Lumen-apposing stents versus plastic stents in the management of pancreatic pseudocysts: a large, comparative, international, multicenter study

Abstract

Background Larger caliber lumen-apposing stents (LAMSs) have been increasingly used in the management of pancreatic fluid collections, specifically when solid debris is present; however, their advantages over smaller caliber plastic stents in the management of pancreatic pseudocysts are unclear. The aim of this study was to investigate the safety and efficacy of LAMS specifically in the management of pancreatic pseudocysts compared with double-pigtail plastic stents (DPPSs).

Methods We performed a multicenter, international, retrospective study between January 2012 and August 2016. A total of 205 patients with a diagnosis of pancreatic pseudocysts were included, 80 patients received LAMSs and 125 received DPPSs. Measured outcomes included clinical success, technical success, adverse events, stent dysfunction, pancreatic pseudocyst recurrence, and need for surgery.

Results Technical success was similar between the LAMS and the DPPS groups (97.5 % vs. 99.2 %; P = 0.32). Clinical success was higher for LAMSs than for DPPSs (96.3 % vs. 87.2 %; P = 0.03). While the need for surgery was similar between the two groups (1.3 % vs. 4.9 %, respectively; P = 0.17), the use of percutaneous drainage was significantly lower in the LAMS group (1.3 % vs. 8.8 %; P = 0.03). At 6-month follow-up, the recurrence rate was similar between the groups (6.7 % vs 18.8 %, respectively; P = 0.12). The rate of adverse events was significantly higher in the DPPS group (7.5 % vs. 17.6 %; P = 0.04). There was no difference in post-procedure mean length of hospital stay (6.3 days [standard deviation 27.9] vs. 3.7 days [5.7]; P = 0.31).

Conclusion When compared to DPPSs, LAMSs are a safe, feasible, and effective modality for the treatment of pancreatic pseudocysts and are associated with a higher rate of clinical success, shorter procedure time, less need for percutaneous interventions, and a lower overall rate of adverse events.

