Khodakaram Kaveh, Bratlie Svein Olav, Hedenström Per, Sadik Riadh
Department of Molecular and Clinical Medicine, Institute of Medicine at Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg (Kaveh Khodakaram, Per Hedenström, Riadh Sadik).
Department of Surgery, Gothenburg Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg (Kaveh Khodakaram, Svein Olav Bratlie).
Ann Gastroenterol. 2024 May-Jun;37(3):362-370. doi: 10.20524/aog.2024.0873. Epub 2024 Apr 5.
Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided transmural drainage using double pigtail plastic stents (DPPS) has been routine for the treatment of peripancreatic fluid collections (PFC). Lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMS) have since their introduction been the preferred choice; however, their superiority has not been proven. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of DPPS and LAMS.
This was a single-center, prospective study that included consecutive patients undergoing EUS-guided drainage between January 2010 and December 2020. The primary endpoints were technical success, clinical success and adverse event rate, while the secondary endpoints included symptomatic relief, length of hospital stay, and need for adjunct drainage. A subgroup analysis of walled-off necrosis (WON) was performed.
A total of 89 patients (median age 56 years) underwent EUS-guided transmural drainage (DPPS: n=53; LAMS: n=36) because of a pseudocyst (n=37) or a WON (n=52). Both DPPS and LAMS had a 100% technical success rate and a comparable adverse event rate (4% vs. 6%, P=0.24). An equivalent efficacy was recorded for the drainage of PFC comparing DPPS and LAMS, and no significant statistical difference was recorded in clinical success (DPPS 60% vs. LAMS 61%, P=0.94) or the need for reintervention (DPPS 11% vs. LAMS 13%, P=0.72).
In this large, prospective study of EUS-guided drainage of peripancreatic fluid collections, LAMS and DPPS showed equivalent safety, technical success, clinical success and hospital stay. Both techniques were associated with a comparable need for complementary necrosectomy.
使用双猪尾塑料支架(DPPS)进行内镜超声(EUS)引导下经壁引流已成为治疗胰周液体积聚(PFC)的常规方法。自引入以来,管腔贴壁金属支架(LAMS)一直是首选;然而,其优越性尚未得到证实。本研究的目的是比较DPPS和LAMS的疗效和安全性。
这是一项单中心前瞻性研究,纳入了2010年1月至2020年12月期间连续接受EUS引导下引流的患者。主要终点为技术成功率、临床成功率和不良事件发生率,次要终点包括症状缓解、住院时间和辅助引流需求。对包裹性坏死(WON)进行了亚组分析。
共有89例患者(中位年龄56岁)因假性囊肿(n = 37)或WON(n = 52)接受了EUS引导下经壁引流(DPPS:n = 53;LAMS:n = 36)。DPPS和LAMS的技术成功率均为100%,不良事件发生率相当(4%对6%,P = 0.24)。比较DPPS和LAMS对PFC的引流效果相当,临床成功率(DPPS 60%对LAMS 61%,P = 0.94)或再次干预需求(DPPS 11%对LAMS 13%,P = 0.72)方面均无显著统计学差异。
在这项关于EUS引导下胰周液体积聚引流的大型前瞻性研究中,LAMS和DPPS在安全性、技术成功率、临床成功率和住院时间方面表现相当。两种技术的辅助坏死清创需求相当。