No abstract

Background: Peripancreatic fluid collections (PFCs) are a frequent complication of acute pancreatitis. Symptomatic PFCs may need to be drained, and there are multiple endoscopic accessories that can facilitate the procedure. This paper aims to compare the success rate, number of procedures required for resolution and adverse events rate for PFCs EUS-guided drainage with plastic stents and lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMS). Methods: This is a retrospective analysis of a consecutive sample of patients that was collected from 2013 – 2019. The medical records of these patients were reviewed, and the outcomes for each type of stent (plastic vs LAMS, and different subtypes of LAMS) were compared in terms of clinical success, number of re-interventions needed, and adverse events. Results: A total of 33 patients (23 males) were treated for PFCs with EUS-guided drainage and stenting. The patients' ages ranged between 14 and 85 years (mean ± SD: 43.5 ± 19 years). Overall, there was no difference between plastic stents and LAMS in terms of symptomatic recovery ( P = 0. 24), but metal stents had better results with regards to radiological resolution ( P = 0.03), and were associated with a higher number of necrosectomies ( P = 0.029). Adverse events occurred more frequently in patients who had plastic stents, but direct comparison between the two groups showed that the difference was not statistically significant ( P = 0.2). Stratification for different LAMS subtypes showed no difference in terms of symptomatic or radiological resolution ( P =0.49), number of rescue procedures ( P = 0.41), and adverse events ( P = 0.81). Conclusion: Our study, along with the current available evidence, suggests a slight advantage of metal stents over plastic stents in terms of clinical success, need for rescue procedures, and incidence of adverse events. Furthermore, it provides empirical evidence that the different sub-types of LAMS perform similarly when compared against each other.

No abstract