Clinical Outcomes of the Endoscopic Step-Up Approach with or without Radiology-Guided Percutaneous Drainage for Symptomatic Walled-Off Pancreatic Necrosis

Abstract

Background and objectives: Symptomatic walled-off pancreatic necrosis is a serious local complication of acute necrotising pancreatitis. The endoscopic step-up approach is the standard treatment for symptomatic walled-off pancreatic necrosis; however, adjunctive radiologic percutaneous drainage for this condition is controversial. This study compared the clinical and radiologic resolution of walled-off pancreatic necrosis achieved with the endoscopic step-up approach with or without radiology-guided percutaneous drainage. Material and Methods: This retrospective, single-centre cohort study enrolled patients with symptomatic walled-off pancreatic necrosis who underwent endoscopic transmural drainage (ETD) followed by directed endoscopic necrosectomy (DEN) with or without radiology-guided drainage. A total of 34 patients (endoscopic approach, n = 22; combined modality approach, n = 12) underwent the endoscopic step-up approach (ETD followed by DEN). Baseline characteristics, clinical success, and resolution of necrosis were compared between groups. Results: All patients achieved symptom resolution from walled-off pancreatic necrosis. The mean patient age was 58.4 years, and 21 (61.8%) were men. Following treatment with the endoscopic approach and combined modality approach, clinical success was achieved in 90.9% of patients within 11.5 days, and 66.7% of patients within 16.5 days, respectively. Both length of hospital stay (55 days vs. 71 days; p = 0.071) and time to complete radiologic resolution were shorter (93 days vs. 124 days; p = 0.23) in the endoscopic approach group. Conclusion: Both the endoscopic step-up approach and the CMD approach resulted in a favourably high clinical resolution rates in patients with symptomatic WON. However, clinical success rates seemed to be higher, and the length of hospital stay tended to be shorter in the endoscopic approach than in the CMD approach, as well as the significantly shorter necrosectomy time in each procedure was observed. Of note, these findings might be from some inherited differences in baseline characteristics of the patients between the two groups, and a randomized controlled trial with a larger sample size to verify these results is warranted.