling under CH-EUS guidance could provide better diagnostic yield in pancreatic solid lesions, further studies did not confirm the supplementary values in cases of tissue acquisition guided by CH-EUS. This review details the knowledge based on the available data on contrast-guided procedures. The indications for CH-EUS tissue acquisition include isoechoic EUS lesions with poor visible delineation where CH-EUS can differentiate the lesion vascularisation from the surrounding parenchyma and also the mural nodules within biliopancreatic cystic lesions, which occur in select cases. Additionally, the roles of CH-EUS-guided therapy in patients whose pancreatic fluid collections or bile ducts that have an echogenic content have indications for drainage, and patients who have nonvisualized vessels that need to be highlighted via Doppler EUS are presented. Another indication is represented if there is a need for an immediate assessment of the post-radiofrequency ablation of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumours, in which case CH-EUS can be used to reveal the incomplete tumour destruction.

Endoscopic Drainage of Pancreatic Fluid Collections.

Pancreatic fluid collections (PFCs) are commonly encountered complications of acute and chronic pancreatitis. With the advancement of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) techniques and devices, EUS-directed transmural drainage of symptomatic or infected PFCs has become the standard of care. Traditionally, plastic stents have been used for drainage, although lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMSs) are now favored by most endoscopists due to ease of use and reduced procedure time. While safety has been repeatedly demonstrated, follow-up care for these patients is critical as delayed adverse events of indwelling drains are known to occur.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided lumen-apposing metal stent with or without coaxial plastic stent for pancreatic fluid collections: a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing safety and efficacy.

Background: Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMS) are preferred for draining symptomatic large pancreatic fluid collections (PFCs). A concurrent coaxial double-pigtail plastic stent (DPPS) is proposed to reduce adverse events associated with LAMS. We aimed to perform a comparative outcome analysis of LAMS with or without DPPS for PFCs. Methods: Electronic databases from January 2005 through July 2023 were searched for studies comparing the use of LAMS with or without DPPS for PFCs. Pooled proportions were calculated using fixed (inverse variance) and random-effects (DerSimonian-Laird) models. Results: After reviewing 1780 studies, we extracted data from 6 studies comprising 348 patients. The weighted odds of overall technical success, using LAMS plus DPPS compared to LAMS alone, were 0.53 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.15-1.83), and the odds of clinical success were 1.10 (95%CI 0.59-2.05). The weighted odds of total adverse events with LAMS compared to LAMS plus DPPS were 2.21 (95%CI 1.37-3.59). Analysis of individual adverse events showed that the odds of stent occlusion when LAMS alone was used compared to LAMS plus DPPS was 2.36 (95%CI 1.12-4.98). The odds of bleeding were 1.84 (95%CI 0.77-4.38), and the odds of stent migration 0.95 (95%CI 0.40-2.23). Conclusions: EUS-guided LAMS placement is the current standard of care for managing symptomatic large PFCs. Concurrent use of coaxial DPPS can mitigate the overall adverse events observed with LAMS, while maintaining similar technical and clinical success.

A location-based anatomic classification system for acute pancreatic fluid collections: Roadmap for optimal intervention in the step-up era.

Walled-off pancreatic necrosis (WOPN) is a local complication of acute necrotizing pancreatitis frequently requiring intervention. Treatment is typically through the coordinated efforts of a multidisciplinary team. Current management guidelines recommend a step-up approach beginning with minimally invasive techniques (percutaneous or transmural endoscopic drainage) followed by escalation to more invasive procedures if needed. Although the step-up approach is an evidence-based treatment paradigm for management of pancreatic fluid collections, it lacks guidance regarding optimal invasive technique selection based on the anatomic characteristics of pancreatic fluid collections. Similarly, existing cross-sectional imaging-based classification systems of pancreatic fluid collections have been used to predict disease severity and prognosis; however, none of these systems are designed to guide intervention. We propose a novel classification system which incorporates anatomic characteristics of pancreatic fluid collections (location and presence of disconnected pancreatic duct) to guide intervention selection and clinical decision making. We believe adoption of this simple classification system will help streamline treatment algorithms and facilitate cross-study comparisons for pancreatic fluid collections.

Clinical outcomes of long-term transmural drainage with double pigtail stents in disconnected pancreatic duct syndrome.

