» Articles » PMID: 36123547

Computed Tomography Imaging-based Predictors of the Need for a Step-up Approach After Initial Endoscopic Ultrasound-guided Transmural Drainage for Pancreatic Fluid Collections

Abstract

Background: A step-up approach is recommended as a new treatment algorithm for pancreatic fluid collections (PFCs). However, determining which patients with PFCs require a step-up approach after endoscopic ultrasound-guided transmural drainage (EUS-TD) is unclear. If the need for a step-up approach could be predicted, it could be performed early for relevant patients. We aimed to identify PFC-related predictive factors for a step-up approach after EUS-TD.

Methods: This retrospective cohort study included consecutive patients who had undergone EUS-TD for PFCs from January 2008 to May 2020. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to investigate PFC factors related to requiring a step-up approach. A step-up approach was performed for patients who did not respond clinically to EUS-TD.

Results: We enrolled 81 patients, of whom 25 (30.9%) required a step-up approach. In multivariate logistic regression analysis, the pre-EUS-TD number of PFC-occupied regions ≥ 3 (multivariate odds ratio [OR] 16.2, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.68-97.6, P = 0.002), the post-EUS-TD PFC-remaining percentage ≥ 35% (multivariate OR 19.9, 95% CI 2.91-136.1, P = 0.002), and a positive sponge sign, which is a distinctive computed tomography finding in the early stage after EUS-TD (multivariate OR 6.26, 95% CI 1.33-29.3, P = 0.020), were independent predictive factors associated with requiring a step-up approach for PFCs.

Conclusion: Pre-EUS-TD PFC-occupied regions, post-EUS-TD PFC-remaining percentage, and a positive sponge sign were predictors of the need for a step-up approach. Patients with PFC with these findings should be offered a step-up approach whereas conservative treatment is recommended for patients without these findings.

Clinical Registration Number: UMIN 000030898.

Citing Articles

Infected pancreatic necrosis-Current trends in management.

Shah J, Fernandez Y Viesca M, Jagodzinski R, Arvanitakis M Indian J Gastroenterol. 2024; 43(3):578-591.

PMID: 38625518 DOI: 10.1007/s12664-023-01506-w.


Endoscopic ultrasound drainage of pancreatic fluid collections: do we know enough about the best approach?.

Seicean A, Pojoga C, Rednic V, Hagiu C, Seicean R Therap Adv Gastroenterol. 2023; 16:17562848231180047.

PMID: 37485492 PMC: 10357067. DOI: 10.1177/17562848231180047.

References
1.
Hamada S, Masamune A, Shimosegawa T . Management of acute pancreatitis in Japan: Analysis of nationwide epidemiological survey. World J Gastroenterol. 2016; 22(28):6335-44. PMC: 4968116. DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v22.i28.6335. View

3.
Arvanitakis M, Dumonceau J, Albert J, Badaoui A, Antonietta Bali M, Barthet M . Endoscopic management of acute necrotizing pancreatitis: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) evidence-based multidisciplinary guidelines. Endoscopy. 2018; 50(5):524-546. DOI: 10.1055/a-0588-5365. View

4.
Isayama H, Nakai Y, Rerknimitr R, Khor C, Lau J, Wang H . Asian consensus statements on endoscopic management of walled-off necrosis Part 1: Epidemiology, diagnosis, and treatment. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2016; 31(9):1546-54. DOI: 10.1111/jgh.13394. View

5.
Mukai S, Itoi T, Baron T, Sofuni A, Itokawa F, Kurihara T . Endoscopic ultrasound-guided placement of plastic vs. biflanged metal stents for therapy of walled-off necrosis: a retrospective single-center series. Endoscopy. 2014; 47(1):47-55. DOI: 10.1055/s-0034-1377966. View

6.
Hookey L, Debroux S, Delhaye M, Arvanitakis M, Le Moine O, Deviere J . Endoscopic drainage of pancreatic-fluid collections in 116 patients: a comparison of etiologies, drainage techniques, and outcomes. Gastrointest Endosc. 2006; 63(4):635-43. DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2005.06.028. View