Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Management of Pancreatic Pseudocysts and Walled-Off Necrosis

Ji Young Bang; Shyam Varadarajulu

doi:10.5946/ce.2014.47.5.429

Articles

Page Path: HOME > Clin Endosc > Volume 47(5); 2014 > Article

Review Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Management of Pancreatic Pseudocysts and Walled-Off Necrosis: Ji Young Bang, Shyam Varadarajulu; Clinical Endoscopy 2014;47(5):429-431.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5946/ce.2014.47.5.429
Published online: September 30, 2014

Center for Interventional Endoscopy, Florida Hospital, Orlando, FL, USA.

Correspondence: Shyam Varadarajulu. Center for Interventional Endoscopy, Florida Hospital, 601 East Rollins St, Orlando, FL 32803, USA. Tel: +1-407-303-2570, Fax: +1-407-303-2585, svaradarajulu@yahoo.com

• Received: May 19, 2014 • Accepted: June 20, 2014

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

6,435 Views
113 Download
28 Web of Science
20 Crossref
24 Scopus

prev next

Full Article

Download PDF

Abstract
INTRODUCTION
WHY IS ACCURATE DISTINCTION OF PANCREATIC FLUID COLLECTIONS IMPORTANT?
WHAT IS NEW IN THE ENDOSCOPIC MANAGEMENT OF PANCREATIC PSEUDOCYSTS?
WHAT IS NEW IN THE ENDOSCOPIC MANAGEMENT OF WALLED-OFF PANCREATIC NECROSIS?
CONCLUSIONS
NOTES
REFERENCES

Abstract

The outcome of endoscopic management of pancreatic fluid collections is dependent on the type of collection being treated. While pseudocysts have an excellent treatment response, the outcomes are modest for walled-off pancreatic necrosis. Recent advances in cross-sectional body imaging have enabled a more accurate distinction of pancreatic fluid collections, which, in turn, facilitates the correct triage of patients to receive the appropriate treatment. Newly described endoscopic techniques and the development of dedicated accessories have improved the clinical outcomes in walled-off pancreatic necrosis, with treatment success rates comparable to that of minimally invasive surgery. This review summarizes the key concepts and provides a concise update on the endoscopic management of pancreatic fluid collections.
Keywords: Pancreatic necrosis; Pseudocyst; Endosonography; Drainage

INTRODUCTION

Important changes to the nomenclature of panreatic fluid collecions have been made recently and newer studies descrive technical modifications and device developments that have improved the clinical outcomes. the objective of this review is to focus on these key issues and provide recommendations for patient management.

WHY IS ACCURATE DISTINCTION OF PANCREATIC FLUID COLLECTIONS IMPORTANT?

Pancreatic pseudocysts can occur as a consequence of duct leak or pancreatic inflammation. When the inflammatory process is severe, the liquefied parenchyma matures into a contained collection termed walled-off pancreatic necrosis (WOPN). Although most pseudocysts and WOPN resolve without intervention, those causing pain, gastric outlet, intestinal or biliary obstruction, organ failure, or infection warrant intervention. In a recent study of 211 patients with symptomatic pancreatic fluid collections (PFCs), whereas the rate of treatment success for sterile and infective pseudocysts was 93.5%, it was only 63.2% for WOPN.1 Therefore, the clinical outcomes are directly related to the type of fluid collection being treated, and hence accurate distinction is important before undertaking any intervention. Whereas computed tomography (CT) continues to serve as a "work horse" for the diagnosis of pancreatitis, for the evaluation of local complications, and as prognostic indicator of disease severity, T2-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) enables identification of solid debris within a necrotic collection and thereby determines the need for necrosectomy and other interventions.2,3 This is particularly relevant because contrast-enhanced CT cannot reliably detect necrotic debris within a PFC and inadvertent transluminal drainage of a WOPN by using conventional endoscopic cystogastrostomy predisposes the patient to infection, with adverse clinical outcomes.4 In one study, the sensitivity of MRI for the detection of solid debris was shown to be 100%, compared with only 25% for CT.3

Correct categorization of a PFC is the first step in disease management.

