Endotherapy for pancreatic necrosis and abscess: endoscopic drainage and necrosectomy

Pancreatic necrosis and abscess are among the most severe complications of acute pancreatitis. Endoscopic drainage of pancreatic fluid collections has been increasingly performed in many tertiary care centers. The type of fluid collection that is being intervened upon determines the outcome. The development of endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) has expanded the safety and efficacy of this modality by allowing one to access and drain more challenging fluid collections. The technique and review of current literature regarding endoscopic therapy of pancreatic necrosis and abscess will be discussed.     

Endoscopic drainage and endoscopic necrosectomy in the management of symptomatic pancreatic collections

OBJECTIVE:  To evaluate the role of endoscopic drainage and endoscopic necrosectomy in the management of symptomatic pancreatic fluid collection. METHODS:  The clinical data of patients with symptomatic pancreatic fluid collection referred for endoscopic drainage were captured prospectively and analyzed. Pancreatic duct disruption was treated with stenting. Endosonography‐guided transmural drainage and endoscopic necrosectomy were performed when indicated. RESULTS:  Fifteen consecutive patients (mean age 53.7 years; range 23–82 years) underwent endoscopic management of pancreatic fluid collections (pseudocysts: six; abscesses: six; infected walled‐off necrosis: three). Pancreatic duct fistulas were present in 13 patients. The drainage techniques used were: (i) transpapillary drainage; five; (ii) transmural drainage; two (these two patients had no pancreatic duct fistulas); and (iii) combined transpapillary and transmural drainage; eight. An additional transgastric endoscopic necrosectomy was performed in five patients. The endoscopic treatment was successful in all cases. The only complication was asymptomatic pneumo‐peritoneum that occurred in one patient. Combined transpapillary and transmural drainage led to the faster resolution of the fluid collection compared to transpapillary drainage (75.6 vs 147 days, P = 0.03). No recurrence occurred over a mean follow up of 486 days. CONCLUSION:  Endoscopic drainage and endoscopic necrosectomy are safe and effective techniques for the treatment of symptomatic pancreatic fluid collection.     

NOTES and endoscopic pancreatic necrosectomy for the GI endoscopist

Endoscopists seek to conduct more aggressive surgical procedures that surpass the limitations of existing endoscopic procedures. Endoscopic pancreatic necrosectomy and natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES) are typical examples of this new trend; both are performed through the gastrointestinal wall without a skin incision. Endoscopic necrosectomy is effective for managing organized pancreatic necrosis and abscesses. The necrotic tissues are removed endoscopically by directly entering the cavity of the organized pancreatic necrosis. NOTES is a possible advance over surgical intervention, as it is a less invasive, more cosmetic, and effective procedure. There are various approaches, including the esophagus, stomach, colon, and vagina; Various procedures are possible using NOTES, such as cholecystectomy, appendectomy, full-thickness stomach resection, splenectomy, gastrointestinal (GI) anastomosis, and peritoneoscopy. The requirements for NOTES include high proficiency in endoscopic techniques, including knowledge of various devices, anatomy, and surgical procedures. Since most GI endoscopists have no surgical background, to increase the usage of NOTES, GI endoscopists should form and lead teams that include various specialists. We believe that endoscopic necrosectomy and NOTES represent a major shift in the treatment paradigm because physicians can treat beyond the gastrointestinal wall and endoscopic procedures will replace surgical treatment.     

Endoscopic-ultrasound-guided endoscopic transmural drainage of pancreatic pseudocysts and abscesses

Objective. Surgery is the traditional treatment for symptomatic pancreatic pseudocysts and abscesses, but morbidity and mortality are still too high. Minimally invasive approaches have been encouraged. The aim of this study was to evaluate the results of the endoscopic-ultrasound-guided (EUS) endoscopic transmural drainage of these pancreatic collections. Material and methods. In this retrospective review of consecutive cases from a single referral centre, cystogastrostomy and cystoduodenostomy were created with an interventional linear echoendoscope under endosonographic and fluoroscopic control by the endoscopic insertion of straight or double pigtail stents. Results. Fifty-one symptomatic patients (33 men; mean age 58 years) were submitted to 62 procedures from January 2003 to December 2005. EUS-guided drainage was successful in 48 (94%) patients. Only three patients needed surgery. There were two procedure-related complications managed clinically. During a mean follow-up of 39 weeks, recurrence due to migration or obstruction of the stent was 17.7%. All these cases were submitted to a new session of endoscopic drainage. There was no mortality. Complications were more frequent in patients with a recent episode of acute pancreatitis (38.5% versus 10%; p=0.083). The endoscopic approach was not more hazardous for abscesses in regard to complications rate (19% versus 16.6%; p>0.05). In abscesses, a nasocystic drain did not decrease the complications rate (27% versus 13%; p=0.619), but the placement of 2 stents did decrease this rate (18% versus 20%; p>0.05), although increased it in pseudocysts (40% versus 13%; p=0.185). Conclusions. Endoscopic transmural drainage is a minimally invasive, effective and safe approach in the management of pancreatic pseudocysts and abscesses.     

