Literature DB >> 23571613

Endoscopic ultrasonography-guided drainage is an effective and relatively safe treatment for peripancreatic fluid collections in a cohort of 108 symptomatic patients.

Hannah T Künzli1, Robin Timmer, Matthijs P Schwartz, Ben J Witteman, Bas L A M Weusten, Martijn G H van Oijen, Peter D Siersema, Frank P Vleggaar.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: Endoscopic drainage [i.e. conventional, endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS)-assisted, or EUS-guided] is an accepted treatment modality for symptomatic peripancreatic fluid collections (PFC), but data on the efficacy and safety of EUS-guided drainage performed in a large patient cohort are not widely available. Our aim was to evaluate the clinical success and complication rate of EUS-guided drainage of PFCs and to identify prognostic factors for complications and recurrence of PFCs. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A retrospective analysis was carried out of consecutive patients undergoing EUS-guided drainage of a symptomatic PFC in the period 2004-2011. Technical success was defined as the ability to enter and drain a PFC by the placement of one or more double-pigtail stents, whereas clinical success was defined as complete resolution of a PFC on follow-up computed tomography.
RESULTS: In total, 108 patients [56% men, mean age 55 (SD 14) years], underwent EUS-guided drainage of a symptomatic PFC. The procedure was technically successful in 105/108 (97%) patients and a median of 2 (range 1-3) pigtail stents were placed. Clinical success was observed in 87/104 (84%) patients after a median follow-up of 53 (interquartile range 21-130) weeks, whereas PFC recurrence was noted in 15/83 (18%) patients. Complications occurred in 21/105 (20%) patients and procedure-related mortality was not observed. Prognostic factors for complications and recurrence of PFCs could not be identified.
CONCLUSION: EUS-guided drainage of PFCs is effective in the majority of patients. Although the complication rate of the procedure is not negligible (20%), they could be managed in almost all patients by conservative and/or endoscopic means and did not result in mortality.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23571613     DOI: 10.1097/MEG.0b013e3283612f03

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol        ISSN: 0954-691X            Impact factor:   2.566


  6 in total

Review 1.  Endoscopic ultrasound guided interventional procedures.

Authors:  Vishal Sharma; Surinder S Rana; Deepak K Bhasin
Journal:  World J Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2015-06-10

Review 2.  Endoscopic ultrasound-guided treatments: are we getting evidence based--a systematic review.

Authors:  Carlo Fabbri; Carmelo Luigiano; Andrea Lisotti; Vincenzo Cennamo; Clara Virgilio; Giancarlo Caletti; Pietro Fusaroli
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2014-07-14       Impact factor: 5.742

Review 3.  Interventional endoscopic ultrasonography: an overview of safety and complications.

Authors:  María Victoria Alvarez-Sánchez; Christian Jenssen; Siegbert Faiss; Bertrand Napoléon
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2013-11-07       Impact factor: 4.584

Review 4.  Is routine drainage necessary after pancreaticoduodenectomy?

Authors:  Qiang Wang; Yong-Jian Jiang; Ji Li; Feng Yang; Yang Di; Lie Yao; Chen Jin; De-Liang Fu
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2014-07-07       Impact factor: 5.742

Review 5.  Endoscopic management of pancreatic fluid collections-revisited.

Authors:  Zaheer Nabi; Jahangeer Basha; D Nageshwar Reddy
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2017-04-21       Impact factor: 5.742

6.  Stent selection for endoscopic ultrasound-guided drainage of pancreatic fluid collections: a multicenter study in china.

Authors:  Hui Lin; Xian-Bao Zhan; Si-Yu Sun; Xiu-Jiang Yang; Zhen-Dong Jin; Duo-Wu Zou; Zhao-Shen Li
Journal:  Gastroenterol Res Pract       Date:  2014-06-11       Impact factor: 2.260

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.