WHAT IS NEW IN THE ENDOSCOPIC MANAGEMENT OF PANCREATIC PSEUDOCYSTS?

Two randomized trials have conclusively proven that endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided transluminal drainage is associated with significantly higher rates of technical success than conventional endoscopic drainage (95% vs. 60%).5,6 Also, a retrospective study and a randomized trial have proven that the clinical outcomes of EUS-guided drainage is comparable to that of surgical cystogastrostomy.7,8 Both studies also suggest that EUS-guided drainage is associated with a shorter length of hospital stay and is less costly than the surgical approach. Patients treated with endoscopy also reported a better quality of life at 18 months follow-up.

One technical limitation of the EUS-based approach is the lack of dedicated accessories, which necessitates multiple steps for transluminal stent placement: puncture of the PFC by using a 19 G needle, passage of a stiff guidewire, transmural fistula creation, and then stent deployment. Recently, a novel lumen-apposing self-expandable metal stent has been developed that can be deployed in a single step.9 The stent has a dumbbell-shaped configuration that foreshortens on deployment, thereby minimizing the possibility of leak or perforation. Additionally, the wider stent lumen facilitates better drainage of the cyst contents and enables the passage of a gastroscope into the cyst cavity for performing necrosectomy.

Despite the increasing enthusiasm for the placement of metal stents, there are no data to justify their routine placement during pseudocyst drainage. In a meta-analysis that was presented at Digestive Diseases Week 2014, 14 studies involving 698 patients were evaluated and no difference was detected in the rates of treatment success between patients managed with multiple plastic stents versus metal stents at 89% (95% confidence interval [CI], 87 to 91) vs. 87% (95% CI, 76 to 91; p=0.22), respectively.10 Also, there was no difference in the rates of adverse events or pseudocyst recurrence between the two cohorts.10 In another retrospective study of 122 patients with pancreatic pseudocysts, who underwent placement of single or multiple 7- or 10-Fr plastic stents, the overall treatment success was 94.3% with no relation between the size/number of stents placed and the number of interventions required for treatment success.11

Given the high technical success rates, EUS is the endoscopic modality of choice for the drainage of pancreatic pseudocysts, with treatment outcomes comparable to that of surgery. Also, despite its increasing use, current evidence does not support the routine placement of metal stents for drainage of pancreatic pseudocysts.

WHAT IS NEW IN THE ENDOSCOPIC MANAGEMENT OF WALLED-OFF PANCREATIC NECROSIS?

Historically, a subgroup of patients with PFCs had poor clinical outcomes for unclear reasons. It is now becoming apparent that WOPN was erroneously misclassified as pseudocysts and inadequately treated with transmural stenting alone. Although endoscopic necrosectomy was advocated as a definitive treatment measure in patients with WOPN, the procedure is associated with high morbidity and mortality, is labor intensive, is resource consuming, and lacks technique-specific devices. In the multicenter GEPARD study, a procedure-related adverse event rate of 26% was observed with 2.1% mortality, 5.3% perforation, 14% bleeding, and clinically significant air embolism in two patients.12 There is now growing evidence suggesting that aggressive irrigation and drainage of WOPN yields comparable outcomes to, while avoiding the major complications of, direct endoscopic necrosectomy.13 In a randomized trial that compared a minimally invasive step-up approach to open surgical necrosectomy, one-third of patients managed with percutaneous drainage did not require surgery.14 In our opinion, the treatment approaches to WOPN must improve clinical outcomes while avoiding deterioration. Superior outcomes can be achieved by tailoring the endoscopic approach to the specific characteristics of each collection.