Background: Disconnected pancreatic duct syndrome (DPDS) is a common cause of recurrent pancreatic fluid collections (PFCs), often requiring repeat drainage. Following initial drainage with lumen apposing metal stents (LAMS), replacement with transmural double pigtail stents (DPS) has been shown to be a viable drainage modality mitigating the risk of recurrence. The sparsity of literature on the consequences of this strategy requires further investigation. We analyze our outcomes of long-term transmural drainage with DPS in patients with DPDS and assess the safety and efficacy of this technique. Methods: This retrospective review of a prospectively maintained database from November 2015-May 2022 included all patients with DPDS who underwent removal of LAMS and replacement with long-term transmural DPS. Patient demographics, collection characteristics, drainage technique and outcomes, as well as follow-up data was collected and analyzed using descriptive statistics. Results: There were 139 patients who underwent endoscopic drainage of PFCs with LAMS during the study period. Seventy-eight patients [walled-off necrosis (n=65) and pseudocysts (n=13)] were found to have DPDS. Of these, 44 patients underwent successful LAMS removal followed by replacement with DPS and were included in the analysis. The median age was 57 years and 14 (32%) were female. The median stent dwell time was 394 days [interquartile range (IQR) 245, 853 days]. Spontaneous stent migration was seen in seven patients (16%), one of whom developed a PFC recurrence which was managed conservatively. The second recurrence was seen in a patient with indwelling DPS which did not require further intervention. There were no locoregional adverse events secondary to long-term indwelling DPS. Among the 28 patients who were followed for a year, three patients developed new-onset diabetes, and chronic pancreatitis (CP) changes in the disconnected segment were seen in eight patients, five of whom required pancreatic enzyme supplementation. Conclusions: Placement of long-term transmural DPS is an effective modality for preventing collection re-accumulation with a favorable safety profile. Randomized prospective studies are essential to investigate the optimal removal timing of indwelling stents to prevent loco-regional complications. Given the realized risk of CP in the disconnected pancreas, follow-up cross sectional imaging may help guide further therapy.

Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Drainage of Pancreatic Fluid Collections: Not All Queries Are Already Solved.

Pancreatic fluid collections (PFCs) are well-known complications of acute pancreatitis. The overinfection of these collections leads to a worsening of the prognosis with an increase in the morbidity and mortality rate. The primary strategy for managing infected pancreatic necrosis (IPN) or symptomatic PFCs is a minimally invasive step-up approach, with endosonography-guided (EUS-guided) transmural drainage and debridement as the preferred and less invasive method. Different stents are available to drain PFCs: self-expandable metal stents (SEMSs), double pigtail stents (DPPSs), or lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMSs). In particular, LAMSs are useful when direct endoscopic necrosectomy is needed, as they allow easy access to the necrotic cavity; however, the rate of adverse events is not negligible, and to date, the superiority over DPPSs is still debated. Moreover, the timing for necrosectomy, the drainage technique, and the concurrent medical management are still debated. In this review, we focus attention on indications, timing, techniques, complications, and particularly on aspects that remain under debate concerning the EUS-guided drainage of PFCs.

Lumen-apposing metal stents versus traditional self-expanding metal stents for endoscopic ultrasound-guided drainage of pancreatic fluid collections: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic drainage has become the preferred treatment for pancreatic fluid collections (PFCs). There is still a lack of reliable evidence to prove which metal stent is the best choice for endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided drainage of PFCs. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMS) compared to traditional self-expanding metal stents (SEMS) in meta-analysis. METHODS: We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library up to July 15, 2023. Relevant publications that compared LAMS with traditional SEMS for drainage of patients' PFCs under EUS-guidance were included. This meta-analysis assessed endpoints using Review Manager 5.3 and Stata 14.0 statistical software. RESULT: Nine citations comprising 707 patients with PFCs were included. The clinical success rate of LAMS tended to be higher than that of SEMS (RR = 1.07, 95%CI [1.00, 1.15], P = 0.05). LAMS had a lower technical success rate (RR = 0.97, 95%CI [0.94, 0.99], P = 0.02) and faster procedure time (minutes) (MD = - 24.29, 95%CI [- 25.59, - 22.99], P < 0.00001) compared to SEMS. In addition, LAMS had fewer overall adverse events (RR = 0.64, 95%CI [0.48, 0.87], P = 0.004). For specific adverse events, LAMS had fewer migration (RR = 0.37, 95%CI [0.19, 0.72], P = 0.003), occlusion (RR = 0.43, 95%CI [0.22, 0.82], P = 0.01) and infection (RR = 0.38, 95%CI [0.20, 0.70], P = 0.002). There was no significant difference in bleeding and perforation between the two stents. For hospital stay (days), LAMS group was similar to SEMS group (MD = - 3.34, 95%CI [- 7.71, - 1.03], P = 0.13). Regarding recurrence, LAMS group was fewer than SEMS group (RR = 0.41, 95%CI [0.21, 0.78], P = 0.007). CONCLUSION: Compared to traditional SEMS, LAMS has a higher clinical success rate, faster procedure time, fewer adverse events, similar hospital stay and lower recurrence rate in EUS-guided drainage of PFCs. LAMS is a good choice with a high technical success rate over 95%, and using a shorter length or "one-step" operation can further improve it. Richer placement experience is required for LAMS placement under EUS-guidance.

