Adverse events of pancreatic fluid collections.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Baars JE
PROVIDER: S-EPMC5968021 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Feb
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Adverse events of pancreatic fluid collections.
Baars Judith E JE Kaffes Arthur J AJ Saxena Payal P
VideoGIE : an official video journal of the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy 20171218 2
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundLumen apposing metal stents (LAMSs) have a higher clinical success rate for managing pancreatic fluid collections. But they are associated with adverse events (AEs) like bleeding, migration, buried stent, occlusion, and infection. It has been hypothesized that placing a double pigtail stent (DPS) within LAMS may mitigate these AEs. The present systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to compare the outcome and AEs associated with LAMS with or without a coaxial DPS (LAMS-DPS).MethodsA comprehensive literature search of three databases from January 2010 to August 2022 was conducted for studies comparing the outcome and AEs of LAMS alone and LAMS-DPS. Pooled incidence and risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for all the dichotomous outcomes.ResultsOverall, eight studies (n = 460) were included in the final analysis. The clinical success rate (RR 1.00, 95% CI: 0.87-1.14) and the risk of overall AEs (RR 1.60, 95% CI: 0.95-2.68) remained comparable between both groups. There was no difference in the risk of bleeding between LAMS alone and LAMS-DPS (RR 1.80, 95% CI: 0.83-3.88). Individual analysis of other AEs, including infection, stent migration, occlusion, and reintervention, showed no difference in the risk between both procedures.ConclusionThe present meta-analysis shows that coaxial DPS within LAMS may not reduce AE rates or improve clinical outcomes. Further larger studies, including patients with walled-off necrosis, are required to demonstrate the benefit of coaxial DPS within LAMS.
| S-EPMC10510348 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Endoscopic drainage of pancreatic fluid collections (PFCs) with fewer complications and less trauma has gradually replaced surgery or percutaneous drainage to become the first-line treatment for PFCs. In recent years, the differential efficacy of various stent techniques to drain different types of PFCs has been controversial. This review summarizes the clinical applications of endoscopic ultrasound-guided stent placement for PFCs drainage.
| S-EPMC7451715 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC6669311 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC5774071 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background/aims Endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS)-guided drainage is the preferred approach for infected or symptomatic pancreatic fluid collections (PFCs). Here, we developed an algorithm for the management of pancreatitis complicated by PFCs and report on its effcacy and safety.MethodsBetween September 2011 and October 2017, patients were prospectively managed according to the algorithm. PFCs were classified as poorly organized fluid collections (POFCs), pancreatic pseudocysts (PPs), or walled-off pancreatic necrosis (WOPN). Clinical success was defined as a decrease in PFC size by ≥50% of the maximal diameter or to ≤2 cm.Results A total of 108 patients (62% male; mean age, 53 years) were included: 13 had POFCs, 43 had PPs, and 52 had WOPN. Seventytwo patients (66%) required a pancreatic duct (PD) stent, whereas 65 (60%) received enteral feeding. A total of 103 (95%) patients achieved clinical success. Eight patients experienced complications including bleeding (n=6) and surgical intervention (n=2). Patients with enteral feeding were 3.4 times more likely to achieve resolution within 60 days (p=0.0421), whereas those with PD stenting was five times more likely to achieve resolution within 90 days (p=0.0069).Conclusion A high PFC resolution rate can be achieved when a dedicated algorithm encompassing EUS-guided drainage, PD stenting, and early enteral feeding is adopted.
| S-EPMC7280836 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background and study aims Fusion imaging consists of overlaying preoperative imaging over live fluoroscopy, providing an augmented live guidance. Since 2017, we have been using a new hybrid operating room (Discovery IGS 740 OR, GE Healthcare) for biliopancreatic endoscopy, combining fusion imaging with traditional endoscopic ultrasound (EUS). This study aimed to assess the advantages that fusion imaging could bring to EUS-guided drainage of post-pancreatitis fluid collections. Patients and methods Thirty-five drainage procedures performed between 2012 and 2019 with traditional guidance and fusion imaging were retrospectively compared, assessing the overall treatment success rate - i. e. symptom improvement with complete PFC emptying - as a primary outcome. Secondary outcomes included technical success rate, time to resolution, hospital stay length, adverse events, recurrence rate, and procedure time. Results Patients treated with standard EUS (n = 17) and with fusion imaging (n = 18) were homogeneous in age, gender, pancreatitis etiology, and indication for drainage; the second group had larger PFCs, more frequently walled-off necrosis than pseudocysts, and were treated more emergently, indicating higher case complexity in this group. During the period when fusion imaging was adopted, procedures had a higher overall treatment success rate than during the period when standard EUS was adopted (83.3 % vs. 52.9 %, P = 0.075), and complete emptying was reached in less time (61.1 % vs. 23.6 % complete emptying within 90 days, P = 0.154), differences compatible with random fluctuations. Conclusions This study suggests that fusion imaging in combination with EUS might improve clinical and procedural outcomes of PFC drainage.
