4.6 Article

Factors impacting treatment outcomes in the endoscopic management of walled-off pancreatic necrosis

Journal

JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY AND HEPATOLOGY
Volume 28, Issue 11, Pages 1725-1732

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/jgh.12328

Keywords

disconnected pancreatic duct syndrome; endoscopic management; EUS-guided drainage; outcomes; walled-off pancreatic necrosis

Funding

  1. NCI NIH HHS [P50 CA101955] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

BackgroundTreatment outcomes are suboptimal for patients undergoing endoscopic treatment of walled-off pancreatic necrosis (WOPN). The objective of this study is to identify factors that impact treatment outcomes in this patient subset. MethodsThis is a retrospective study of patients with WOPN treated endoscopically over 10 years. Patients underwent placement of stents and nasocystic catheters within the necrotic cavity. In select patients, the multiple transluminal gateway technique (MTGT) was adopted to create several openings in the stomach or duodenum to facilitate drainage of necrosis. In patients with disconnected pancreatic duct syndrome (DPDS), the transmural stents were left in place indefinitely to decrease pancreatic fluid collection (PFC) recurrence. ResultsEndoscopic treatment was successful in 53 of 76 (69.7%) patients. Treatment success was higher in patients undergoing MTGT than in those in whom conventional drainage was used (94.4% vs 62.1%, P=0.009). On multivariate logistic regression analysis, only MTGT (OR 15.8, 95% CI 1.77-140.8; P=0.01) and fewer endoscopic sessions being needed (OR 4.0, 95% CI 1.16-14.0; P=0.03) predicted treatment success. PFC recurrence was significantly lower in patients with indwelling transmural stents than in patients in whom the stents were removed (0 vs 20.8%; P=0.02). ConclusionsCreating multiple gateways for drainage of necrotic debris improves treatment success, and not removing the transmural stents decreases PFC recurrence in patients undergoing endoscopic drainage of WOPN.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available