Claudia F Consiglieri1, Joan B Gornals2, Juli Busquets3, Nuria Peláez3, Lluis Secanella3, Meritxell De-La-Hera1, Resurrección Sanzol4, Joan Fabregat3, José Castellote5. 1. Endoscopy Unit, Department of Digestive Diseases, Hospital Universitari de Bellvitge-IDIBELL, Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain. 2. Endoscopy Unit, Department of Digestive Diseases, Hospital Universitari de Bellvitge-IDIBELL, Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain; Universitat Oberta de Catalunya, Hospital Universitari de Bellvitge-IDIBELL, Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain. Electronic address: jgornals@bellvitgehospital.cat. 3. General and Digestive Surgery Department, Hospital Universitari de Bellvitge-IDIBELL, Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain. 4. Anaesthesia Department, Hospital Universitari de Bellvitge-IDIBELL, Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain. 5. Hepatology Unit, Department of Digestive Diseases, Hospital Universitari de Bellvitge-IDIBELL, Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain.
Abstract
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.
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.