Management of pancreatic fluid collections: A comprehensive review of the literature

Pancreatic fluid collections(PFCs) are a frequent complication of pancreatitis. It is important to classify PFCs to guide management. The revised Atlanta criteria classifies PFCs as acute or chronic, with chronic fluid collections subdivided into pseudocysts and walled-off pancreatic necrosis(WOPN). Establishing adequate nutritional support is an essential step in the management of PFCs. Early attempts at oral feeding can be trialed in patients with mild pancreatitis. Enteral feeding should be implemented in patients with moderate to severe pancreatitis. Jejunal feeding remains the preferred route of enteral nutrition. Symptomatic PFCs require drainage; options include surgical, percutaneous, or endoscopic approaches. With the advent of newer and more advanced endoscopic tools and expertise, and an associated reduction in health care costs, minimally invasive endoscopic drainage has become the preferable approach. An endoscopic ultrasonography-guided approach using a seldinger technique is the preferred endoscopic approach. Both plastic stents and metal stents are efficacious and safe; however, metal stents may offer an advantage, especially in infected pseudocysts and in WOPN. Direct endoscopic necrosectomy is often required in WOPN. Lumen apposing metal stents that allow for direct endoscopic necrosectomy and debridement through the stent lumen are preferred in these patients. Endoscopic retrograde cholangio pancreatography with pancreatic duct(PD) exploration should be performed concurrent to PFC drainage. PD disruption is associated with an increased severity of pancreatitis, an increased risk of recurrent attacks of pancreatitis and long-term complications, and a decreased rate of PFC resolution after drainage. Any pancreatic ductal disruption should be bridged with endoscopic stenting.     

Endoscopic approach to pancreatic pseudocyst,abscess and necrosis: Review on recent progress

Aim: The aim of this study is to introduce recent progress in the treatment of pancreatic pseudocyst, abscess and necrosis using the endoscopic approach. Methods: Studies on PubMed and MEDLINE from the last 30 years on progress in the management of the complications from severe pancreatitis were researched and reviewed. Herein, the indication for intervention, definition of fluid collection associated with acute pancreatitis and treatment modalities of these complications are summarized. Results: Three types of management are employed for complications of severe pancreatitis: the endoscopic, surgical and percutaneous approaches. Conclusions: Over the years, as technical expertise has increased and instruments for endoscopy have improved, patients who had endoscopic surgery to address the complications of severe pancreatitis have had higher survival rates, lower mortality rates and lower complication rates than those having open debridement. However, traditional open abdominal surgery should be advocated when minimally invasive management fails or necrosis is extensive and extends diffusely to areas such as the paracolic gutter and the groin (i.e. locations not accessible by endoscopy).     

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided drainage of pancreatic fluid collections

Pancreatic fluid collections (PFCs) develop secondary to either fluid leakage or liquefaction of pancreatic necrosis following acute pancreatitis, chronic pancreatitis, surgery or abdominal trauma. Pancreatic fluid collections include acute fluid collections, acute and chronic pancreatic pseudocysts, pancreatic abscesses and pancreatic necrosis. Before the introduction of linear endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) in the 1990s and the subsequent development of endoscopic ultrasound-guided drainage (EUS-GD) procedures, the available options for drainage in symptomatic PFCs included surgical drainage, percutaneous drainage using radiological guidance and conventional endoscopic transmural drainage. In recent years, it has gradually been recog-nized that, due to its lower morbidity rate compared to the surgical and percutaneous approaches, endoscopic treatment may be the preferred first-line approach for managing symptomatic PFCs. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided drainage has the following advantages, when compared to other alternatives such as surgical, per-cutaneous and non-EUS-guided endoscopic drainage.EUS-GD is less invasive than surgery and therefore does not require general anesthesia. The morbidity rate is lower, recovery is faster and the costs are lower. EUS-GD can avoid local complications related to per-cutaneous drainage. Because the endoscope is placed adjacent to the fluid collection, it can have direct ac-cess to the fluid cavity, unlike percutaneous drainage which traverses the abdominal wall. Complications such as bleeding, inadvertent puncture of adjacent viscera, secondary infection and prolonged periods of drainage with resultant pancreatico-cutaneous fistulae may be avoided. The only difference between EUS and non-EUS drainage is the initial step, namely, gaining access to the pancreatic fluid collection. All the sub-sequent steps are similar, i.e., insertion of guide-wires with fluoroscopic guidance, balloon dilatation of the cystogastrostomy and insertion of transmural stents or nasocystic catheters. With the introduction of the EUS-scope equipped with a large operative channel which permits drainage of the PFCs in "one step", EUS-GD has been increasingly carried out in many tertiary care centers and has expanded the safety and efficacy of this modality, allowing access to and drainage of overly challenging fluid collections. However, the nature of the PFCs determines the outcome of this procedure. The technique and review of current literature regarding EUS-GD of PFCs will be discussed.     