Endoscopic transgastric fenestration versus percutaneous drainage for management of (peri)pancreatic fluid collections adjacent to gastric wall (with video).

BACKGROUND: Percutaneous drainage (PCD) and endoscopic approaches have largely replaced surgical drainage as the initial approach for (peri) pancreatic fluid collections (PFC)s, while complications associated with endoscopic stent implantation are common. AIM: To introduce a novel endoscopic therapy named endoscopic transgastric fenestration (ETGF), which involves resection of tissue by endoscopic accessory between gastric and PFCs without stent implantation, and to evaluate its efficacy and safety compared with PCD for the management of PFCs adjacent to the gastric wall. METHODS: Patients diagnosed with PFCs adjacent to the gastric wall and who subsequently received ETGF or PCD were restrospectively enrolled. Indications for intervention were consistent with related guidelines. We analyzed patients baseline characteristics, technical and clinical success rate, recurrence and reintervention rate, procedure-related complications and adverse events. RESULTS: Seventy-two eligible patients were retrospectively identified (ETGF = 34, PCD = 38) from October 2017 to May 2021. Patients in the ETGF group had a significantly higher clinical success rate than those in the PCD group (97.1 vs 76.3%, P = 0.01). There were no statistically significant differences regarding recurrence, reintervention and incidence of complication between the two groups. While long-term catheter drainage was very common in the PCD group. CONCLUSION: Compared with PCD, ETGF has a higher clinical success rate in the management of PFCs adjacent to the gastric wall. ETGF is an alternative effective strategy for the treatment of PFCs adjacent to the gastric wall.

Management of Disconnected Pancreatic Duct.

Disconnected pancreatic duct (DPD) is common after acute necrotizing pancreatitis (ANP). Its clinical implications vary according to the course of disease. In the early phase of ANP, parenchymal necrosis along with disruption of pancreatic duct cause acute necrotic collection that evolves into walled-off necrosis (WON). In the later phase, DPD becomes evident as confirmed by magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography. Clinical manifestations of DPD can vary from being asymptomatic, recurrent pain, recurrent pancreatic fluid collection (PFC), obstructive pancreatitis, or external pancreatic fistula (EPF). Few patients develop new-onset diabetes. Long-term indwelling plastic stents have been proposed to prevent the recurrent PFC.

Does a coaxial double pigtail stent reduce adverse events after lumen apposing metal stent placement for pancreatic fluid collections? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background: Lumen apposing metal stents (LAMSs) have a higher clinical success rate for managing pancreatic fluid collections. But they are associated with adverse events (AEs) like bleeding, migration, buried stent, occlusion, and infection. It has been hypothesized that placing a double pigtail stent (DPS) within LAMS may mitigate these AEs. The present systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to compare the outcome and AEs associated with LAMS with or without a coaxial DPS (LAMS-DPS). Methods: A comprehensive literature search of three databases from January 2010 to August 2022 was conducted for studies comparing the outcome and AEs of LAMS alone and LAMS-DPS. Pooled incidence and risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for all the dichotomous outcomes. Results: Overall, eight studies (n = 460) were included in the final analysis. The clinical success rate (RR 1.00, 95% CI: 0.87-1.14) and the risk of overall AEs (RR 1.60, 95% CI: 0.95-2.68) remained comparable between both groups. There was no difference in the risk of bleeding between LAMS alone and LAMS-DPS (RR 1.80, 95% CI: 0.83-3.88). Individual analysis of other AEs, including infection, stent migration, occlusion, and reintervention, showed no difference in the risk between both procedures. Conclusion: The present meta-analysis shows that coaxial DPS within LAMS may not reduce AE rates or improve clinical outcomes. Further larger studies, including patients with walled-off necrosis, are required to demonstrate the benefit of coaxial DPS within LAMS.

Endoscopic ultrasound drainage of pancreatic fluid collections: do we know enough about the best approach?

