A comparison of outcomes between a lumen-apposing metal stent with electrocautery-enhanced delivery system and a bi-flanged metal stent for drainage of walled-off pancreatic necrosis
submitted 02 June 2017
accepted after revision 31 July 2017
21 November 2017 (online)
Background and study aims Bi-flanged metal stents (BFMS) have shown promise in the drainage of walled-off pancreatic necrosis (WON), but their placement requires multiple steps and the use of other devices. More recently, a novel device consisting of a combined lumen-apposing metal stent (LAMS) and electrocautery-enhanced delivery system has been introduced. The aim of this study was to compare the placement and outcomes of the two devices.
Patients and methods This was a retrospective review of consecutive patients undergoing endoscopic ultrasound-guided placement of BFMS or LAMS for drainage of symptomatic WON. Data from procedures between October 2012 and December 2016 were taken from a prospectively maintained database. We compared technical and clinical success, procedure time, costs, and composite end point of significant events (adverse events, stent migration, additional percutaneous drainage) between BFMS and LAMS.
Results 72 consecutive patients underwent placement of BFMS (40 patients, 44 stents) or LAMS (32 patients, 33 stents). Technical success was 91 % for BFMS and 97 % for LAMS. Clinical success was 65 % vs. 78 %, respectively. Median in-room procedure time was significantly shorter in the LAMS group (45 minutes [range 30 – 80]) than in the BFMS group (62.5 minutes [range 35 – 135]; P < 0.001) and fewer direct endoscopic necrosectomies (DEN) were performed (median 1 [0 – 2.0] vs. 2 [0 – 3.7], respectively; P = 0.005). If only inpatients were considered (35 BFMS and 19 LAMS), there was no significant difference in DEN 2 (range 0 – 11) and 2 (range 0 – 8), respectively. The composite end point of 32 % vs. 24 % was not significantly different. Median procedural costs for all patients with successful stent placement for WON treatment was €4427 (range 1630 – 12 926) for BFMS vs. €3500 (range 2509 – 13 393) for LAMS (P = 0.10).
Conclusion LAMS was superior to BFMS in terms of procedure time, with comparable adverse events, success, and costs.
- 1 Bakker OJ, van Santvoort HC, van Brunschot S. et al. Endoscopic transgastric vs surgical necrosectomy for infected necrotizing pancreatitis: a randomized trial. JAMA 2012; 307: 1053-1061
- 2 Varadarajulu S, Bang JY, Sutton BS. et al. Equal efficacy of endoscopic and surgical cystogastrostomy for pancreatic pseudocyst drainage in a randomized trial. Gastroenterology 2013; 145: 583-590.e1
- 3 Chandran S, Efthymiou M, Kaffes A. et al. Management of pancreatic collections with a novel endoscopically placed fully covered self-expandable metal stent: a national experience (with videos). Gastrointest Endosc 2014; 2: 1-9
- 4 Huggett MT, Oppong KW, Pereira SP. et al. Endoscopic drainage of walled-off pancreatic necrosis using a novel self-expanding metal stent. Endoscopy 2015; 47: 929-932
- 5 Sharaiha RZ, Tyberg A, Khashab MA. et al. Endoscopic therapy with lumen-apposing metal stents is safe and effective for patients with pancreatic walled-off necrosis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2016; 14: 1797-1803
- 6 Walter D, Will U, Sanchez-Yague A. et al. A novel lumen-apposing metal stent for endoscopic ultrasound-guided drainage of pancreatic fluid collections: a prospective cohort study. Endoscopy 2015; 47: 63-67
- 7 Siddiqui AA, Adler DG, Nieto J. et al. EUS-guided drainage of peripancreatic fluid collections and necrosis by using a novel lumen-apposing stent: a large retrospective, multicenter U. S. experience (with videos). Gastrointest Endosc 2016; 83: 699-707