German experience with endoscopic transmural drainage for pancreatic pseudocysts

Background: Endoscopic drainage provides a good alternative or supplement to a surgical approach for the therapy of pancreatic pseudocysts. Methods: Between 1987 and 2000, 47 patients had been treated for pancreatic pseudocysts by transmural or transductal drainage. In 79% the pseudocysts were due to chronic pancreatitis mainly caused by alcoholism. The main symptoms were abdominal pain in 85% of patients and loss of appetite or weight in 60% of patients. In 17% of patients, signs of septicemia were observed. Results: In 42 patients pancreatic pseudocysts disappeared completely. In the remaining five cases drainage was not successful. Six patients suffered a relapse 7–38 months after drainage. No other recurrences were followed up within 4–10 years. In another six patients the prostheses were renewed because of occlusion or dislocation. Overall six patients had to undergo surgery, three patients because of relapsing cyst, two patients because of insufficient drainage and one patient because of severe bleeding. There was no case of death related to the endoscopic treatment. Conclusions: Since the development of a modified needle type cystotom, the puncture and insertion of the prosthesis for pancreatic cyst drainage is less precarious and quicker. The endoscopic sonography is a valuable supplement to the diagnostic procedure to localize the optimal spot for puncture and to avoid hemorrhage because of damage of intramural or extramural blood vessels. Advantages of endoscopic drainage are minimal invasiveness, short period of hospitalization and low costs. These aspects make endoscopic therapy the first choice of treatment of pancreatic pseudocysts.     

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

IntroductionLumen 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.MethodsConsecutive 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.Results192 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.ConclusionLAMS 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.     

Frequency of complications during EUS-guided drainage of pancreatic fluid collections in 148 consecutive patients

Background and Aim: The aim of the present study was to evaluate the frequency of complications during endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)‐guided drainage of pancreatic fluid collections (PFC), identify contributing factors, and report on management outcomes. Methods: All patients who underwent EUS‐guided PFC drainage over 7 years were enrolled. Indications, demographics, technical details, complications, surgical interventions, and final outcomes were prospectively recorded. Results: Of 148 patients who underwent EUS, PFC was located in the pancreatic body in 84 (56.8%), in the tail in 45 (30.4%), in the head in 15 (10.1%), and in the uncinate region in four patients (2.7%). Perforation was encountered at the site of transmural stenting in two patients (1.3%, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.41–4.76) with a pseudocyst in the uncinate region that was drained transgastrically. When compared to other locations, perforation was more common with PFC involving the uncinate region (0% vs 50%, P = 0.0005). Other complications included bleeding in one (0.67%, 95% CI: 0.16, 3.68), stent migration in 1 (0.67%, 95% CI: 0.16, 3.68), and infection in four patients (2.7%, 95% CI: 1.09, 6.73). Bleeding occurred in a patient with underlying acquired factor VIII inhibitors, stent migration in a patient who underwent drainage via the gastric cardia, and infection in two patients with pseudocysts and two with necrosis. While two patients who developed post‐procedural infection and one with stent migration were managed endoscopically, both perforations required surgery. Surgical debridement was performed in two patients who developed infection with successful outcomes in one, and death from underlying comorbidity in the other. Conclusions: Complications are rare during EUS‐guided drainage of PFC and can be managed successfully in most patients.     