Pancreatic fluid collection often occurs as a local complication of acute pancreatitis, and drainage is indicated in symptomatic patients. The drainage may be surgical, percutaneous, or endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) guided. In symptomatic collections older than 4 weeks and localized in the upper abdomen, EUS-guided drainage is the first choice of treatment. Lumen-apposing metal stents are useful in cases of walled-off necrosis, facilitating access to the cavity; however, they do not reduce the number of necrosectomy sessions required. In most pancreatic pseudocysts requiring drainage, plastic stents remain the first choice of treatment. This review aimed to summarize the principles and techniques of step-up therapy of pancreatic fluid collections, including preprocedural and postprocedural assessment and practical approaches of drainage and necrosectomy, making available evidence more accessible to endoscopists aiming to train for this procedure. Successful and safe EUS drainage connotes early recognition and treatment of complications and the presence of a multidisciplinary team for optimal patient management. However, the best time for necrosectomy, modality of drainage method (lumen-apposing metal stents or plastic stents), and duration of antibiotherapy are still under evaluation.

Endoscopic ultrasound drainage of pancreatic fluid collections This review summarizes the current knowledge on the indications, techniques, outcomes, complications, and treatment-associated EUS drainage of pancreatic fluid collections. Special attention is paid to the practical approach in necrosectomy and postprocedural antibiotherapy, discontinuation of proton pump therapy, and timing of stent removal.

Lumen-apposing-metal stent misdeployment in endoscopic ultrasound-guided drainages: A systematic review focusing on issues and rescue management.

BACKGROUND: The introduction of lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMS) for endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided drainages has marked a turning point in the field of interventional ultrasound and it is gathering worldwide diffusion in different clinical settings. Nevertheless, the procedure may conceal unexpected pitfalls. LAMS misdeployment is the most frequent cause of technical failure and it can be considered a procedure-related adverse event when it hampers the conclusion of the planned procedure or results in significant clinical consequences. Stent misdeployment can be managed successfully by endoscopic rescue maneuvers to allow the completion of the procedure. To date, no standardized indication is available to guide an appropriate rescue strategy depending on the type of procedure or of misdeployment. AIM: To evaluate the incidence of LAMS misdeployment during EUS-guided choledochoduodenostomy (EUS-CDS), gallbladder drainage (EUS-GBD) and pancreatic fluid collections drainage (EUS-PFC) and to describe the endoscopic rescue strategies adopted under the circumstance. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of the literature on PubMed by searching for studies published up to October 2022. The search was carried out using the exploded medical subject heading terms "lumen apposing metal stent", "LAMS", "endoscopic ultrasound" and "choledochoduodenostomy" or "gallbladder" or "pancreatic fluid collections". We included in the review on-label EUS-guided procedures namely EUS-CDS, EUS-GBD and EUS-PFC. Only those publications reporting EUS-guided LAMS positioning were considered. The studies reporting a technical success rate of 100% and other procedure-related adverse events were considered to calculate the overall rate of LAMS misdeployment, while studies not reporting the causes of technical failure were excluded. Case reports were considered only for the extraction of data regarding the issues of misdeployment and rescue techniques. The following data were collected from each study: Author, year of publication, study design, study population, clinical indication, technical success, reported number of misdeployment, stent type and size, flange misdeployed and type of rescue strategy. RESULTS: The overall technical success rate of EUS-CDS, EUS-GBD and EUS-PFC was 93.7%, 96.1%, and 98.1% respectively. Significant rates of LAMS misdeployment have been reported for EUS-CDS, EUS-GBD and EUS-PFC drainage, respectively 5.8%, 3.4%, and 2.0%. Endoscopic rescue treatment was feasible in 86.8%, 80%, and 96.8% of cases. Non endoscopic rescue strategies were required only in 10.3%, 16% and 3.2% for EUS-CDS, EUS-GBD, and EUS-PFC. The endoscopic rescue techniques described were over-the-wire deployment of a new stent through the created fistula tract in 44.1%, 8% and 64.5% and stent-in-stent in 23.5%, 60%, and 12.9%, respectively for EUS-CDS, EUS-GBD, and EUS-PFC. Further therapeutic option were endoscopic rendezvous in 11.8% of EUS-CDS and repeated procedure of EUS-guided drainage in 16.1% of EUS-PFC. CONCLUSION: LAMS misdeployment is a relatively common adverse event in EUS-guided drainages. There is no consensus on the best rescue approach in these cases and the choice is often made by the endoscopist relying upon the clinical scenario, anatomical characteristics, and local expertise. In this review, we investigated the misdeployment of LAMS for each of the on-label indications focusing on the rescue therapies used, with the aim of providing useful data for endoscopists and to improve patient outcomes.