While small collections (<12 cm) with minimal debris can be managed by means of transluminal nasocystic drainage catheter placement, larger collections and those with extensive necrosis require placement of multiple internal conduits that are performed under EUS guidance for better drainage. In a study of 60 patients with WOPN, the treatment was successful in 91.7% of patients treated with multiple internal conduits compared with only 52.1% in patients treated by using standard transluminal drainage.15 In our clinical practice, in patients with WOPN measuring >12 cm and extending to the paracolic gutters, we place a 24-Fr percutaneous catheter and create multiple internal conduits under EUS guidance to serve as gateways for efflux of the necrotic contents. This yields successful treatment outcomes in >90% of patients, and precludes the need for endoscopic or surgical necrosectomy in most patients.16

EUS facilitates the creation of multiple internal conduits for better drainage of necrotic debris in patients with WOPN. However, management of WOPN involves multidisciplinary care with close collaboration between endoscopists, surgeons, and interventional radiologists.

CONCLUSIONS

Correct categorization of pancreatic fluid collection is the first appropriate step in the treatment algorithm. While patients with psedocysts can be drained by straight-forward skat placement, walled-off necrosis requires multi-disciplinary treatment approach.

The authors have no financial conflicts of interest.

REFERENCES

1. Varadarajulu S, Bang JY, Phadnis MA, Christein JD, Wilcox CM. Endoscopic transmural drainage of peripancreatic fluid collections: outcomes and predictors of treatment success in 211 consecutive patients. J Gastrointest Surg 2011;15:2080–2088.Article PubMed
2. Balthazar EJ, Robinson DL, Megibow AJ, Ranson JH. Acute pancreatitis: value of CT in establishing prognosis. Radiology 1990;174:331–336.Article PubMed
3. Morgan DE, Baron TH, Smith JK, Robbin ML, Kenney PJ. Pancreatic fluid collections prior to intervention: evaluation with MR imaging compared with CT and US. Radiology 1997;203:773–778.Article PubMed
4. Hariri M, Slivka A, Carr-Locke DL, Banks PA. Pseudocyst drainage predisposes to infection when pancreatic necrosis is unrecognized. Am J Gastroenterol 1994;89:1781–1784.PubMed
5. Varadarajulu S, Christein JD, Tamhane A, Drelichman ER, Wilcox CM. Prospective randomized trial comparing EUS and EGD for transmural drainage of pancreatic pseudocysts (with videos). Gastrointest Endosc 2008;68:1102–1111.Article PubMed
6. Park DH, Lee SS, Moon SH, et al. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided versus conventional transmural drainage for pancreatic pseudocysts: a prospective randomized trial. Endoscopy 2009;41:842–848.Article PubMed
7. Varadarajulu S, Lopes TL, Wilcox CM, Drelichman ER, Kilgore ML, Christein JD. EUS versus surgical cyst-gastrostomy for management of pancreatic pseudocysts. Gastrointest Endosc 2008;68:649–655.Article PubMed
8. Varadarajulu S, Bang JY, Sutton BS, Trevino JM, Christein JD, Wilcox CM. Equal efficacy of endoscopic and surgical cystogastrostomy for pancreatic pseudocyst drainage in a randomized trial. Gastroenterology 2013;145:583–590.Article PubMed
9. Gornals JB, De la Serna-Higuera C, Sánchez-Yague A, Loras C, Sánchez-Cantos AM, Pérez-Miranda M. Endosonography-guided drainage of pancreatic fluid collections with a novel lumen-apposing stent. Surg Endosc 2013;27:1428–1434.Article PubMed
10. Navaneethan U, Njei B, Sanaka MR. Endoscopic transmural drainage of pancreatic pseudocysts: multiple plastic stents versus metal stents: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Gastrointest Endosc 2014;79(5 Suppl):AB167–AB168.Article
11. Bang JY, Mel Wilcox C, Trevino JM, et al. Relationship between stent characteristics and treatment outcomes in endoscopic transmural drainage of uncomplicated pancreatic pseudocysts. Surg Endosc 2014 5 02 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00464-014-3541-7Article
12. Seifert H, Biermer M, Schmitt W, et al. Transluminal endoscopic necrosectomy after acute pancreatitis: a multicentre study with long-term follow-up (the GEPARD Study). Gut 2009;58:1260–1266.Article PubMed
13. Ross AS, Irani S, Gan SI, et al. Dual-modality drainage of infected and symptomatic walled-off pancreatic necrosis: long-term clinical outcomes. Gastrointest Endosc 2014;79:929–935.Article PubMed
14. van Santvoort HC, Besselink MG, Bakker OJ, et al. A step-up approach or open necrosectomy for necrotizing pancreatitis. N Engl J Med 2010;362:1491–1502.Article PubMed
15. Varadarajulu S, Phadnis MA, Christein JD, Wilcox CM. Multiple transluminal gateway technique for EUS-guided drainage of symptomatic walled-off pancreatic necrosis. Gastrointest Endosc 2011;74:74–80.Article PubMed
16. Bang JY, Wilcox CM, Christein JD, et al. Endoscopic report card of a 10-year experience in 100 patients with walled-off pancreatic necrosis. Gastrointest Endosc 2014;79(5 Suppl):AB373.Article