- 8 Siddiqui AA, Kowalski TE, Loren DE. et al. Fully covered self-expanding metal stents versus lumen-apposing fully covered self-expanding metal stent versus plastic stents for endoscopic drainage of pancreatic walled-off necrosis: clinical outcomes and success. Gastrointest Endosc 2017; 85: 758-765
- 9 Rinninella E, Kunda R, Dollhopf M. et al. EUS-guided drainage of pancreatic fluid collections using a novel lumen-apposing metal stent on an electrocautery-enhanced delivery system: a large retrospective study (with video). Gastrointest Endosc 2015; 82: 1-8
- 10 Venkatachalapathy S, Makin A, Pereira S. et al. OC-073 The first multicentre experience from the UK and Ireland of the use of the Hot Axios System for transluminal drainage of pancreatic fluid collections. Gut 2016; 65: A44
- 11 Shadbolt N, O’Hara K, Berners-Lee T. et al. Linked open government data: Lessons from data.gov.uk. IEEE Intell Syst 2012; 27: 16-24
- 12 Lakhtakia S, Basha J, Talukdar R. et al. Endoscopic ‘step-up approach’ using a dedicated bi-flanged metal stent reduces the need for direct necrosectomy in walled-off necrosis (with videos). Gastrointest Endosc 2017; 85: 1243-1252
- 13 Seifert H, Wehrmann T, Schmitt T. et al. Retroperitoneal endoscopic debridement for infected peripancreatic necrosis. Lancet 2000; 356: 653-655
- 14 Charnley RM, Lochan R, Gray H. et al. Endoscopic necrosectomy as primary therapy in the management of infected pancreatic necrosis. Endoscopy 2006; 38: 925-928
- 15 Seewald S, Ang TL, Richter H. et al. Long-term results after endoscopic drainage and necrosectomy of symptomatic pancreatic fluid collections. Dig Endosc 2012; 24: 36-41
- 16 Talreja JP, Shami VM, Ku J. et al. Transenteric drainage of pancreatic-fluid collections with fully covered self-expanding metallic stents (with video). Gastrointest Endosc 2008; 68: 1199-1203
- 17 Penn DE, Draganov PV, Wagh MS. et al. Prospective evaluation of the use of fully covered self-expanding metal stents for EUS-guided transmural drainage of pancreatic pseudocysts. Gastrointest Endosc 2012; 76: 679-684
- 18 Weilert F, Binmoeller KF, Shah JN. et al. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided drainage of pancreatic fluid collections with indeterminate adherence using temporary covered metal stents. Endoscopy 2012; 44: 780-783
- 19 Vazquez-Sequeiros E, Baron TH, Pérez-Miranda M. et al. Evaluation of the short- and long-term effectiveness and safety of fully covered self-expandable metal stents for drainage of pancreatic fluid collections: results of a Spanish nationwide registry. Gastrointest Endosc 2016; 84: 450-457.e2
- 20 Chandran S, Efthymiou M, Kaffes A. et al. Management of pancreatic collections with a novel endoscopically placed fully covered self-expandable metal stent: a national experience (with videos). Gastrointest Endosc 2015; 81: 127-135
- 21 Bang JY, Hawes R, Bartolucci A. et al. Efficacy of metal and plastic stents for transmural drainage of pancreatic fluid collections: a systematic review. Dig Endosc 2015; 27: 486-498
- 22 Gurusamy KS, Belgaumkar AP, Haswell A. et al. Interventions for necrotising pancreatitis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2016; 4: CD011383
- 23 NHS Improvement and NHS England. NHS Improvement and NHS England. 2017 Available from: https://improvement.nhs.uk/uploads/documents/Copy_of_Annex_A_-_National_tariff_workbook.xlsx
- 24 Bang JY, Hasan M, Navaneethan U. et al. Lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMS) for pancreatic fluid collection (PFC) drainage: may not be business as usual. Gut 2016; DOI: 10.1136/gutjnl-2016-312812.
- 25 Leeds JS, Nayar MK, Charnley RM. et al. Lumen-apposing metal stents for pancreatic fluid collection drainage: may not be business as usual?. Gut 2017; 66: 1530