6 research outputs found

    Comparison of lumen-apposing metal stents versus double-pigtail plastic stents for infected necrotising pancreatitis

    Get PDF
    Objective: Lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMS) are believed to clinically improve endoscopic transluminal drainage of infected necrosis when compared with double-pigtail plastic stents. However, comparative data from prospective studies are very limited. Design: Patients with infected necrotising pancreatitis, who underwent an endoscopic step-up approach with LAMS within a multicentre prospective cohort study were compared with the data of 51 patients in the randomised TENSION trial who had been assigned to the endoscopic step-up approach with double-pigtail plastic stents. The clinical study protocol was otherwise identical for both groups. Primary end point was the need for endoscopic transluminal necrosectomy. Secondary end points included mortality, major complications, hospital stay and healthcare costs. Results: A total of 53 patients were treated with LAMS in 16 hospitals during 27 months. The need for endoscopic transluminal necrosectomy was 64% (n=34) and was not different from the previous trial using plastic stents (53%, n=27)), also after correction for baseline characteristics (OR 1.21 (95% CI 0.45 to 3.23)). Secondary end points did not differ between groups either, which also included bleeding requiring intervention - 5 patients (9%) after LAMS placement vs 11 patients (22%) after placement of plastic stents (relative risk 0.44; 95% CI 0.16 to 1.17). Total healthcare costs were also comparable (mean difference -€6348, bias-corrected and accelerated 95% CI -€26 386 to €10 121). Conclusion: Our comparison of two patient groups from two multicentre prospective studies with a similar design suggests that LAMS do not reduce the need for endoscopic transluminal necrosectomy when compared with double-pigtail plastic stents in patients with infected necrotising pancreatitis. Also, the rate of bleeding complications was comparable

    Comparison of lumen-apposing metal stents versus double-pigtail plastic stents for infected necrotising pancreatitis

    No full text
    Objective: Lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMS) are believed to clinically improve endoscopic transluminal drainage of infected necrosis when compared with double-pigtail plastic stents. However, comparative data from prospective studies are very limited. Design: Patients with infected necrotising pancreatitis, who underwent an endoscopic step-up approach with LAMS within a multicentre prospective cohort study were compared with the data of 51 patients in the randomised TENSION trial who had been assigned to the endoscopic step-up approach with double-pigtail plastic stents. The clinical study protocol was otherwise identical for both groups. Primary end point was the need for endoscopic transluminal necrosectomy. Secondary end points included mortality, major complications, hospital stay and healthcare costs. Results: A total of 53 patients were treated with LAMS in 16 hospitals during 27 months. The need for endoscopic transluminal necrosectomy was 64% (n=34) and was not different from the previous trial using plastic stents (53%, n=27)), also after correction for baseline characteristics (OR 1.21 (95% CI 0.45 to 3.23)). Secondary end points did not differ between groups either, which also included bleeding requiring intervention - 5 patients (9%) after LAMS placement vs 11 patients (22%) after placement of plastic stents (relative risk 0.44; 95% CI 0.16 to 1.17). Total healthcare costs were also comparable (mean difference -€6348, bias-corrected and accelerated 95% CI -€26 386 to €10 121). Conclusion: Our comparison of two patient groups from two multicentre prospective studies with a similar design suggests that LAMS do not reduce the need for endoscopic transluminal necrosectomy when compared with double-pigtail plastic stents in patients with infected necrotising pancreatitis. Also, the rate of bleeding complications was comparable

    Etiology and diagnosis of acute biliary pancreatitis

    No full text
    Establishing a biliary etiology in acute pancreatitis is clinically important because of the potential need for invasive treatment, such as endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. The etiology of acute biliary pancreatitis (ABP) is multifactorial and complex. Passage of small gallbladder stones or biliary sludge through the ampulla of Vater seems to be important in the pathogenesis of ABP. Other factors, such as anatomical variations associated with an increased biliopancreatic reflux, bile and pancreatic juice exclusion from the duodenum, and genetic factors might contribute to the development of ABP. A diagnosis of a biliary etiology in acute pancreatitis is supported by both laboratory and imaging investigations. An increased serum level of alanine aminotransferase (>1.0 mu kat/l) is associated with a high probability of gallstone pancreatitis (positive predictive value 80-90%). Confirmation of choledocholithiasis is most accurately obtained using endoscopic ultrasonography or magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography. This Review discusses the pathogenesis of ABP and the clinical techniques used to predict and establish a biliary origin in patients with suspected ABP
    corecore