AbiMansour Jad P, Jaruvongvanich Veeravich, Velaga Saran, Law Ryan J, Storm Andrew C, Topazian Mark D, Levy Michael J, Alexander Ryan, Vargas Eric J, Bofill-Garcia Aliana, Matin John A, Petersen Bret T, Abu Dayyeh Barham K, Chandrasekhara Vinay
Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.
Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, The Queen's Health System, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA.
Gastrointest Endosc. 2024 Jan;99(1):104-107. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2023.09.005. Epub 2023 Sep 16.
Coaxial double-pigtail plastic stent (DPPS) placement is often performed within lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMSs) for drainage of pancreatic fluid collections (PFCs) to prevent adverse events (AEs) such as stent occlusion and bleeding. This study compares the safety and outcomes of LAMSs alone versus LAMSs with coaxial DPPSs for PFC management.
Patients undergoing drainage of a PFC with LAMSs were retrospectively identified and categorized as LAMS or LAMS/DPPS based on initial drainage strategy. The AE rate, AE type, and clinical success were extracted by chart review.
One hundred eighty-five individuals (83 LAMS, 102 LAMS/DPPS) were identified. No significant differences were found in rates of clinical success (75.9% LAMS vs 69.6% LAMS/DDPS, P = .34) or overall AEs (15.7% LAMS vs 15.7% LAMS/DPPS, P = .825).
In this comparative single-center study, placement of a coaxial DPPS for drainage of PFCs with LAMSs did not affect rates of AEs or clinical success.
同轴双猪尾塑料支架(DPPS)置入术常在管腔贴壁金属支架(LAMS)内进行,用于胰腺液体积聚(PFC)的引流,以预防支架闭塞和出血等不良事件(AE)。本研究比较单独使用LAMS与使用同轴DPPS的LAMS在PFC处理方面的安全性和结局。
回顾性确定接受LAMS引流PFC的患者,并根据初始引流策略将其分为LAMS组或LAMS/DPPS组。通过查阅病历提取AE发生率、AE类型和临床成功率。
共纳入185例患者(83例LAMS组,102例LAMS/DPPS组)。临床成功率(LAMS组75.9% vs LAMS/DDPS组69.6%,P = 0.34)或总体AE发生率(LAMS组15.7% vs LAMS/DPPS组15.7%,P = 0.825)无显著差异。
在这项单中心比较研究中,使用同轴DPPS联合LAMS引流PFC不影响AE发生率或临床成功率。