| S-EPMC9106435 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Pancreatic fluid collection often occurs as a local complication of acute pancreatitis, and drainage is indicated in symptomatic patients. The drainage may be surgical, percutaneous, or endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) guided. In symptomatic collections older than 4 weeks and localized in the upper abdomen, EUS-guided drainage is the first choice of treatment. Lumen-apposing metal stents are useful in cases of walled-off necrosis, facilitating access to the cavity; however, they do not reduce the number of necrosectomy sessions required. In most pancreatic pseudocysts requiring drainage, plastic stents remain the first choice of treatment. This review aimed to summarize the principles and techniques of step-up therapy of pancreatic fluid collections, including preprocedural and postprocedural assessment and practical approaches of drainage and necrosectomy, making available evidence more accessible to endoscopists aiming to train for this procedure. Successful and safe EUS drainage connotes early recognition and treatment of complications and the presence of a multidisciplinary team for optimal patient management. However, the best time for necrosectomy, modality of drainage method (lumen-apposing metal stents or plastic stents), and duration of antibiotherapy are still under evaluation.
| S-EPMC10357067 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Peripancreatic fluid collections are a well-known complication of pancreatitis and can vary from fluid-filled collections to entirely necrotic collections. Although most of the fluid-filled pseudocysts tend to resolve spontaneously with conservative management, intervention is necessary in symptomatic patients. Open surgery has been the traditional treatment modality of choice though endoscopic, laparoscopic and transcutaneous techniques offer alternative drainage approaches. During the last decade, improvement in endoscopic ultrasound technology has enabled real-time access and drainage of fluid collections that were previously not amenable to blind transmural drainage. This has initiated a trend towards use of this modality for treatment of pseudocysts. In this review, we have summarised the existing evidence for endoscopic drainage of peripancreatic fluid collections from published studies.
| S-EPMC5369570 | biostudies-other
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC5990911 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeEndoscopic drainage is an established treatment modality for adult patients with pancreatic fluid collections (PFCs). Available data regarding the efficacy and safety of endoscopic drainage in pediatric patients are limited. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we aimed to analyze the outcomes of endoscopic drainage in children with PFCs.MethodsA literature search was performed in Embase, PubMed, and Google Scholar for studies on the outcomes of endoscopic drainage with or without endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) guidance in pediatric patients with PFCs from inception to May 2021. The study's primary objective was clinical success, defined as resolution of PFCs. The secondary outcomes included technical success, adverse events, and recurrence rates.ResultsFourteen studies (187 children, 70.3% male) were included in this review. The subtypes of fluid collection included pseudocysts (60.3%) and walled-off necrosis (39.7%). The pooled technical success rates in studies where drainage of PFCs were performed with and without EUS guidance were 95.3% (95% confidence interval [CI], 89.6-98%; I 2=0) and 93.9% (95% CI, 82.6-98%; I 2=0), respectively. The pooled clinical success after one and two endoscopic interventions were 88.7% (95% CI, 82.7-92.9%; I 2=0) and 92.3% (95% CI, 87.4-95.4%; I 2=0), respectively. The pooled rate of major adverse events was 6.3% (95% CI, 3.3-11.4%; I 2=0). The pooled rate of recurrent PFCs after endoscopic drainage was 10.4% (95% CI, 6.1-17.1%; I 2=0).ConclusionEndoscopic drainage is safe and effective in children with PFCs. However, future studies are required to compare endoscopic and EUS-guided drainage of PFCs in children.
| S-EPMC9110851 | biostudies-literature