Figure & Data

REFERENCES

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Efficacy of Metal Stents Versus Plastic Stents for Treatment of Walled‐Off Pancreatic Necrosis: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis
Yousaf Zafar, Muhammad Umer Sohail, Zainab Siddiqua Ibrahim, Ruqiat Masooma Batool, Ifrah Ansari, Syed Zaeem Ahmed, Muhammad Saad, Eliza Aisha, Saad Ahmed Waqas, Muhammad Ovais Sohail, Faisal Bukeirat, Shou Jiang Tang, Raheel Ahmed
JGH Open.2025;[Epub] CrossRef
Technical and Clinical Outcomes of Using a Single Wide-Caliber Double-Pigtail Stent for Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Pancreatic Pseudocyst Drainage: A Multicenter Prospective Study
Elsayed Ghoneem, Hussein Okasha, Mohamed Hammouda, Mohamed Fathi Gouda, Reham Soliman, Gamal Shiha, Khaled Ragab, Ramy Hassan Agwa
GE - Portuguese Journal of Gastroenterology.2023; 30(6): 414. CrossRef
Endoscopic cystogastrostomy: Still a viable option in children with symptomatic pancreatic fluid collection
Ujjal Poddar, Surender Kumar Yachha, Vijai Datta Upadhyaya, Basant Kumar, Vibhor Borkar, Rohan Malik, Anshu Srivastava
Pancreatology.2021; 21(4): 812. CrossRef
Multiple hidden vessels in walled-off necrosis with high-risk bleeding: Report of two cases
Ning Xu, Ya-Qi Zhai, Long-Song Li, Ning-Li Chai
World Journal of Clinical Cases.2021; 9(27): 8214. CrossRef
Endoscopic ultrasound-guided drainage of pancreatic fluid collections: The impact of evolving experience and new technologies in diagnosis and treatment over the last two decades
Pietro Gambitta, Anna Maffioli, Jean Spiropoulos, Antonio Armellino, Maurizio Vertemati, Paolo Aseni
Hepatobiliary & Pancreatic Diseases International.2020; 19(1): 68. CrossRef
Adverse events of lumen-apposing stents for pancreatic fluid collections: opening Pandora’s box
Gianenrico Rizzatti, Mihai Rimbaș, Alberto Larghi
Gastrointestinal Endoscopy.2020; 91(5): 1217. CrossRef
Endoscopic Therapy for Pancreatic Fluid Collections: A Definitive Management Using a Dedicated Algorithm
Ming Ming Xu, Iman Andalib, Aleksey Novikov, Enad Dawod, Moamen Gabr, Monica Gaidhane, Amy Tyberg, Michel Kahaleh
Clinical Endoscopy.2020; 53(3): 355. CrossRef
Endoscopic Transgastric Versus Surgical Approach for Infected Necrotizing Pancreatitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
De Luo, Xiangdong Liu, Juan Du, Jiang Liu, Xinpei Chen, Pengcheng Zhou, Bo Li, Song Su
Surgical Laparoscopy, Endoscopy & Percutaneous Techniques.2019; 29(3): 141. CrossRef
Treatment response and preliminary efficacy of hepatic tumour laser ablation under the guidance of percutaneous and endoscopic ultrasonography
Weilu Chai, Qiyu Zhao, Huiming Song, Chao Cheng, Guo Tian, Tian’an Jiang
World Journal of Surgical Oncology.2019;[Epub] CrossRef
Acute Pancreatitis and Fluid-Filled Collections
Audrey Lancaster, Melissa Zwijacz
Gastroenterology Nursing.2019; 42(5): 417. CrossRef
Modern Management of Pancreatic Fluid Collections
