Endoscopic pancreatic necrosectomy in the United States-Mexico border: A cross sectional study.
Clinical outcomes
Endoscopic necrosectomy
International consensus
Lumen-apposing metal stents
Technical differences
Walled-off necrosis
Journal
World journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy
ISSN: 1948-5190
Titre abrégé: World J Gastrointest Endosc
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101532474
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
16 May 2020
16 May 2020
Historique:
received:
27
03
2020
revised:
06
05
2020
accepted:
12
05
2020
entrez:
2
6
2020
pubmed:
2
6
2020
medline:
2
6
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
A recent expert panel issued recommendations about the technical aspects of direct endoscopic necrosectomy (DEN) for pancreatic walled-off necrosis (WON). However, significant technical heterogeneity still exists among endoscopists. To report the outcomes of our DEN technique and how it differs from a recent expert consensus statement and previous studies. Medical records of patients with WON who underwent DEN from September 2016 - May 2019 were queried for the following information: Age, gender, ethnicity, etiology of acute pancreatitis, WON location and size, DEN technical information, adverse events (AEs) and outcomes. Adverse events were graded according to the American Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Lexicon grading system. Technical success was defined as adequate lumen apposing metal stent (LAMS) deployment plus removal of ≥ 90% of necrosum. Clinical success was defined as complete resolution of WON cavity by imaging and resolution of symptoms at ≤ 3 months (mo) after last DEN. Data analysis was performed using mean and standard deviation for continuous variables, frequency and proportion for categorical variables, and median and range for interval data. A total of 21 patients underwent DEN. Most of them were Hispanic and their mean age was 51 ± 17 years. The majority of the collections were located in the body of the pancreas and the mean size was 13 cm ± 5 cm. The most common indication was persistent vomiting. Antibiotics were administered only in cases of infected necrosis. All LAMS were placed without radiological guidance, dilated the same day of deployment and removed after a mean of 27 ± 11 d. Routine cross-sectional imaging immediately after drainage was not performed. The mean interval between DEN sessions was 7 ± 4 d and the mean number of DEN/patient was 3 ± 2. Technical and clinical success rates were both 95%. AEs were seen in 5 patients and included: Sepsis (2), stent migration (1), stent maldeployment (1), perforation (1). The sensitivity and positive predictive value of an occluded LAMS leading to sepsis was 50% and 0.11 respectively. No fatalities were observed. Our DEN technique differed significantly from the one recommended by a recent expert panel and the one published in previous studies. Despite these differences excellent clinical outcomes were obtained.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
A recent expert panel issued recommendations about the technical aspects of direct endoscopic necrosectomy (DEN) for pancreatic walled-off necrosis (WON). However, significant technical heterogeneity still exists among endoscopists.
AIM
OBJECTIVE
To report the outcomes of our DEN technique and how it differs from a recent expert consensus statement and previous studies.
METHODS
METHODS
Medical records of patients with WON who underwent DEN from September 2016 - May 2019 were queried for the following information: Age, gender, ethnicity, etiology of acute pancreatitis, WON location and size, DEN technical information, adverse events (AEs) and outcomes. Adverse events were graded according to the American Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Lexicon grading system. Technical success was defined as adequate lumen apposing metal stent (LAMS) deployment plus removal of ≥ 90% of necrosum. Clinical success was defined as complete resolution of WON cavity by imaging and resolution of symptoms at ≤ 3 months (mo) after last DEN. Data analysis was performed using mean and standard deviation for continuous variables, frequency and proportion for categorical variables, and median and range for interval data.
RESULTS
RESULTS
A total of 21 patients underwent DEN. Most of them were Hispanic and their mean age was 51 ± 17 years. The majority of the collections were located in the body of the pancreas and the mean size was 13 cm ± 5 cm. The most common indication was persistent vomiting. Antibiotics were administered only in cases of infected necrosis. All LAMS were placed without radiological guidance, dilated the same day of deployment and removed after a mean of 27 ± 11 d. Routine cross-sectional imaging immediately after drainage was not performed. The mean interval between DEN sessions was 7 ± 4 d and the mean number of DEN/patient was 3 ± 2. Technical and clinical success rates were both 95%. AEs were seen in 5 patients and included: Sepsis (2), stent migration (1), stent maldeployment (1), perforation (1). The sensitivity and positive predictive value of an occluded LAMS leading to sepsis was 50% and 0.11 respectively. No fatalities were observed.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Our DEN technique differed significantly from the one recommended by a recent expert panel and the one published in previous studies. Despite these differences excellent clinical outcomes were obtained.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32477449
doi: 10.4253/wjge.v12.i5.149
pmc: PMC7243577
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
149-158Informations de copyright
©The Author(s) 2020. Published by Baishideng Publishing Group Inc. All rights reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Conflict-of-interest statement: We have no financial relationships to disclose.
Références
J Clin Gastroenterol. 2014 Feb;48(2):145-52
pubmed: 23751853
Gastrointest Endosc. 2015 Jan;81(1):127-35
pubmed: 25092104
Endosc Ultrasound. 2019 May-Jun;8(3):172-179
pubmed: 29882517
JAMA. 2012 Mar 14;307(10):1053-61
pubmed: 22416101
Endoscopy. 2018 Jan;50(1):79-80
pubmed: 29100246
Gastrointest Endosc. 2010 Mar;71(3):446-54
pubmed: 20189503
Gastrointest Endosc. 2016 Apr;83(4):699-707
pubmed: 26515956
Dig Endosc. 2015 May;27(4):499-504
pubmed: 25545957
Gastrointest Endosc. 2015 Dec;82(6):1039-46
pubmed: 26014960
Clin Res Hepatol Gastroenterol. 2014 Dec;38(6):770-6
pubmed: 25153999
Endosc Ultrasound. 2017 Sep-Oct;6(5):285-291
pubmed: 29063871
Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2016 Dec;14(12):1797-1803
pubmed: 27189914
Gastrointest Endosc. 2017 Apr;85(4):758-765
pubmed: 27566053
Gastroenterology. 1996 Sep;111(3):755-64
pubmed: 8780582
Endoscopy. 2019 Dec;51(12):E396-E397
pubmed: 31340385
Gastrointest Endosc. 2005 Jul;62(1):92-100
pubmed: 15990825
Gastrointest Endosc. 2009 Jan;69(1):178-80
pubmed: 18582877
VideoGIE. 2018 Sep 25;3(11):354-355
pubmed: 30402583
Pancreatology. 2016 Jan-Feb;16(1):66-72
pubmed: 26748428