4.5 Article

EUS-guided drainage of pancreatic fluid collections using lumen apposing metal stents: An international, multicenter experience

Journal

DIGESTIVE AND LIVER DISEASE
Volume 51, Issue 11, Pages 1557-1561

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.dld.2019.05.033

Keywords

EUS-guided drainage; LAMs; Lumen apposing stent; Pancreatic fluid collection; Pancreatic pseudocyst; PFC; Walled-off necrosis; WON

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Introduction: Lumen apposing metal stents (LAMS) have been used increasingly for drainage of pancreatic fluid collections (PFC). We present an international, multicenter study evaluating the safety and efficacy of LAMS in PFCs. Methods: Consecutive patients undergoing LAMS placement for PFC at 12 international centers were included (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01522573). Demographics, clinical history, and procedural details were recorded. Technical success was defined as successful LAMS deployment. Clinical success was defined as PFC resolution at three-month follow-up. Results: 192 patients were included (140 males (72.9%), mean-age 53.8 years), with mean follow-up of 4.2 months +/- 3.8. Mean PFC size was 11.9 cm (range 2-25). The median number of endoscopic interventions was 2 (range 1-14). Etiologies for PFC were gallstone (n = 82, 42.7%), alcohol (n = 50, 26%), idiopathic (n = 26, 13.5%), and other (n = 34, 17.7%). Technical success was achieved in 189 patients (98.4%). Clinical success was observed in 125 of 135 patients (92.6%). Adverse events included bleeding (n = 11, 5.7), infection (n = 2, 1%), and perforation (n = 2, 1%). Three or more endoscopy sessions were a positive predictor for PFC resolution and the only significant predictor for AEs. Conclusion: LAMS has a high technical and clinical success rate with a low rate of AEs. PFC drainage via LAMS provides a minimally invasive, safe, and efficacious procedure for PFC resolution. (C) 2019 Editrice Gastroenterologica Italiana S.r.l. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available