BACKGROUND: Percutaneous drainage (PCD) is now the first-line drainage method for liver abscess because of its minimal invasiveness and high technical success rate. However, this procedure has several disadvantages, such as extra-drainage and self-tube removal. Recently, EUS-guided liver abscess drainage (EUS-AD) has been developed. However, only a few reports of EUS-AD have been reported. In addition, the clinical benefits of PCD and EUS-AD have not been reported. AIMS: In the present study, the safety and feasibility of EUS-AD using fully covered SEMS (FCSEMS) and the clinical outcomes of EUS-AD and PCD were examined retrospectively. METHODS: Twenty-seven consecutive patients who underwent PCD or EUS-AD between April 2012 and April 2015 were included in this study. EUS-AD was performed using FCSEMS. In addition, to prevent stent migration, 7-Fr pig tail plastic stent was placed within FCSEMS. RESULTS: Technical success was achieved in all patients of both groups. Clinical success was 100 % in the EUS-AD group although it was 89 % in PCD group (P = 034). Three adverse events were seen in the PCD group (self-tube removal n = 1, tube migration n = 2), but no adverse events were seen in the EUS-AD group. The median hospital stay was significantly shorter in the EUS-AD group than in the PCD group (21 vs 41 days, P = 0.03). CONCLUSION: Because of the short hospital stay, the high clinical success rate, and the low adverse event rate compared to PCD, EUS-AD has potential as a first-line treatment for liver abscess.
BACKGROUND: Percutaneous drainage (PCD) is now the first-line drainage method for liver abscess because of its minimal invasiveness and high technical success rate. However, this procedure has several disadvantages, such as extra-drainage and self-tube removal. Recently, EUS-guided liver abscess drainage (EUS-AD) has been developed. However, only a few reports of EUS-AD have been reported. In addition, the clinical benefits of PCD and EUS-AD have not been reported. AIMS: In the present study, the safety and feasibility of EUS-AD using fully covered SEMS (FCSEMS) and the clinical outcomes of EUS-AD and PCD were examined retrospectively. METHODS: Twenty-seven consecutive patients who underwent PCD or EUS-AD between April 2012 and April 2015 were included in this study. EUS-AD was performed using FCSEMS. In addition, to prevent stent migration, 7-Fr pig tail plastic stent was placed within FCSEMS. RESULTS: Technical success was achieved in all patients of both groups. Clinical success was 100 % in the EUS-AD group although it was 89 % in PCD group (P = 034). Three adverse events were seen in the PCD group (self-tube removal n = 1, tube migration n = 2), but no adverse events were seen in the EUS-AD group. The median hospital stay was significantly shorter in the EUS-AD group than in the PCD group (21 vs 41 days, P = 0.03). CONCLUSION: Because of the short hospital stay, the high clinical success rate, and the low adverse event rate compared to PCD, EUS-AD has potential as a first-line treatment for liver abscess.
Authors: Stefan Seewald; Hiroo Imazu; Salem Omar; Stefan Groth; Uwe Seitz; Boris Brand; Yan Zhong; Sanjay Sikka; Frank Thonke; Nib Soehendra Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2005-03 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: B F Medrado; F O A A Carneiro; T G Vilaça; T S Gouveia; M S V Frazão; E G H de Moura; P Sakai; J P Otoch; E L A Artifon Journal: Endoscopy Date: 2013-10-22 Impact factor: 10.093
Authors: Peter B Cotton; Glenn M Eisen; Lars Aabakken; Todd H Baron; Matt M Hutter; Brian C Jacobson; Klaus Mergener; Albert Nemcek; Bret T Petersen; John L Petrini; Irving M Pike; Linda Rabeneck; Joseph Romagnuolo; John J Vargo Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2010-03 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Se Hui Noh; Do Hyun Park; Yi Rang Kim; Yoonhee Chun; Han Chu Lee; Sang Oh Lee; Sang Soo Lee; Dong Wan Seo; Sung Koo Lee; Myung-Hwan Kim Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2010-04-18 Impact factor: 9.427