Search

Background and Aims: Endoscopic enteral stenting (ES) in malignant gastric outlet obstruction (GOO) is limited by high rates of stent obstruction. EUS-guided gastroenterostomy (EUS-GE) is a novel procedure that potentially offers sustained patency without tumor ingrowth/overgrowth. The aim of this study is to compare EUS-GE with ES in terms of (1) symptom recurrence and need for re-intervention, (2) technical success (proper stent positioning as determined via endoscopy and fluoroscopy), (3) clinical success (ability to tolerate oral intake without vomiting), and (4) procedure-related adverse events (AEs).Methods: Multicenter retrospective study of all consecutive patients who underwent either EUS-GE at four centers between 2013 and 2015 or ES at one center between 2008 and 2010.Results: A total of 82 patients (mean age 66-years ± 13.5 and 40.2% female) were identified: 30 in EUS-GE and 52 in ES. Technical and clinical success was not significantly different: 86.7% EUS-GE versus 94.2% ES (p = 0.2) and 83.3% EUS-GE versus 67.3% ES (p = 0.12), respectively. Symptom recurrence and need for re-intervention, however, was significantly lower in the EUS-GE group (4.0 vs. 28.6%, (p = 0.015). Post-procedure mean length of hospitalization was comparable at 11.3 days ± 6.6 for EUS-GE versus 9.5 days ± 8.3 for ES (p = 0.3). Rates and severity of AEs (as per the ASGE lexicon) were also similar (16.7 vs. 11.5%, p = 0.5). On multivariable analysis, ES was independently associated with need for re-intervention (OR 12.8, p = 0.027).Conclusion: EUS-GE may be ideal for malignant GOO with comparable effectiveness and safety to ES while being associated with fewer symptom recurrence and requirements for re-intervention. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Pancreatic fluid collections (PFCs), including walled-off necrosis (WON), are commonly described sequelae of pancreatitis. Endosonography-guided PFC drainage can be performed using plastic stents (PS), fully covered self-expanding metal stents (FCSEMS), or lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMS). We performed a retrospective study comparing clinical outcomes and adverse events by stent type.Methods: In this historical cohort, patients undergoing endosonography-guided PFC drainage from 2010 to 2019 were divided into groups: those treated with (1) PS, (2) FCSEMS, and (3) LAMS. Clinical success, the primary outcome, was defined as complete resolution or size reduction of ≥ 50%, with resolution of symptoms and no reintervention required at 3 months following the index procedure. Adverse events (AEs) and procedure times were also evaluated.Results: Fifty-eight patients were included. Procedure times were significantly shorter with LAMS (21.4 ± 10.8 min versus 53.0 ± 24.4 min for FCSEMS and 65.9 ± 23.4 min for PS, p < 0.001). Clinical success rates for WON were higher with LAMS compared with FCSEMS (95.7% vs 66.7%, respectively; p = 0.04). For all PFCs, treatment with LAMS trended towards higher clinical success rates compared with PS and FCSEMS (96.3% vs 81.8% vs 77.8%, respectively; p = 0.14). Early AEs (within 1 week) occurred at significantly lower rates in the LAMS group compared to PS and FCSEMS (0% vs 33.3% vs 10.6%, respectively; p = 0.006), as did late AEs (7.4% vs 44.5% vs 40%, respectively; p = 0.01).Conclusions: LAMS is superior in terms of WON clinical success, favorable in terms of lower adverse event profile, and shorter in terms of procedural time compared to FCSEMS and PS. LAMS can be considered as an initial approach for WON, given that clinical success in WON is lower when using PS or FCSEMS, though more high-quality data are needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]