TY - JOUR
T1 - Lumen-apposing metal stents with or without coaxial plastic stent placement for the management of pancreatic fluid collections
AU - AbiMansour, Jad P.
AU - Jaruvongvanich, Veeravich
AU - Velaga, Saran
AU - Law, Ryan J.
AU - Storm, Andrew C.
AU - Topazian, Mark
AU - Levy, Michael J.
AU - Alexander, Ryan
AU - Vargas, Eric J.
AU - Bofill-Garcia, Aliana
AU - Matin, John A.
AU - Petersen, Bret T.
AU - Abu Dayyeh, Barham K.
AU - Chandrasekhara, Vinay
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2024 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy
PY - 2024/1
Y1 - 2024/1
N2 - Background and Aims: Coaxial double-pigtail plastic stent (DPPS) placement is often performed within lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMSs) for drainage of pancreatic fluid collections (PFCs) to prevent adverse events (AEs) such as stent occlusion and bleeding. This study compares the safety and outcomes of LAMSs alone versus LAMSs with coaxial DPPSs for PFC management. Methods: Patients undergoing drainage of a PFC with LAMSs were retrospectively identified and categorized as LAMS or LAMS/DPPS based on initial drainage strategy. The AE rate, AE type, and clinical success were extracted by chart review. Results: One hundred eighty-five individuals (83 LAMS, 102 LAMS/DPPS) were identified. No significant differences were found in rates of clinical success (75.9% LAMS vs 69.6% LAMS/DDPS, P = .34) or overall AEs (15.7% LAMS vs 15.7% LAMS/DPPS, P = .825). Conclusions: In this comparative single-center study, placement of a coaxial DPPS for drainage of PFCs with LAMSs did not affect rates of AEs or clinical success.
AB - Background and Aims: Coaxial double-pigtail plastic stent (DPPS) placement is often performed within lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMSs) for drainage of pancreatic fluid collections (PFCs) to prevent adverse events (AEs) such as stent occlusion and bleeding. This study compares the safety and outcomes of LAMSs alone versus LAMSs with coaxial DPPSs for PFC management. Methods: Patients undergoing drainage of a PFC with LAMSs were retrospectively identified and categorized as LAMS or LAMS/DPPS based on initial drainage strategy. The AE rate, AE type, and clinical success were extracted by chart review. Results: One hundred eighty-five individuals (83 LAMS, 102 LAMS/DPPS) were identified. No significant differences were found in rates of clinical success (75.9% LAMS vs 69.6% LAMS/DDPS, P = .34) or overall AEs (15.7% LAMS vs 15.7% LAMS/DPPS, P = .825). Conclusions: In this comparative single-center study, placement of a coaxial DPPS for drainage of PFCs with LAMSs did not affect rates of AEs or clinical success.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85179813003&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85179813003&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.gie.2023.09.005
DO - 10.1016/j.gie.2023.09.005
M3 - Article
C2 - 37722511
AN - SCOPUS:85179813003
SN - 0016-5107
VL - 99
SP - 104
EP - 107
JO - Gastrointestinal endoscopy
JF - Gastrointestinal endoscopy
IS - 1
ER -