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided pancreatic fluid collections' transmural drainage outcomes in 100 consecutive cases of pseudocysts and walled off necrosis: a single-centre experience from the United Kingdom

Background and aim: Endoscopic ultrasound-guided drainage is a minimally invasive first-line modality for the drainage of pancreatic fluid collection (PFC) resulting in a shorter hospital stay and less morbidity compared with surgical cystogastrostomy. Our aim is to evaluate potential differences in the outcomes of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) guided transmural drainage (EUS-TD) drainage of pancreatic pseudocyst (PP) and walled-off necrosis (WON).

Method: We retrospectively reviewed 100 consecutive EUS-guided drainages of PFC utilising EUS reports; clinical notes and imaging with follow-up (FU) to 12 months. All procedures were undertaken under conscious sedation with EUS guidance alone (without fluoroscopy) and placement of plastic double pigtail stents.

Results: In these 100 sequential cases, there were 78 cases of PP and 22 cases of WON. All 22/22(100%) cases of WON had successful EUS-guided stent placement. In 2/22(9%), there was little or no clinical improvement. These two patients required further computed tomography (CT)–guided drainage and one of these patients (1/22) (4.5%) developed recurrence within 12 months FU after removal of stents.

In case of PP, overall stent placement was successful in 76/78 (97%) patients, but 6/78(8%) required 2nd EUS procedure after failure to show clinical improvement; 3/78(2.5%) required further CT-guided drainage. The overall complication rate was 9%(9/100) with 4%(4/100) requiring endoscopic or CT-guided intervention with no overall 30-day mortality.

Conclusion: This is the largest series from a single UK centre demonstrating that EUS-guided cystogastrostomy of PFC drainage using plastic double pigtail stents is sufficient in majority of cases with PFC including that of WON, with or without infection.     

胰腺假性囊肿内镜引流治疗研究进展

胰腺假性囊肿内镜引流是一安全、有效、微创的治疗方法,包括ERCP经乳头引流术、内镜下经胃或十二指肠壁引流术及腹腔镜胃腔内手术。文章就其临床应用及出血和感染等并发症的研究进展作一综述。     

Endoscopic and surgical drainage for pancreatic fluid collections are better than percutaneous drainage: Meta-analysis

BackgroundPancreatic pseudocyst (PP) and walled-off necrosis can be managed endoscopically, percutaneously or surgically, but with diverse efficacy.Aims & methodsA comprehensive literature search was carried out from inception to December 2018, to identify articles which compared at least two of the three kinds of treatment modalities, regarding the mortality, clinical success, recurrence, complications, cost and length of hospitalisation (LOH).ResultsThe outcomes of endoscopic (ED) and percutaneous drainage (PD) were comparable in six articles. The clinical success of endoscopic intervention was better considering any types of fluid collections (OR = 3.36; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.48, 7.63; p = 0.004). ED was preferable regarding recurrence of PP (OR = 0.23; 95% CI 0.08, 0.66; p = 0.006). Fifteen articles compared surgical intervention with ED. Significant difference was found in postoperative LOH (WMD (days) = −4.61; 95%CI -7.89, −1.33; p = 0.006) and total LOH (WMD (days) = −3.67; 95%CI -5.00, −2.34; p < 0.001) which favored endoscopy, but ED had lower rate of clinical success (OR = 0.54; 95% CI 0.35, 0.85; p = 0.007) and higher rate of recurrence (OR = 1.80; 95% CI 1.16, 2.79; p = 0.009) in the treatment of PP. Eleven studies compared surgical and percutaneous intervention. PD resulted in higher rate of recurrence (OR = 4.91; 95% CI 1.82, 13.22; p = 0.002) and lower rate of clinical success (OR = 0.13; 95% CI 0.07, 0.22, p < 0.001).ConclusionBoth endoscopy and surgery are preferable over percutaneous intervention, furthermore endoscopic treatment is associated with shorter hospitalisation than surgery.     

Endoscopic necrosectomy of organized pancreatic necrosis: a currently practiced NOTES procedure

Background

Endoscopic necrosectomy is now an established minimally invasive method for treatment of organized pancreatic necrosis.

Methods

Review of methods and results of endoscopic treatment of pancreatic necrosis.

Results

Reports by multiple groups have demonstrated favorable results of endoscopic necrosectomy. The mortality of critically ill patients undergoing endoscopic treatment in several series is approximately 10%. Some patients will eventually also require surgery for situations such as complete pancreatic duct disruption, but even in these cases endoscopic necrosectomy is useful because pancreatic surgery can often be delayed until the patient is stable.

Conclusions

Endoscopic necrosectomy will likely assume an increasing role in the treatment of pancreatic necrosis. This should result in reduced morbidity and mortality in these critically ill patients.