Fluoroscopy-assisted vs fluoroless endoscopic ultrasound-guided transmural drainage of pancreatic fluid collections: A comparative study / Fluoroscopia vs no fluoroscopia en el drenaje transmural de colecciones pancreáticas guiado por ecoendoscopia: estudio comparativo

Introduction: The need for fluoroscopy guidance in patients undergoing endoscopic ultrasound-guided transmural drainage (EUS-TMD) of peripancreatic fluid collections (PFCs) remains unclear. Aims: The aim of this study was to compare general outcomes of EUS-TMD of PFCs under fluoroscopy (F) vs fluoroless (FL). Methods: This is a comparative study with a retrospective analysis of a prospective and consecutive inclusion database at a tertiary centre, from 2009 to 2015. All patients were symptomatic pseudocyst (PSC) and walled-off pancreatic necrosis (WON). Two groups were assigned depending on availability of fluoroscopy. The groups were heterogeneous in terms of their demographic characteristics, PFCs and procedure. The main outcome measures included technical and clinical success, incidences, adverse events (AEs), and follow-up. Results: Fifty EUS-TMD of PFCs from 86 EUS-guided drainages were included during the study period. Group F included 26 procedures, PSC 69.2%, WON 30.8%, metal stents 61.5% (46.1% lumen-apposing stent) and plastic stents 38.5%. Group FL included 24 procedures, PSC 37.5%, WON 62.5%, and metal stents 95.8% (lumen-apposing stents). Technical success was 100% in both groups, and clinical success was similar (F 88.5%, FL 87.5%). Technical incidences and intra-procedure AEs were only described in group F (7.6% and 11.5%, respectively) and none in group FL. Procedure time was less in group FL (8min, p=0.0341). Conclusions: Fluoroless in the EUS-TMD of PFCs does not involve more technical incidences or intra-procedure AEs. Technical and clinical success was similar in the two groups (AU)

Introducción: La necesidad de la ayuda de fluoroscopia en pacientes que se les realiza un drenaje transmural guiada por ecoendoscopia (USE) de colecciones pancreáticas (CP) no está claro. Objetivo: El objetivo de este estudio fue comparar los resultados generales del drenaje transmural de CP con ayuda de fluoroscopia (F) versus sin fluoroscopia (SF). Métodos: Estudio comparativo, análisis retrospectivo, con inclusión prospectiva y consecutiva en una base de datos específica. Estudio realizado en un centro universitario terciario, en el periodo entre 2009 y 2015. Todos los pacientes fueron seudoquistes (PSQ) o colecciones pancreáticas necróticas encapsuladas (CPN) con clínica asociada. Se asignaron 2 grupos dependiendo de la disponibilidad de la fluoroscopia. Grupos heterogéneos respecto a sus características demográficas, CP y procedimientos. El estudio analizó el éxito técnico, el éxito clínico, las incidencias, los eventos adversos y el seguimiento. Resultados: Cincuenta drenajes transmurales guiados por USE de CP, de un total de 86 drenajes por USE, fueron incluidos durante el periodo del estudio. El grupo F incluyó 26 procedimientos, PSC 69,2%, CPN 30,8%, prótesis metálicas 61,5% (46,1% prótesis de aposición luminal) y plásticas 38,5%. El grupo SF incluyó 24 procedimientos, PSQ 37,5%, CPN 62,5% y prótesis metálicas 95,8% (prótesis de aposición luminal). Éxito técnico del 100% en ambos grupos, éxito clínico clínico similar (F 88,5%, FL 87,5%). Incidencias técnicas y eventos adversos intraprocedimiento: solo descritos en grupo F (7,6% y 11.5%, respectivamente) y ninguna en el grupo SF. Tiempo del procedimiento menor en grupo SF (8min, p=0.0341). Conclusiones: El drenaje transmural de CP sin ayuda de fluoroscopia no comportó mayor número de incidencias técnicas o eventos adversos intraprocedimiento. Los éxitos técnico y clínico fueron similares en ambos grupos (AU)

Fluoroscopy-assisted vs fluoroless endoscopic ultrasound-guided transmural drainage of pancreatic fluid collections: A comparative study.

