Endoscopic ultrasound-guided lumen-apposing metal stent with or without coaxial plastic stent for pancreatic fluid collections: a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing safety and efficacy

Abstract

Background Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMS) are preferred for draining symptomatic large pancreatic fluid collections (PFCs). A concurrent coaxial double-pigtail plastic stent (DPPS) is proposed to reduce adverse events associated with LAMS. We aimed to perform a comparative outcome analysis of LAMS with or without DPPS for PFCs.

Methods Electronic databases from January 2005 through July 2023 were searched for studies comparing the use of LAMS with or without DPPS for PFCs. Pooled proportions were calculated using fixed (inverse variance) and random-effects (DerSimonian-Laird) models.

Results After reviewing 1780 studies, we extracted data from 6 studies comprising 348 patients. The weighted odds of overall technical success, using LAMS plus DPPS compared to LAMS alone, were 0.53 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.15-1.83), and the odds of clinical success were 1.10 (95%CI 0.59-2.05). The weighted odds of total adverse events with LAMS compared to LAMS plus DPPS were 2.21 (95%CI 1.37-3.59). Analysis of individual adverse events showed that the odds of stent occlusion when LAMS alone was used compared to LAMS plus DPPS was 2.36 (95%CI 1.12-4.98). The odds of bleeding were 1.84 (95%CI 0.77-4.38), and the odds of stent migration 0.95 (95%CI 0.40-2.23).

Conclusions EUS-guided LAMS placement is the current standard of care for managing symptomatic large PFCs. Concurrent use of coaxial DPPS can mitigate the overall adverse events observed with LAMS, while maintaining similar technical and clinical success.

Keywords Pancreatic fluid collections, walled-off pancreatic necrosis, lumen-apposing metal stent, double pigtail plastic stents, endoscopic ultrasound

Ann Gastroenterol 2024; 37 (2): 242-250