Mullady, Daniel

AbstractEUS-guided gallbladder drainage (EUS-GBD) using lumen apposing metal stents (LAMS) has excellent technical and short-term clinical success for acute cholecystitis (AC). The goals of this study were to determine the long-term clinical outcomes and adverse events (AEs) of EUS-GBD with LAMS.A multicenter, retrospective study was conducted at 18 US tertiary care institutions. Inclusion criteria: any AC patient with attempted EUS-GBD with LAMS and minimum 30-day post-procedure follow-up. Long-term clinical success was defined as absence of recurrent acute cholecystitis (RAC) > 30 days and long-term AE was defined as occurring > 30 days from the index procedure.A total of 109 patients were included. Technical success was achieved in 108 of 109 (99.1%) and initial clinical success in 106 of 109 (97.2%). Long-term clinical success was achieved in 98 of 109 (89.9%) over a median follow-up of 140 days (range 30–1188). On multivariable analysis (MVA), acalculous cholecystitis (odds ratio [OR] 15.93, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.22–208.52, P = 0.04) and the occurrence of a LAMS-specific AE (OR 63.60, 95% CI 5.08–799.29, P <0.01) were associated with RAC. AEs occurred in 38 of 109 patients (34.9%) at any time, and in 10 of 109 (9.17%) > 30 days from the index procedure. Most long-term AEs (7 of 109; 6.42%) were LAMS-specific. No technical or clinical factors were associated with occurrence of AEs. LAMS were removed in 24 of 109 patients (22%). There was no difference in RAC or AEs whether LAMS was removed or not.EUS-GBD with LAMS has a high rate of long-term clinical success and modest AE rates in patients with AC and is a reasonable destination therapy for high-risk surgical candidates.

INTRODUCTION: Prophylactic pancreatic stent placement (PSP) is effective for preventing pancreatitis after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in high-risk cases, but the optimal technical approach to this intervention remains uncertain. METHODS: In this secondary analysis of 787 clinical trial patients who underwent successful stent placement, we studied the impact of (i) whether pancreatic wire access was achieved for the sole purpose of PSP or naturally during the conduct of the case, (ii) the amount of effort expended on PSP, (iii) stent length, (iv) stent diameter, and (v) guidewire caliber. We used logistic regression models to examine the adjusted association between each technical factor and post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP). RESULTS: Ninety-one of the 787 patients experienced PEP. There was no clear association between PEP and whether pancreatic wire access was achieved for the sole purpose of PSP (vs occurring naturally; odds ratio [OR] 0.82, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.37–1.84), whether substantial effort expended on stent placement (vs nonsubstantial effort; OR 1.58, 95% CI 0.73–3.45), stent length (>5 vs ≤5 cm; OR 1.01, 95% CI 0.63–1.61), stent diameter (≥5 vs <5 Fr; OR 1.13, 95% CI 0.65–1.96), or guidewire caliber (0.035 vs 0.025 in; 0.83, 95% CI 0.49–1.41). DISCUSSION: The 5 modifiable technical factors studied in this secondary analysis of large-scale randomized trial data did not appear to have a strong impact on the benefit of prophylactic PSP in preventing PEP after high-risk ERCP. Within the limitations of post hoc subgroup analysis, these findings may have important implications in procedural decision making and suggest that the benefit of PSP is robust to variations in technical approach.