Search

Direct endoscopic necrosectomy (DEN) using a lumen-apposing metal stent (LAMS) is a standard therapy for the management of symptomatic walled-off necrosis (WON). Here, we demonstrated the efficacy of the routine placement of long plastic stents after a DEN session to treat laterally extended WON. Patients (n = 6) with symptomatic laterally extended WON who underwent DEN after long plastic stent placement were included. The primary endpoint was clinical efficacy of the procedure. The technical and clinical success rates were 100% without major adverse events. The WON extended to the pelvic cavity or pericolic area, and the WON size was between 18.6 and 35.8 cm in length. The median number of DEN sessions was 10 (range 6–16), and two or three long plastic stents were placed after every DEN session. Only one patient suffered from pneumoperitoneum during DEN, which spontaneously resolved within 20 min. Placement of a long plastic stent after DEN using LAMS is a minimally invasive and effective treatment for symptomatic laterally extended WON. Further studies are needed to define the indications and most suitable patients.

Background and Aims Although a growing body of evidence demonstrates that propofol-induced deep sedation can be effective and performed safely, cardiopulmonary adverse events have been observed frequently. Etomidate is a new emerging drug that provides hemodynamic and respiratory stability, even in high-risk patient groups. The objective of this study was to compare safety and efficacy profiles of etomidate and propofol for endoscopic sedation. Methods A total of 128 patients undergoing EUS were randomized to receive either etomidate or propofol blinded administered by a registered nurse. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with any cardiopulmonary adverse events. Results Overall cardiopulmonary adverse events were identified in 22 patients (34.38%) of the etomidate group and 33 patients (51.56%) of the propofol group, without significant difference ( P = .074). However, the incidence of oxygen desaturation (4/64 [6.25%] vs 20/64 [31.25%]; P =.001) and respiratory depression (5/64 [7.81%] vs 21/64 [32.81%]; P =.001) was significantly lower in the etomidate group than in the propofol group. The frequency of myoclonus was significantly higher in the etomidate group (22/64 [34.37%]) compared with the propofol group (8/64 [12.50%]) ( P =.012). Repeated measure analysis of variance revealed significant effects of sedation group and time on systolic blood pressure (etomidate group greater than propofol group). Physician satisfaction was greater in the etomidate group than in the propofol group. Conclusions Etomidate administration resulted in fewer respiratory depression events and had a better sedative efficacy than propofol; however, it was more frequently associated with myoclonus and increased blood pressure during endoscopic procedures. (Clinical trial registration number: KCT0001701.)

Background and Aims Although various endoscopic techniques have been introduced for successful removal of common bile duct (CBD) stones, the optimal method is not yet clear. We aimed to compare the efficacy of different endoscopic techniques for CBD stone removal. Methods We searched for all relevant randomized controlled trials published until June 2017, examining the outcomes of endoscopic techniques for CBD stone removal, including endoscopic sphincterotomy (EST), endoscopic papillary balloon dilatation (EPBD), and EST with balloon dilatation (ESBD). A Bayesian network meta-analysis was performed. Results Twenty-five studies with 3726 patients were included in the meta-analysis. ESBD had a higher successful rate of stone removal in the first endoscopic session than EPBD (odds ratio [OR] [95% credible interval {CrI}], 2.09 [1.07-4.16]). Mechanical lithotripsy was less common in ESBD than in EPBD (OR [95% CrI], .45 [.25-.83]). EPBD revealed a lower risk of bleeding than both EST and ESBD (OR [95% CrI], vs EST, .06 [.008-.23]; vs ESBD, .12 [.01-.64]). The pooled incidences of bleeding were 3.0% (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.8%-5.2%), 1.1% (95% CI, .6%-2.0%), and 2.0% (95% CI, .9%-4.4%) in the EST, EPBD, and ESBD groups, respectively. Pancreatitis tended to be more common in EPBD than in both EST and ESBD (OR [95% CrI]: vs EST, 1.49 [.84-2.59]; vs ESBD, 1.49 [.61-3.57]). Conclusion The efficacy of ESBD in stone removal during the first endoscopic session was superior to that of EPBD. Pancreatitis in ESBD and EST tended to be less common than in EPBD, although this difference was not statistically significant. However, ESBD and EST carried a higher risk of bleeding than EPBD.