Effectiveness of endoscopic ultrasound-guided simple puncture-aspiration (non-stenting) in the management of abdominal collections.

IF 3 Q2 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY
Therapeutic Advances in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Pub Date : 2024-10-13 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.1177/26317745241287319
Julio G Velasquez-Rodriguez, Carme Loras, Sandra Maisterra, Juan Colán-Hernández, Juli Busquets, Joan B Gornals
{"title":"Effectiveness of endoscopic ultrasound-guided simple puncture-aspiration (non-stenting) in the management of abdominal collections.","authors":"Julio G Velasquez-Rodriguez, Carme Loras, Sandra Maisterra, Juan Colán-Hernández, Juli Busquets, Joan B Gornals","doi":"10.1177/26317745241287319","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Endoscopic management of abdominal collections includes endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided transmural drainage, transpapillar via endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), and EUS-guided simple puncture-aspiration (SPA). The latter is little reported, and there are some doubts about its real usefulness.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The aim of this study was to assess the effectiveness of EUS-guided SPA as a first-line approach for treatment in selected abdominal collections.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Retrospective observational study performed in two tertiary centers (Barcelona area).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Inclusion of all consecutive patients with abdominal collections that underwent EUS-guided SPA from July 2007 to July 2021. The decision was based on endoscopist criteria and collection characteristics. Clinical success was defined as avoidance of an additional interventional approach (endoscopic stenting, percutaneous drainage, surgery).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 241 patients with abdominal collections treated endoscopically, 55 were included for analysis (mean age, 56 ± 12 years). Collection features: mean size 63.3 ± 24.8 mm; positive culture in 22 (40%) and pancreatic nature in 45 (81.8%). EUS-SPA was performed successfully in all cases, and clinical success was achieved in 76.3% (95% confidence interval (CI), 65.5-87.3) of cases (<i>n</i>-42/55). The most frequently used needle size was 19 Ga (85%). A nonsignificant trend for success was detected for noninfected collections (84.8 vs 63.6; <i>p</i> = 0.07) and lower size (mean ± SD; 60.2 ± 22.9 vs 73.8 ± 29 mm; <i>p</i> = 0.09). Two related adverse events were detected: one bleeding and one abdominal pain. Recurrence was detected in five pseudocysts after clinical success. Median follow-up was 629 days (IQR 389-877).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>EUS-SPA of selected abdominal collections seems to be a safe and effective technique, avoiding a more aggressive strategy such as transmural stenting. EUS-SPA may be a viable alternative in collections with limited size and preferably noninfected.</p><p><strong>Graphical abstract: </strong></p>","PeriodicalId":40947,"journal":{"name":"Therapeutic Advances in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy","volume":"17 ","pages":"26317745241287319"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11526220/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Therapeutic Advances in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/26317745241287319","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Endoscopic management of abdominal collections includes endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided transmural drainage, transpapillar via endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), and EUS-guided simple puncture-aspiration (SPA). The latter is little reported, and there are some doubts about its real usefulness.

Objectives: The aim of this study was to assess the effectiveness of EUS-guided SPA as a first-line approach for treatment in selected abdominal collections.

Design: Retrospective observational study performed in two tertiary centers (Barcelona area).

Methods: Inclusion of all consecutive patients with abdominal collections that underwent EUS-guided SPA from July 2007 to July 2021. The decision was based on endoscopist criteria and collection characteristics. Clinical success was defined as avoidance of an additional interventional approach (endoscopic stenting, percutaneous drainage, surgery).

Results: Of 241 patients with abdominal collections treated endoscopically, 55 were included for analysis (mean age, 56 ± 12 years). Collection features: mean size 63.3 ± 24.8 mm; positive culture in 22 (40%) and pancreatic nature in 45 (81.8%). EUS-SPA was performed successfully in all cases, and clinical success was achieved in 76.3% (95% confidence interval (CI), 65.5-87.3) of cases (n-42/55). The most frequently used needle size was 19 Ga (85%). A nonsignificant trend for success was detected for noninfected collections (84.8 vs 63.6; p = 0.07) and lower size (mean ± SD; 60.2 ± 22.9 vs 73.8 ± 29 mm; p = 0.09). Two related adverse events were detected: one bleeding and one abdominal pain. Recurrence was detected in five pseudocysts after clinical success. Median follow-up was 629 days (IQR 389-877).

Conclusion: EUS-SPA of selected abdominal collections seems to be a safe and effective technique, avoiding a more aggressive strategy such as transmural stenting. EUS-SPA may be a viable alternative in collections with limited size and preferably noninfected.

Graphical abstract:

内窥镜超声引导下简单穿刺抽吸(非支架)治疗腹腔积液的效果。
背景:腹腔积液的内镜治疗包括内镜超声(EUS)引导下的经壁引流、经内镜逆行胰胆管造影(ERCP)的转胰管引流和 EUS 引导下的单纯穿刺抽吸(SPA)。后者鲜有报道,人们对其实际效用存在一些疑问:本研究旨在评估在 EUS 引导下将 SPA 作为一线方法治疗特定腹腔积液的有效性:方法:纳入所有连续腹腔积液患者:纳入2007年7月至2021年7月期间接受EUS引导SPA的所有连续腹腔积液患者。根据内镜医师的标准和腹腔积液的特征做出决定。临床成功的定义是避免了额外的介入方法(内镜支架、经皮引流、手术):结果:在 241 名经内镜治疗的腹腔积液患者中,有 55 人被纳入分析范围(平均年龄为 56 ± 12 岁)。积液特征:平均大小为 63.3 ± 24.8 毫米;22 例(40%)培养阳性,45 例(81.8%)为胰腺性质。所有病例均成功进行了 EUS-SPA,76.3%(95% 置信区间(CI),65.5-87.3)的病例(n-42/55)获得了临床成功。最常用的针头大小为 19 Ga(85%)。未感染的样本(84.8 vs 63.6;p = 0.07)和较小的样本(平均 ± SD;60.2 ± 22.9 vs 73.8 ± 29 mm;p = 0.09)的成功率呈非显著趋势。发现两例相关不良事件:一例出血,一例腹痛。五例假性囊肿在临床成功后发现复发。中位随访时间为 629 天(IQR 389-877):结论:对选定的腹腔积液进行 EUS-SPA 似乎是一种安全有效的技术,可避免采用更激进的策略(如经壁支架置入术)。EUS-SPA可能是规模有限且最好未感染的腹腔积液的可行替代方案:
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
8
审稿时长
13 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信