• References

• 1 Poornachandra KS, Bhasin DK, Nagi B. et al. Clinical, biochemical, and radiologic parameters at admission predicting formation of a pseudocyst in acute pancreatitis. J Clin Gastroenterol 2011; 45: 159-163
• 2 Tyberg A, Karia K, Gabr M. et al. Management of pancreatic fluid collections: A comprehensive review of the literature. World J Gastroenterol 2016; 22: 2256-2270
• 3 Maringhini A, Uomo G, Patti R. et al. Pseudocysts in acute nonalcoholic pancreatitis: incidence and natural history. Dig Dis Sci 1999; 44: 1669-1673
• 4 Nealon WH, Bhutani M, Riall TS. et al. A unifying concept: pancreatic ductal anatomy both predicts and determines the major complications resulting from pancreatitis. J Am Coll Surg 2009; 208: 790-799 ; discussion 799–801
• 5 Singhal S, Rotman SR, Gaidhane M. et al. Pancreatic fluid collection drainage by endoscopic ultrasound: an update. Clin Endosc 2013; 46: 506-514
• 6 Kahaleh M, Shami VM, Conaway MR. et al. Endoscopic ultrasound drainage of pancreatic pseudocyst: a prospective comparison with conventional endoscopic drainage. Endoscopy 2006; 38: 355-259
• 7 Shah RJ, Shah JN, Waxman I. et al. Safety and efficacy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided drainage of pancreatic fluid collections with lumen-apposing covered self-expanding metal stents. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2015; 13: 747-752
• 8 Baron TH, Harewood GC, Morgan DE. et al. Outcome differences after endoscopic drainage of pancreatic necrosis, acute pancreatic pseudocysts, and chronic pancreatic pseudocysts. Gastrointest Endosc 2002; 56: 7-17
• 9 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
• 10 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
• 11 Varadarajulu S, Lopes TL, Wilcox CM. et al. EUS versus surgical cyst-gastrostomy for management of pancreatic pseudocysts. Gastrointest Endosc 2008; 68: 649-655
• 12 Teoh AY, Dhir V, Jin ZD. et al. Systematic review comparing endoscopic, percutaneous and surgical pancreatic pseudocyst drainage. World J Gastrointest Endosc 2016; 8: 310-318
• 13 Giovannini M. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided pancreatic pseudocyst drainage. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am 2005; 15: 179-188, xi
• 14 Parks RW, Tzovaras G, Diamond T. et al. Management of pancreatic pseudocysts. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 2000; 82: 383-387
• 15 Pfaffenbach B, Langer M, Stabenow-Lohbauer U. et al. [Endosonography controlled transgastric drainage of pancreatic pseudocysts]. Dtsch Med Wochenschr 1998; 123: 1439-1442
• 16 Knecht GL, Kozarek RA. Double-channel fistulotome for endoscopic drainage of pancreatic pseudocyst. Gastrointest Endosc 1991; 37: 356-357
• 17 Sharaiha RZ, DeFilippis EM, Kedia P. et al. Metal versus plastic for pancreatic pseudocyst drainage: clinical outcomes and success. Gastrointest Endosc 2015; 82: 822-827
• 18 Banks PA, Bollen TL, Dervenis C. et al. Classification of acute pancreatitis--2012: revision of the Atlanta classification and definitions by international consensus. Gut 2013; 62: 102-111
• 19 Cotton PB, Eisen GM, Aabakken L. et al. A lexicon for endoscopic adverse events: report of an ASGE workshop. Gastrointest Endosc 2010; 71: 446-454
• 20 Ge N, Hu J, Sun S. et al. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided pancreatic pseudocyst drainage with lumen-apposing metal stents or plastic double-pigtail stents: a multifactorial analysis. J Transl Int Med 2017; 5: 213-219
• 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 Seifert H, Biermer M, Schmitt W. et al. Transluminal endoscopic necrosectomy after acute pancreatitis: a multicentre study with long-term follow-up (the GEPARD Study). Gut 2009; 58: 1260-1266
• 23 Bang JY, Wilcox CM, Trevino JM. et al. Relationship between stent characteristics and treatment outcomes in endoscopic transmural drainage of uncomplicated pancreatic pseudocysts. Surg Endosc 2014; 28: 2877-2883
• 24 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
• 25 Fabbri C, Luigiano C, Cennamo V. et al. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided transmural drainage of infected pancreatic fluid collections with placement of covered self-expanding metal stents: a case series. Endoscopy 2012; 44: 429-433
• 26 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
• 27 Varadarajulu S, Bang JY, Phadnis MA. et al. Endoscopic transmural drainage of peripancreatic fluid collections: outcomes and predictors of treatment success in 211 consecutive patients. J Gastrointest Surg 2011; 15: 2080-2088
• 28 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
• 29 Ang TL, Kongkam P, Kwek AB. et al. A two-center comparative study of plastic and lumen-apposing large diameter self-expandable metallic stents in endoscopic ultrasound-guided drainage of pancreatic fluid collections. Endosc Ultrasound 2016; 5: 320-327
• 30 Ang TL, Seewald S. Fully covered self-expandable metal stents: The “be all and end all” for pancreatic fluid collections?. Gastrointest Endosc 2015; 82: 1047-1050
• 31 Itoi T, Binmoeller KF, Shah J. et al. Clinical evaluation of a novel lumen-apposing metal stent for endosonography-guided pancreatic pseudocyst and gallbladder drainage (with videos). Gastrointest Endosc 2012; 75: 870-876
• 32 Moon JH, Choi HJ, Kim DC. et al. A newly designed fully covered metal stent for lumen apposition in EUS-guided drainage and access: a feasibility study (with videos). Gastrointest Endosc 2014; 79: 990-995
• 33 Varadarajulu S, Wilcox CM. Endoscopic placement of permanent indwelling transmural stents in disconnected pancreatic duct syndrome: does benefit outweigh the risks?. Gastrointest Endosc 2011; 74: 1408-1412
• 34 Antillon MR, Shah RJ, Stiegmann G. et al. Single-step EUS-guided transmural drainage of simple and complicated pancreatic pseudocysts. Gastrointest Endosc 2006; 63: 797-803
• 35 Lee BU, Song TJ, Lee SS. et al. Newly designed, fully covered metal stents for endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided transmural drainage of peripancreatic fluid collections: a prospective randomized study. Endoscopy 2014; 46: 1078-1084
• 36 Bang JY, Hasan MK, Navaneethan U. et al. Lumen-apposing metal stents for drainage of pancreatic fluid collections: When and for whom?. Dig Endosc 2017; 29: 83-90
• 37 Lang GD, Fritz C, Bhat T. et al. EUS-guided drainage of peripancreatic fluid collections with lumen-apposing metal stents and plastic double-pigtail stents: comparison of efficacy and adverse event rates. Gastrointest Endosc 2018; 87: 150-157
• 38 Brimhall B, Han S, Tatman PD. et al. Increased incidence of pseudoaneurysm bleeding with lumen-apposing metal stents compared to double-pigtail plastic stents in patients with peripancreatic fluid collections. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2018; 16: 1521-1528
• 39 Patil R, Ona MA, Papafragkakis C. et al. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided placement of AXIOS stent for drainage of pancreatic fluid collections. Ann Gastroenterol 2016; 29: 168-173
• 40 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. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy 2016; 84: 450-457.e2
• 41 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 2017; 66: 2054-2056
• 42 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: 1039-1046
• 43 Ryan BM, Venkatachalapathy SV, Huggett MT. Safety of lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMS) for pancreatic fluid collection drainage. Gut 2017; 66: 1530-1531
• 44 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
• 45 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
• 46 Cotton PB, Eisen G, Romagnuolo J. et al. Grading the complexity of endoscopic procedures: results of an ASGE working party. Gastrointest Endosc 2011; 73: 868-874
• 47 Ng SC, Tsoi KK, Hirai HW. et al. The efficacy of cap-assisted colonoscopy in polyp detection and cecal intubation: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Am J Gastroenterol 2012; 107: 1165-1173
• 48 Fabbri C, Luigiano C, Maimone A. et al. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided drainage of pancreatic fluid collections. World J Gastrointest Endosc 2012; 4: 479-488