Efficacy and safety of endoscopic drainage versus percutaneous drainage for pancreatic fluid collection; a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Pancreatic fluid collections (PFC) are debris or fluid of the pancreas that needs to be drained out. This may result from surgery or necrotizing pancreatitis. This meta-analysis compared the outcomes of PFC through endoscopic and percutaneous interventions. METHODS: A medical database was searched up to June 2022, comparing the outcomes of endoscopic drainage (ED) and percutaneous drainage (PD) for the PFC. Eligible studies reporting clinical and technical success and adverse events were selected. RESULTS: Seventeen studies with 1170 patients were included for meta-analysis, of which 543 patients underwent ED and 627 underwent PD. The odd ratio (OR) of technical success was 0.81 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.31, 2.1) and clinical success was in the favor of the ED group at OR 2.23 (95% CI 1.45, 3.41). Adverse events OR 0.62 (95% CI 0.27, 1.39) and stent migration OR 0.61 (95% CI 0.10, 3.88) were the same in both groups, but hospital stay pooled mean difference of 15.02 days (95% CI 9.86, 20.18), mortality OR 0.24 (95% CI 0.09, 0.67), and re-interventions OR 0.25 (95% CI 0.16, 0.40) favored ED. CONCLUSIONS: ED is safe and efficient for PFC with higher clinical success, lower mortality rate, hospital stay, and re-interventions compared with PD.

Endoscopic management of pancreatic fluid collections with disconnected pancreatic duct syndrome.

Disconnected pancreatic duct syndrome (DPDS) is an important and common complication of acute necrotizing pancreatitis. Endoscopic approach has been established as the first-line treatment for pancreatic fluid collections (PFCs) with less invasion and satisfactory outcome. However, the presence of DPDS significantly complicates the management of PFC; besides, there is no standardized treatment for DPDS. The diagnosis of DPDS presents the first step of management, which can be preliminarily established by imaging methods including contrast-enhanced computed tomography, ERCP, magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP), and EUS. Historically, ERCP is considered as the gold standard for the diagnosis of DPDS, and secretin-enhanced MRCP is recommended as an appropriate diagnostic method in existing guidelines. With the development of endoscopic techniques and accessories, the endoscopic approach, mainly including transpapillary and transmural drainage, has been developed as the preferred treatment over percutaneous drainage and surgery for the management of PFC with DPDS. Many studies concerning various endoscopic treatment strategies have been published, especially in the recent 5 years. Nonetheless, existing current literature has reported inconsistent and confusing results. In this article, the latest evidence is summarized to explore the optimal endoscopic management of PFC with DPDS.

Computed tomography imaging-based predictors of the need for a step-up approach after initial endoscopic ultrasound-guided transmural drainage for pancreatic fluid collections.

BACKGROUND: A step-up approach is recommended as a new treatment algorithm for pancreatic fluid collections (PFCs). However, determining which patients with PFCs require a step-up approach after endoscopic ultrasound-guided transmural drainage (EUS-TD) is unclear. If the need for a step-up approach could be predicted, it could be performed early for relevant patients. We aimed to identify PFC-related predictive factors for a step-up approach after EUS-TD. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included consecutive patients who had undergone EUS-TD for PFCs from January 2008 to May 2020. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to investigate PFC factors related to requiring a step-up approach. A step-up approach was performed for patients who did not respond clinically to EUS-TD. RESULTS: We enrolled 81 patients, of whom 25 (30.9%) required a step-up approach. In multivariate logistic regression analysis, the pre-EUS-TD number of PFC-occupied regions ≥ 3 (multivariate odds ratio [OR] 16.2, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.68-97.6, P = 0.002), the post-EUS-TD PFC-remaining percentage ≥ 35% (multivariate OR 19.9, 95% CI 2.91-136.1, P = 0.002), and a positive sponge sign, which is a distinctive computed tomography finding in the early stage after EUS-TD (multivariate OR 6.26, 95% CI 1.33-29.3, P = 0.020), were independent predictive factors associated with requiring a step-up approach for PFCs. CONCLUSION: Pre-EUS-TD PFC-occupied regions, post-EUS-TD PFC-remaining percentage, and a positive sponge sign were predictors of the need for a step-up approach. Patients with PFC with these findings should be offered a step-up approach whereas conservative treatment is recommended for patients without these findings. CLINICAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: UMIN 000030898.