TY - JOUR
T1 - EUS-guided pancreatic drainage for pancreatic strictures after failed ERCP
T2 - a multicenter international collaborative study
AU - Tyberg, Amy
AU - Sharaiha, Reem Z.
AU - Kedia, Prashant
AU - Kumta, Nikhil
AU - Gaidhane, Monica
AU - Artifon, Everson
AU - Giovannini, Marc
AU - Kahaleh, Michel
N1 - Funding Information:
DISCLOSURE: The following authors disclosed financial relationships relevant to this publication: R. Z. Sharaiha: Consultant for Apollo Endosurgery; M. Kahaleh: Consultant for Boston Scientific, Xlumena, and Apollo Endosurgery; research grant recipient from Boston Scientific, Fuji, Pentax, MI Tech, EMcision, ASPIRE Bariatrics, GI Dynamics, W.L. Gore Associates, Cook Endoscopy, Apollo Endosurgery, MaunaKea Tech, NinePoint Medical, Concordia Lab, and Merit. All other authors disclosed no financial relationships relevant to this publication.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2017 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy
PY - 2017/1/1
Y1 - 2017/1/1
N2 - Background and Aims Endoscopic retrograde pancreatography (ERP) is considered first-line therapy for management of symptomatic pancreatic duct obstruction. Technical failure with ERP occurs when the main pancreatic duct cannot be cannulated. EUS-guided drainage of the pancreatic duct is a minimally invasive alternative to surgery for failed conventional ERP. We present an international, multicenter study on the safety and efficacy of EUS-guided pancreatic drainage (EUS-PD) for patients who fail conventional endoscopic therapy. Methods Between January 2006 and December 2015, 80 patients underwent EUS-PD at 4 academic centers in 3 countries. Patient demographics, medical history, procedure data, and follow-up clinical data were collected. Technical success was defined as successful pancreatic duct drainage with stent placement. Clinical success was defined as resolution or improvement of symptoms or improvement on postprocedure imaging. Results Eighty patients (62.5% men; mean age, 58.2 ± 15.5 years) were included. All patients had attempted ERP and/or extracorporeal lithotripsy if needed before EUS-PD. Technical success was achieved in 89% of patients (n = 71). Clinical success was achieved in 81% of patients overall (65/80) and in 92% of patients who achieved technical success (65/71). Immediate adverse events occurred in 20% of patients (n = 16) and delayed adverse events occurred in 11% of patients (n = 9). Conclusions With appropriate endoscopic expertise, EUS-PD offers a minimally invasive, more effective, and safer alternative to some surgical PD procedures. Prospective studies are needed to evaluate long-term outcomes. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT01522573.)
AB - Background and Aims Endoscopic retrograde pancreatography (ERP) is considered first-line therapy for management of symptomatic pancreatic duct obstruction. Technical failure with ERP occurs when the main pancreatic duct cannot be cannulated. EUS-guided drainage of the pancreatic duct is a minimally invasive alternative to surgery for failed conventional ERP. We present an international, multicenter study on the safety and efficacy of EUS-guided pancreatic drainage (EUS-PD) for patients who fail conventional endoscopic therapy. Methods Between January 2006 and December 2015, 80 patients underwent EUS-PD at 4 academic centers in 3 countries. Patient demographics, medical history, procedure data, and follow-up clinical data were collected. Technical success was defined as successful pancreatic duct drainage with stent placement. Clinical success was defined as resolution or improvement of symptoms or improvement on postprocedure imaging. Results Eighty patients (62.5% men; mean age, 58.2 ± 15.5 years) were included. All patients had attempted ERP and/or extracorporeal lithotripsy if needed before EUS-PD. Technical success was achieved in 89% of patients (n = 71). Clinical success was achieved in 81% of patients overall (65/80) and in 92% of patients who achieved technical success (65/71). Immediate adverse events occurred in 20% of patients (n = 16) and delayed adverse events occurred in 11% of patients (n = 9). Conclusions With appropriate endoscopic expertise, EUS-PD offers a minimally invasive, more effective, and safer alternative to some surgical PD procedures. Prospective studies are needed to evaluate long-term outcomes. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT01522573.)
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85003874479&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85003874479&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.gie.2016.07.030
DO - 10.1016/j.gie.2016.07.030
M3 - Article
C2 - 27460387
AN - SCOPUS:85003874479
SN - 0016-5107
VL - 85
SP - 164
EP - 169
JO - Gastrointestinal Endoscopy
JF - Gastrointestinal Endoscopy
IS - 1
ER -