Double pigtail stent placement as an adjunct to lumen-apposing metal stentsfor drainage of pancreatic fluid collections may not affect outcomes: A multicenter experience.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

EUS-guided drainage of pancreatic fluid collections (PFCs) has been increasingly performed using lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMS). However, recent data have suggested higher adverse event rates with LAMS compared to double pigtail plastic stents (DPS) alone. To decrease risks, there has been anecdotal use of placing DPS through the LAMS. We aimed to determine whether the placement of DPS through cautery-enhanced LAMS at time of initial placement decreases adverse events or need for reintervention.

METHODS

We performed a multicenter retrospective study between January 2015 and October 2017 examining patients who underwent EUS-guided drainage of pseudocysts (PP), walled-off necrosis (WON), and postsurgical fluid collection using a cautery enhanced LAMS with and without DPS.

RESULTS

There were 68 patients identified at 3 US tertiary referral centers: 44 PP (65%), 17 WON (25%), and 7 PFSC (10%). There were 35 patients with DPS placed through LAMS (Group 1) and 33 with LAMS alone (Group 2). Overall technical success was 100%, clinical success was 94%, and adverse events (bleeding, perforation, stent occlusion, and stent migration) occurred in 28% of patients. Subgroup analysis compared specific types of PFCs and occurrence of adverse events between each group with no significant difference detected in adverse event or reintervention rates.

CONCLUSION

This multicenter study of various types of PFCs requiring EUS-guided drainage demonstrates that deployment of DPS across cautery-enhanced LAMS at the time of initial drainage does not have a significant effect on clinical outcomes, adverse events, or need for reinterventions.