Endoscopic drainage versus percutaneous drainage for the management of infected walled-off necrosis: a comparative analysis
Jayanta Samanta, Jahnvi Dhar, Gaurav Muktesh, Pankaj Gupta, Praveen Kumar, Aritra Das, Roshan Agarwala, Balaji L. Bellam, Rajeev Chauhan, Ketan Kumar, Thakur Deen Yadav, Vikas Gupta, Saroj Kant Sinha, Rakesh Kochhar, Antonio Facciorusso
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Comparative data on percutaneous catheter drainage (PCD) vs EUS-guided drainage (EUS-D) for management of symptomatic walled-off-necrosis (WON), specially infected WON with/without organ failure(OF) is limited. METHODS: Patients with symptomatic WON were divided into two groups of PCD and EUS-D, depending on the modality of drainage. Resolution of OF, adverse events, and other outcome measures were recorded. The two modalities were compared among infected WON sub-cohort and also degree of solid component (SC). RESULTS: 218 patients (175 males; 80.3%) were included who underwent either PCD (n = 102) or EUS-D (n = 116). Clinical success was significantly higher in the EUS-D group (92.1% vs 64.6%; p < 0.0001) and even for infected WON (n = 128) (p = 0.004), with higher (p = 0.007) and faster (p < 0.0001) OF resolution. Other outcome measures including mortality were significantly higher in the PCD group. Among subgroups, PCD with >40% SC had the worst clinical success/OF resolution rates, while EUS-D with <40% SC had the best outcomes. CONCLUSION: EUS-D should be preferred over PCD in the management of WON, infected or otherwise, for higher clinical success, and higher/faster resolution of OF. PCD should be avoided in WON with>40% SC.