Single vs Dual Drainage of Walled Off Pancreatic Necrosis.

IF 1.7 4区 医学 Q3 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY
Jake G Herbert, Patricia Carney, Gregory Cote, Jessica X Yu, Kaveh Sharzehi, Saad Jazrawi, Erin Gilbert, Keith Quencer, Emily Jonica
{"title":"Single vs Dual Drainage of Walled Off Pancreatic Necrosis.","authors":"Jake G Herbert, Patricia Carney, Gregory Cote, Jessica X Yu, Kaveh Sharzehi, Saad Jazrawi, Erin Gilbert, Keith Quencer, Emily Jonica","doi":"10.1097/MPA.0000000000002514","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Walled off pancreatic necrosis (WOPN) management has shifted towards greater emphasis on endoscopic methods, though practice variation persists. Percutaneous drains are still widely utilized, with or without transmural endoscopic stents, though the clinical impact of either single or combined approach has not been clarified. We aimed to assess efficacy of first-line endoscopic drainage of WOPN, and define characteristics associated with need for step-up to additional percutaneous drain, i.e. dual modality drainage (DMD).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A single-center retrospective review was performed among patients who received endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided transmural drainage for WOPN as index therapy. Patient characteristics, WOPN morphology and clinical course were assessed. The primary outcome was need for step-up to DMD.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Fifty-six patients (32.1% women; median 54.5 years) were included, all who received initial EUS-drainage, with similar rates of LAMS usage and disconnected tail between groups. Thirty-seven patients (66.1%) were managed by endoscopic approach only (EAO). DMD patients had larger collection(s): 16.4 cm vs 11. 5 cm (P=0.013) and more frequent pericolic extension (42.1% vs 13.5%, P=0.043). Despite additional route of drainage, DMD patients required more total endoscopy sessions (4.7 vs 3.3, P=0.010).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In patients receiving initial EUS drainage, the rate of step-up to DMD was 33.9%, highlighting that 2/3 of those with WOPN can be successfully managed by endoscopic means alone. Large size and pericolic extension were identified as predictors for need for step-up, and such features may be useful in identifying patients who may benefit from early dual approach.</p>","PeriodicalId":19733,"journal":{"name":"Pancreas","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pancreas","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/MPA.0000000000002514","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: Walled off pancreatic necrosis (WOPN) management has shifted towards greater emphasis on endoscopic methods, though practice variation persists. Percutaneous drains are still widely utilized, with or without transmural endoscopic stents, though the clinical impact of either single or combined approach has not been clarified. We aimed to assess efficacy of first-line endoscopic drainage of WOPN, and define characteristics associated with need for step-up to additional percutaneous drain, i.e. dual modality drainage (DMD).

Methods: A single-center retrospective review was performed among patients who received endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided transmural drainage for WOPN as index therapy. Patient characteristics, WOPN morphology and clinical course were assessed. The primary outcome was need for step-up to DMD.

Results: Fifty-six patients (32.1% women; median 54.5 years) were included, all who received initial EUS-drainage, with similar rates of LAMS usage and disconnected tail between groups. Thirty-seven patients (66.1%) were managed by endoscopic approach only (EAO). DMD patients had larger collection(s): 16.4 cm vs 11. 5 cm (P=0.013) and more frequent pericolic extension (42.1% vs 13.5%, P=0.043). Despite additional route of drainage, DMD patients required more total endoscopy sessions (4.7 vs 3.3, P=0.010).

Conclusions: In patients receiving initial EUS drainage, the rate of step-up to DMD was 33.9%, highlighting that 2/3 of those with WOPN can be successfully managed by endoscopic means alone. Large size and pericolic extension were identified as predictors for need for step-up, and such features may be useful in identifying patients who may benefit from early dual approach.

壁外性胰腺坏死的单次与双次引流。
目的:壁状胰腺坏死(WOPN)的管理已经转向更强调内镜方法,尽管实践差异仍然存在。经皮引流术仍被广泛应用,无论是否使用经壁内窥镜支架,尽管单一或联合入路的临床影响尚未明确。我们的目的是评估WOPN的一线内镜引流的疗效,并确定与需要进一步经皮引流相关的特征,即双模态引流(DMD)。方法:对接受超声内镜(EUS)引导下经壁引流治疗WOPN的患者进行单中心回顾性分析。评估患者特征、WOPN形态及临床病程。主要结果是需要升级到DMD。结果:纳入56例患者(32.1%为女性,中位年龄54.5岁),所有患者均接受了初始eus引流,各组间LAMS使用率相似,尾断。37例(66.1%)患者仅经内镜入路(EAO)处理。DMD患者有更大的收集(s): 16.4 cm vs 11。5cm (P=0.013)和更频繁的心包延伸(42.1% vs 13.5%, P=0.043)。尽管有额外的引流途径,DMD患者需要更多的总内镜检查次数(4.7 vs 3.3, P=0.010)。结论:在最初接受EUS引流的患者中,DMD上升率为33.9%,突出表明2/3的WOPN患者可以仅通过内镜手段成功治疗。大尺寸和心包扩张被确定为需要升级的预测因素,这些特征可能有助于识别可能从早期双重入路中受益的患者。
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
Pancreas
Pancreas 医学-胃肠肝病学
CiteScore
4.70
自引率
3.40%
发文量
289
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: Pancreas provides a central forum for communication of original works involving both basic and clinical research on the exocrine and endocrine pancreas and their interrelationships and consequences in disease states. This multidisciplinary, international journal covers the whole spectrum of basic sciences, etiology, prevention, pathophysiology, diagnosis, and surgical and medical management of pancreatic diseases, including cancer.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信