Lumen‐apposing metal stents for drainage of pancreatic fluid collections: When and for whom?. Issue 1 (15th June 2016)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Bang, Ji Young; Hasan, Muhammad K.; Navaneethan, Udayakumar; Sutton, Bryce; Frandah, Wesam; Siddique, Sameer; Hawes, Robert H.; Varadarajulu, Shyam
• Is Part Of: Digestive endoscopy. Volume 29:Issue 1(2017)
• Page Start: 83
• Page End: 90
• Publication Date: 2016-06-15
• Subjects: endoscopic ultrasound -- lumen‐apposing metal stent -- pancreatic fluid collection -- plastic stent -- walled‐off necrosis; Digestive organs -- Diseases -- Periodicals; Digestive organs -- Diseases -- Diagnosis -- Periodicals; Endoscopy -- Periodicals; Digestive System Diseases -- diagnosis -- Periodicals; Digestive System Diseases -- therapy -- Periodicals; Endoscopy -- Periodicals; 616.3
• DOI: 10.1111/den.12681
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0915-5635

Abstract

Abstract : Background and Aim: Although lumen‐apposing metal stents (LAMS) are increasingly being used for drainage of pancreatic fluid collections (PFC), their advantage over plastic stents is unclear. Methods: In this retrospective case–control study, 20 patients who underwent PFC drainage using LAMS were matched with 40 patients treated with plastic stents according to PFC type (walled‐off necrosis [WON] vs pseudocyst) and procedural technique (conventional vs multi‐gate). Main outcome measures were treatment success, reintervention, clinical and stent‐related adverse events, procedural duration, length of hospital stay (LOS) and hospital costs. Results: At median follow up of 570 days, except for median procedural duration (8.5 vs 25 min, P < 0.001), there was no significant difference in treatment success (95.0 vs 92.5%, P = 0.99), reintervention (25.0 vs 30.0 %, P = 0.77), clinical (10.0 vs 12.5 %, P = 0.99) and stent‐related adverse events (10.0 vs 2.5 %, P = 0.26) or median LOS (2 [IQR 1–5] vs 2 [IQR 1–7] days, P = 0.58) between patients treated with LAMS versus plastic stents. Although there was no difference for WON ($16 708 for LAMS vs $17 221 for plastic stents, P = 0.90), mean hospital costs were significantly lower for pseudocysts using plastic stents ($18 996 vs $58 649, P = 0.03). Conclusions: Although there is no difference in clinical outcomes, treating pseudocysts using plastic stents is less expensive. It is also possible that the short procedural duration is a surrogate marker for procedural complexity and this may drive the use of LAMS in sicker patients.