BACKGROUND AND AIM: Endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS)-guided drainage (EUS-D) has become the standard treatment for peripancreatic fluid collections. Its use in other intra-abdominal abscesses has been reported, although there is limited evidence. METHODS: We carried out a single-center retrospective cohort study comparing percutaneous drainage (PCD) and EUS-D of upper abdominal abscesses between January 2012 and June 2017. Pancreatic fluid collections and liver transplant recipients were excluded. Primary endpoints were technical and clinical success rates. RESULTS: We included 18 EUS-D (nine hepatic and nine intraperitoneal abscesses) and 62 PCD. There were no differences regarding age, gender and etiology. Size was larger in the PCD group (80 vs 65.5 mm, P = 0.04) and perivesicular location was more frequent in the PCD group (24.2% vs 11.1%, P = 0.003). In the EUS-D group, metal stents were deployed in 16 (88.9%) subjects (eight lumen-apposing metal stents and eight self-expandable metal stents), coaxial double-pigtail plastic stents in six (33.3%) and lavage/debridement was carried out in five (27.8%). There were no significant differences in technical success (EUS-D: 88.9%, PCD: 96.8%, P = 0.22) or clinical success (EUS-D: 88.9%, PCD: 82.3%, P = 0.50), with no relapses in the EUS-D group and 10 (16.1%) in the PCD group (P = 0.11). There were four (22.2%) adverse events in the EUS-D group, none of them severe, and 13 (21%) in the PCD group (P = 0.91). CONCLUSIONS: EUS-D is an alternative to PCD in the treatment of upper abdominal abscesses, reaching similar success, relapse and adverse events rates.
BACKGROUND AND AIM: Endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS)-guided drainage (EUS-D) has become the standard treatment for peripancreatic fluid collections. Its use in other intra-abdominal abscesses has been reported, although there is limited evidence. METHODS: We carried out a single-center retrospective cohort study comparing percutaneous drainage (PCD) and EUS-D of upper abdominal abscesses between January 2012 and June 2017. Pancreatic fluid collections and liver transplant recipients were excluded. Primary endpoints were technical and clinical success rates. RESULTS: We included 18 EUS-D (nine hepatic and nine intraperitoneal abscesses) and 62 PCD. There were no differences regarding age, gender and etiology. Size was larger in the PCD group (80 vs 65.5 mm, P = 0.04) and perivesicular location was more frequent in the PCD group (24.2% vs 11.1%, P = 0.003). In the EUS-D group, metal stents were deployed in 16 (88.9%) subjects (eight lumen-apposing metal stents and eight self-expandable metal stents), coaxial double-pigtail plastic stents in six (33.3%) and lavage/debridement was carried out in five (27.8%). There were no significant differences in technical success (EUS-D: 88.9%, PCD: 96.8%, P = 0.22) or clinical success (EUS-D: 88.9%, PCD: 82.3%, P = 0.50), with no relapses in the EUS-D group and 10 (16.1%) in the PCD group (P = 0.11). There were four (22.2%) adverse events in the EUS-D group, none of them severe, and 13 (21%) in the PCD group (P = 0.91). CONCLUSIONS: EUS-D is an alternative to PCD in the treatment of upper abdominal abscesses, reaching similar success, relapse and adverse events rates.