BACKGROUND: Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided drainage of pancreatic wall-off necrosis (WON) with transmural stent is regarded as firstline therapy. We aimed at comparing its efficacy and safety with using fully covered self-expandable metal stent (FCSEMS) and lumen-apposing metal stent (LAMS). METHODS: A retrospective review was performed on all consecutive patients with pancreatic WONs who underwent EUS-guided drainage by either FCSEMS or LAMS. RESULTS: From 2011 to 2016, 68 patients (66.2% male, median age, 66.5 years) underwent WON drainage (22/68 (32.4%) using FCSEMSs of size 10 × 60 mm (14/22, Hanarostent; 8/22 Wallflex); 46/68 (67.6%) using LAMSs (38/46 and 8/46 with AXIOS of size 15 × 10 mm and 10 × 10 mm, respectively). These two groups were matched for age (66 vs. 70 years, p 0.514), APACHE II (11.5 vs. 10, p 0.693), causes [72.7 vs. 80.4% by gallstone pancreatitis (p 0.472); 9.1 vs. 10.9% by alcoholism (p 0.818)], WON size (8.5 vs. 9 cm, p 0.322), location (36.4 vs. 26.1% at pancreatic head, p 0.384; 54.5 vs. 65.2% at body/tail, p 0.395), and enterostomy site [63.6 vs. 76.1% via transgastric (p 0.285); 31.8 vs. 19.6% via transduodenal (p 0.267)] and their number of necrosectomy (p 0.978). The technical (100 vs. 93.5%, p 0.219) and clinical (95.5 vs. 93.5%, p 0.749) success and adverse event (22.7 vs. 39.1%, p 0.180; 9.1 vs. 19.6% with bleeding, p 0.271; 4.5 vs. 13% with spontaneous stent migration, p 0.28; 9.1 vs. 6.5% with dislodgement during necrosectomy, p 0.704) of the two groups were comparable without significant different. However, the LAMS group associated with early stent revision compared with FCSEMS group (log rank p 0.048). CONCLUSIONS: EUS-guided drainage of WON using FCSEMSs and LAMSs are comparable in efficacy and safety; however, the latter is associated with early stent revision.
BACKGROUND: Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided drainage of pancreatic wall-off necrosis (WON) with transmural stent is regarded as firstline therapy. We aimed at comparing its efficacy and safety with using fully covered self-expandable metal stent (FCSEMS) and lumen-apposing metal stent (LAMS). METHODS: A retrospective review was performed on all consecutive patients with pancreatic WONs who underwent EUS-guided drainage by either FCSEMS or LAMS. RESULTS: From 2011 to 2016, 68 patients (66.2% male, median age, 66.5 years) underwent WON drainage (22/68 (32.4%) using FCSEMSs of size 10 × 60 mm (14/22, Hanarostent; 8/22 Wallflex); 46/68 (67.6%) using LAMSs (38/46 and 8/46 with AXIOS of size 15 × 10 mm and 10 × 10 mm, respectively). These two groups were matched for age (66 vs. 70 years, p 0.514), APACHE II (11.5 vs. 10, p 0.693), causes [72.7 vs. 80.4% by gallstone pancreatitis (p 0.472); 9.1 vs. 10.9% by alcoholism (p 0.818)], WON size (8.5 vs. 9 cm, p 0.322), location (36.4 vs. 26.1% at pancreatic head, p 0.384; 54.5 vs. 65.2% at body/tail, p 0.395), and enterostomy site [63.6 vs. 76.1% via transgastric (p 0.285); 31.8 vs. 19.6% via transduodenal (p 0.267)] and their number of necrosectomy (p 0.978). The technical (100 vs. 93.5%, p 0.219) and clinical (95.5 vs. 93.5%, p 0.749) success and adverse event (22.7 vs. 39.1%, p 0.180; 9.1 vs. 19.6% with bleeding, p 0.271; 4.5 vs. 13% with spontaneous stent migration, p 0.28; 9.1 vs. 6.5% with dislodgement during necrosectomy, p 0.704) of the two groups were comparable without significant different. However, the LAMS group associated with early stent revision compared with FCSEMS group (log rank p 0.048). CONCLUSIONS: EUS-guided drainage of WON using FCSEMSs and LAMSs are comparable in efficacy and safety; however, the latter is associated with early stent revision.
Authors: Timothy B Gardner; Nayantara Coelho-Prabhu; Stuart R Gordon; Andres Gelrud; John T Maple; Georgios I Papachristou; Martin L Freeman; Mark D Topazian; Rajeev Attam; Todd A Mackenzie; Todd H Baron Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2011-01-14 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Raj J Shah; Janak N Shah; Irving Waxman; Thomas E Kowalski; Andres Sanchez-Yague; Jose Nieto; Brian C Brauer; Monica Gaidhane; Michel Kahaleh Journal: Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2014-10-05 Impact factor: 11.382
Authors: Hjalmar C van Santvoort; Marc G Besselink; Olaf J Bakker; H Sijbrand Hofker; Marja A Boermeester; Cornelis H Dejong; Harry van Goor; Alexander F Schaapherder; Casper H van Eijck; Thomas L Bollen; Bert van Ramshorst; Vincent B Nieuwenhuijs; Robin Timmer; Johan S Laméris; Philip M Kruyt; Eric R Manusama; Erwin van der Harst; George P van der Schelling; Tom Karsten; Eric J Hesselink; Cornelis J van Laarhoven; Camiel Rosman; Koop Bosscha; Ralph J de Wit; Alexander P Houdijk; Maarten S van Leeuwen; Erik Buskens; Hein G Gooszen Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2010-04-22 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Ali A Siddiqui; Thomas E Kowalski; David E Loren; Ammara Khalid; Ayesha Soomro; Syed M Mazhar; Laura Isby; Michel Kahaleh; Kunal Karia; Joseph Yoo; Andrew Ofosu; Beverly Ng; Reem Z Sharaiha Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2016-08-24 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Koenraad J Mortelé; Jeffrey Girshman; Denis Szejnfeld; Stanley W Ashley; Sukru M Erturk; Peter A Banks; Stuart G Silverman Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2009-01 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Reem Z Sharaiha; Amy Tyberg; Mouen A Khashab; Nikhil A Kumta; Kunal Karia; Jose Nieto; Uzma D Siddiqui; Irving Waxman; Virendra Joshi; Petros C Benias; Peter Darwin; Christopher J DiMaio; Christopher J Mulder; Shai Friedland; David G Forcione; Divyesh V Sejpal; Tamas A Gonda; Frank G Gress; Monica Gaidhane; Ann Koons; Ersilia M DeFilippis; Sanjay Salgado; Kristen R Weaver; John M Poneros; Amrita Sethi; Sammy Ho; Vivek Kumbhari; Vikesh K Singh; Alan H Tieu; Viviana Parra; Alisa Likhitsup; Craig Womeldorph; Brenna Casey; Sreeni S Jonnalagadda; Amit P Desai; David L Carr-Locke; Michel Kahaleh; Ali A Siddiqui Journal: Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2016-05-14 Impact factor: 11.382
Authors: Shyam Varadarajulu; Ji Young Bang; Bryce S Sutton; Jessica M Trevino; John D Christein; C Mel Wilcox Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2013-05-31 Impact factor: 22.682