Iman Andalib, Enad Dawod, Michel Kahaleh
Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology.2018; 52(2): 97. CrossRef
Algorithm for the multidisciplinary management of hemorrhage in EUS-guided drainage for pancreatic fluid collections
Tian-An Jiang, Li-Ting Xie
World Journal of Clinical Cases.2018; 6(10): 308. CrossRef
What's unique about acute pancreatitis in children: risk factors, diagnosis and management
Sohail Z. Husain, Arvind I. Srinath
Nature Reviews Gastroenterology & Hepatology.2017; 14(6): 366. CrossRef
The role of endoscopic intervention in the management of inflammatory pancreatic fluid collections
Vikrant Parihar, Paul F. Ridgway, Kevin C. Conlon, Matthew Huggett, Barbara M. Ryan
European Journal of Gastroenterology & Hepatology.2017; 29(4): 371. CrossRef
Large Pleural Effusion and Mediastinal Mass: An Unusual Connection!
Anand Kumar, Sammy Ho
Gastroenterology.2016; 150(2): 318. CrossRef
Efficacy and safety of endoscopic ultrasonography-guided interventional treatment for refractory malignant left-sided liver tumors: a case series of 26 patients
Tian-an Jiang, Zhuang Deng, Guo Tian, Qi-yu Zhao, Wei-lin Wang
Scientific Reports.2016;[Epub] CrossRef
Management of pancreatic fluid collections: A comprehensive review of the literature
Amy Tyberg, Kunal Karia, Moamen Gabr, Amit Desai, Rushabh Doshi, Monica Gaidhane, Reem Z Sharaiha, Michel Kahaleh
World Journal of Gastroenterology.2016; 22(7): 2256. CrossRef
El papel terapéutico del ultrasonido endoscópico en las colecciones líquidas peripancreáticas
Luis Eduardo Casasola-Sánchez, Félix Ignacio Téllez-Ávila
Endoscopia.2015; 27(2): 87. CrossRef
Minimally invasive treatment of pancreatic pseudocysts
Enver Zerem, Goran Hauser, Svjetlana Loga-Zec, Suad Kunosić, Predrag Jovanović, Dino Crnkić
World Journal of Gastroenterology.2015; 21(22): 6850. CrossRef
International Digestive Endoscopy Network 2014: Turnpike to the Future
Eun Young Kim, Kwang An Kwon, Il Ju Choi, Ji Kon Ryu, Ki Baik Hahm
Clinical Endoscopy.2014; 47(5): 371. CrossRef

PubReader
ePub Link

Cite

CITE: export Copy Download Format; Close

Download Citation

Download a citation file in RIS format that can be imported by all major citation management software, including EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and Reference Manager.

Format:

RIS — For EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and most other reference management software
BibTeX — For JabRef, BibDesk, and other BibTeX-specific software

Include:

Citation for the content below
Citation and abstract for the content below

Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Management of Pancreatic Pseudocysts and Walled-Off Necrosis

Clin Endosc. 2014;47(5):429-431. Published online September 30, 2014

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5946/ce.2014.47.5.429

XML Download

Related articles

Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Management of Pancreatic Pseudocysts and Walled-Off Necrosis