INTRODUCTION: The need for fluoroscopy guidance in patients undergoing endoscopic ultrasound-guided transmural drainage (EUS-TMD) of peripancreatic fluid collections (PFCs) remains unclear. AIMS: The aim of this study was to compare general outcomes of EUS-TMD of PFCs under fluoroscopy (F) vs fluoroless (FL). METHODS: This is a comparative study with a retrospective analysis of a prospective and consecutive inclusion database at a tertiary centre, from 2009 to 2015. All patients were symptomatic pseudocyst (PSC) and walled-off pancreatic necrosis (WON). Two groups were assigned depending on availability of fluoroscopy. The groups were heterogeneous in terms of their demographic characteristics, PFCs and procedure. The main outcome measures included technical and clinical success, incidences, adverse events (AEs), and follow-up. RESULTS: Fifty EUS-TMD of PFCs from 86 EUS-guided drainages were included during the study period. Group F included 26 procedures, PSC 69.2%, WON 30.8%, metal stents 61.5% (46.1% lumen-apposing stent) and plastic stents 38.5%. Group FL included 24 procedures, PSC 37.5%, WON 62.5%, and metal stents 95.8% (lumen-apposing stents). Technical success was 100% in both groups, and clinical success was similar (F 88.5%, FL 87.5%). Technical incidences and intra-procedure AEs were only described in group F (7.6% and 11.5%, respectively) and none in group FL. Procedure time was less in group FL (8min, p=0.0341). CONCLUSIONS: Fluoroless in the EUS-TMD of PFCs does not involve more technical incidences or intra-procedure AEs. Technical and clinical success was similar in the two groups.

Endoscopic necrosectomy of walled-off pancreatic necrosis using a lumen-apposing metal stent and irrigation technique.

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic management of walled-off pancreatic necrosis (WOPN) is an area of great interest with many still unanswered questions, including the role of mechanical necrosectomy versus irrigation. The aim of this study was to evaluate a new method of endoscopic transmural necrosectomy. METHODS: Patients with WOPN after necrotizing pancreatitis, who underwent endoscopic transmural necrosectomy using a lumen-apposing metal stent with vigorous irrigation sessions, were prospectively recruited between September 2011 and August 2014. Initial endoscopic session was performed by EUS-guided drainage and lavage sessions by flushing saline through the stent. Technical and clinical success rates, number of repeat interventions, and adverse events were analyzed. RESULTS: Twelve patients with 13 WOPN collections (median size 12.4 ± 2.94 cm) underwent endoscopic treatment. Clinical success was achieved in 100 % of cases after a median of three sessions per patient (range 2-8). The median length of hospitalization was 15.9 days. Median procedure time of the access session was 31 ± 10.16 min. No adverse events (AE) were described during the procedures or 24 h after. There were four AE (two infections and two bleedings) between sessions, but only two were severe (16.6 %). There was no need for surgery, and no mortalities occurred. Mean time to stent retrieval was 9 ± 3.4 weeks. Mean follow-up was 13 months with only one recurrence at 12 months after stent removal. CONCLUSIONS: This new variant of irrigation endoscopic transmural necrosectomy without mechanical debridement helps to simplify the technique, is feasible, and has excellent outcomes in WOPN treatment.

EUS-guided methylene blue cholangiopancreatography for benign biliopancreatic diseases after failed ERCP.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: When ERCP fails, EUS-guided interventional techniques may be an alternative. The aim of this study was to evaluate the general outcomes and safety of EUS-guided methylene blue cholangiopancreatography in patients with failed ERCP in benign biliopancreatic diseases. METHODS: Patients with benign biliopancreatic diseases and failed ERCP were included. EUS-guided cholangiopancreatography plus injection of methylene blue was performed, and then ERCP using coloring agent flow as an indicator of papilla orifice was performed. Procedures were prospectively collected in this observational, single-center study. Technical success, clinical success, and adverse events were analyzed retrospectively. RESULTS: Eleven patients were included (10 choledocholithiasis, 1 pancreatic stricture). The main reason for failed ERCP was an unidentifiable papilla. EUS-guided ductal access with cholangiopancreatography and papilla orifice identification was obtained in all cases. Technical success and clinical success rates of 91% were achieved, with successful biliopancreatic drainage in 10 patients. Adverse events included 1 peripancreatic abscess attributed to a precut, which was successfully treated. No adverse events were related to the first EUS-guided stage. CONCLUSION: EUS-guided cholangiopancreatography with methylene blue injection seems to be a feasible and helpful technique for treatment in patients with benign biliopancreatic diseases with previous failed ERCP because of an undetectable papilla.