作者
Chiara Coluccio,Antonio Facciorusso,Edoardo Forti,Germana de Nucci,Roberto Di Mitri,Thomas Trian,Luigi Cugia,Andrew Ofosu,Andrea Anderloni,Ilaria Tarantino,Carlo Fabbri,Stefano Francesco Crinò,Cecilia Binda,Maria Chiara Petrone,D. Berretti,Raffaele Macchiarelli,M Lovera,Fabia Attili,Francesca D’Errico,Mario Luciano Brancaccio,A. Redaelli,E. Tasini,M. Ballarè,F. Coppola,Nicola Leone,Roberto Grassia,Pietro Fusaroli,Claudio DeAngelis,F. Cipolletta,Mauro Manno,Roberta Badas,Valeria Pollino,Lorenzo Camellini,Laura Bernardoni,Elisabetta Conte,Andrea Lisotti,Massimiliano Mutignani,Mario Traina,Paolo Giorgio Arcidiacono
摘要
The new dedicated stents for endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided transluminal drainage of peri‑pancreatic fluid collections (PFCs) demonstrated optimal efficacy and safety profiles.This study aimed to evaluate the safety, technical and clinical success, and recurrence rate of PFCs drained with Lumen Apposing Metal Stent (LAMS) or Bi-Flanged Metal Stent (BFMS).Data from a multicenter series of PFCs treated with LAMS or BFMS at 30 Italian centers during a 5-year period were retrieved. The rate of adverse events (AEs), technical success, clinical success, PFC recurrence were evaluated. To overcome biases, a 1-to-1 match was created using propensity score analysis.Out of 476 patients, 386 were treated with LAMS and 90 with BFMS, with a median follow-up of 290 days (95% CI 244 to 361). Using propensity score matching, 84 patients were assigned to each group. The incidence of AEs did not differ between the two stents (13.1% versus 15.5%, p = 0.29), mainly bleeding or recurrence rate (4.7% versus 3.5%, p = 1). Technical and clinical success in the BFMS and LAMS groups were 92% versus 95% (p = 0.36) and 91% versus 94% (p = 0.64), respectively.Our study demonstrates that LAMS and BFMS have comparable safety profiles with similar technical and clinical success rates for EUS-guided PFC drainage.