A multi-institutional survey on the practice of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) guided pseudocyst drainage in the Asian EUS group
submitted 07 July 2014
accepted after revision 30 September 2014
12 December 2014 (eFirst)
Background: There is a lack of consensus on how endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) guided pseudocyst drainage should be performed. This survey was carried out amongst members of the Asian Endoscopic Ultrasonography Group (AEG) to describe their practices in performing this procedure.
Methods: This was an Asia wide multi-institutional survey amongst members of the Asian EUS group conducted between November and December 2013. The responses to a 19-question survey with regard to the practice of pseudocyst drainage were obtained.
Results: In total, 19 endoscopists responded to the questionnaire and the mean (SD) number of procedures performed by each endoscopist was 87.95 (40); 42.2 % believed that prior endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is required and pancreatic duct stenting is indicated in patients with pancreatic duct disruption; 47.4 % used tapered catheters for track dilation and 42.1 % used the cystotome; 84.1 % would dilate the track up to 8 to 10 mm in size. Metallic stents were used by 10.5 % of the respondents and transcystic catheters were employed by 26.3 %. Those who were more experienced in the procedure tended to use the cystotome more frequently (P = 0.02) and removed the stents in less than 3 months after insertion (P = 0.011).
Conclusion: This was the first Asia wide survey in the practice of pseudocyst drainage. There were wide variations in practice and randomized studies are urgently needed to establish the best approach for management of this condition. There is also a pressing need for establishment of a consensus for safe practices.
- 1 Grimm H, Binmoeller KF, Soehendra N. Endosonography-guided drainage of a pancreatic pseudocyst. Gastrointest Endosc 1992; 38: 170-171
- 2 Varadarajulu S, Christein JD, Tamhane A et al. Prospective randomized trial comparing EUS and EGD for transmural drainage of pancreatic pseudocysts (with videos). Gastrointest Endosc 2008; 68: 1102-1111
- 3 Park DH, Lee SS, Moon SH et al. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided versus conventional transmural drainage for pancreatic pseudocysts: a prospective randomized trial. Endoscopy 2009; 41: 842-848
- 4 Varadarajulu S, Bang JY, Sutton BS et al. Equal efficacy of endoscopic and surgical cystogastrostomy for pancreatic pseudocyst drainage in a randomized trial. Gastroenterology 2013; 145: 583-590.e1
- 5 Voermans RP, Ponchon T, Schumacher B et al. Forward-viewing versus oblique-viewing echoendoscopes in transluminal drainage of pancreatic fluid collections: a multicenter, randomized, controlled trial. Gastrointest Endosc 2011; 74: 1285-1293
- 6 Varadarajulu S, Tamhane A, Blakely J. Graded dilation technique for EUS-guided drainage of peripancreatic fluid collections: an assessment of outcomes and complications and technical proficiency (with video). Gastrointest Endosc 2008; 68: 656-666
- 7 Harewood GC, Wright CA, Baron TH. Impact on patient outcomes of experience in the performance of endoscopic pancreatic fluid collection drainage. Gastrointest Endosc 2003; 58: 230-235
- 8 Varadarajulu S, Bang JY, Phadnis MA et al. Endoscopic transmural drainage of peripancreatic fluid collections: outcomes and predictors of treatment success in 211 consecutive patients. J Gastrointest Surg 2011; 15: 2080-2088
- 9 Yusuf TE, Baron TH. Endoscopic transmural drainage of pancreatic pseudocysts: results of a national and an international survey of ASGE members. Gastrointest Endosc 2006; 63: 223-227
- 10 Panamonta N, Ngamruengphong S, Kijsirichareanchai K et al. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided versus conventional transmural techniques have comparable treatment outcomes in draining pancreatic pseudocysts. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2012; 24: 1355-1362
- 11 Nealon WH, Townsend CM Jr, Thompson JC. Preoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in patients with pancreatic pseudocyst associated with resolving acute and chronic pancreatitis. Ann Surg 1989; 209: 532-538
- 12 Nealon WH, Walser E. Main pancreatic ductal anatomy can direct choice of modality for treating pancreatic pseudocysts (surgery versus percutaneous drainage). Ann Surg 2002; 235: 751-758
- 13 Telford JJ, Farrell JJ, Saltzman JR et al. Pancreatic stent placement for duct disruption. Gastrointest Endosc 2002; 56: 18-24
- 14 Varadarajulu S, Noone TC, Tutuian R et al. Predictors of outcome in pancreatic duct disruption managed by endoscopic transpapillary stent placement. Gastrointest Endosc 2005; 61: 568-575
- 15 Trevino JM, Tamhane A, Varadarajulu S. Successful stenting in ductal disruption favorably impacts treatment outcomes in patients undergoing transmural drainage of peripancreatic fluid collections. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2010; 25: 526-531
- 16 Belle S, Collet P, Post S et al. Temporary cystogastrostomy with self-expanding metallic stents for pancreatic necrosis. Endoscopy 2010; 42: 493-495
- 17 Berzosa M, Maheshwari S, Patel KK et al. Single-step endoscopic ultrasonography-guided drainage of peripancreatic fluid collections with a single self-expandable metal stent and standard linear echoendoscope. Endoscopy 2012; 44: 543-547
- 18 Weilert F, Binmoeller KF, Shah JN et al. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided drainage of pancreatic fluid collections with indeterminate adherence using temporary covered metal stents. Endoscopy 2012; 44: 780-783
- 19 Wang M, Lim GL, Bang MH et al. Structured endoscopic ultrasound training programs improved knowledge and skills of trainees – results from the Asian EUS group. Gastrointest Endosc 2014; 79: AB318