Optimal timing for lumen-apposing metal stent removal following endoscopic ultrasound-guided drainage of pancreatic fluid collections: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract

Background Lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMSs) are widely used for endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided drainage of pancreatic fluid collections (PFCs). Safety is a major concern and the timing of LAMS removal is debated owing to the risk of adverse events (AEs). Previous studies showed early stent removal was associated with a reduced risk of AEs, but data are still conflicting. The aim of this systematic review with meta-analysis was to identify the optimal timing for LAMS removal.

Methods Major databases were systematically searched until May 2024. The outcome assessed was the cumulative incidence of AEs related to the early (within 3–4 weeks) versus late (after 3–4 weeks) removal of the LAMS. A random-effects (DerSimonian–Laird) model was used to pool the results.

Results Eight studies (1820 patients; mean age 54–61.6 years; 63 % men) were included in the analysis. PFCs included walled-off necrosis (WON; 58.2 %) and pseudocysts (41.8 %). Pooled LAMS-related AEs rate were similar in the late versus early removal groups (risk ratio [RR] 1.03, 95 %CI 0.47–2.28; P = 0.94). Sensitivity analysis, including only studies applying a 4-week cut-off, confirmed a comparable AEs rate (RR 0.80, 95 %CI 0.38–1.65; P = 0.59). The mean (SD) follow-up of the studies was 208 (88) days.

Conclusions The results of this meta-analysis showed no difference in the incidence of AEs between early and late removal of LAMSs in the presence of moderate heterogeneity across studies. Removal within 4 weeks is not warranted, and it may instead be planned on a clinical case-by-case basis according on the patient's condition.

^‡ Joint first authors

Publication History

Received: 14 October 2024

Accepted after revision: 05 March 2025

Article published online:
29 April 2025

• References

• 1 Anderloni A, Fabbri C, Nieto J. et al. The safety and efficacy of a new 20-mm lumen apposing metal stent (lams) for the endoscopic treatment of pancreatic and peripancreatic fluid collections: a large international, multicenter study. Surg Endosc 2021; 35: 1741-1748
• 2 Banks PA, Bollen TL, Dervenis C. et al. Classification of acute pancreatitis--2012: revision of the Atlanta classification and definitions by international consensus. Gut 2013; 62: 102-111
• 3 Amato A, Tarantino I, Facciorusso A. et al. Real-life multicentre study of lumen-apposing metal stent for EUS-guided drainage of pancreatic fluid collections. Gut 2022; 71: 1050-1052
• 4 Fugazza A, Sethi A, Trindade AJ. et al. International multicenter comprehensive analysis of adverse events associated with lumen-apposing metal stent placement for pancreatic fluid collection drainage. Gastrointest Endosc 2020; 91: 574-583
• 5 Pawa R, Dorrell R, Nguyen M. et al. Analysis of adverse events with lumen apposing metal stents for drainage of pancreatic fluid collections. Endosc Int Open 2023; 11: E1153-E1160
• 6 Facciorusso A, Amato A, Crinò SF. et al. Nomogram for prediction of adverse events after lumen-apposing metal stent placement for drainage of pancreatic fluid collections. Dig Endosc 2022; 34: 1459-1470
• 7 Bang JY, Navaneethan U, Hasan MK. et al. Non-superiority of lumen-apposing metal stents over plastic stents for drainage of walled-off necrosis in a randomised trial. Gut 2019; 68: 1200-1209
• 8 Arvanitakis M, Dumonceau JM, Albert J. et al. Endoscopic management of acute necrotizing pancreatitis: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) evidence-based multidisciplinary guidelines. Endoscopy 2018; 50: 524-546
• 9 Muthusamy VR, Chandrasekhara V, Acosta RD. et al. The role of endoscopy in the diagnosis and treatment of inflammatory pancreatic fluid collections. Gastrointest Endosc 2016; 83: 481-488
• 10 Capurso G, Coluccio C, Rizzo GEM. et al. The 1st i-EUS consensus on the management of pancreatic fluid collections – Part 2. Dig Liver Dis 2024; 56: 1819-1827
• 11 Capurso G, Rizzo GEM, Coluccio C. et al. The i-EUS consensus on the management of pancreatic fluid collections – Part 1. Dig Liver Dis 2024; 56: 1663-1674
• 12 Oh CH, Lee JK, Song TJ. et al. Clinical practice guidelines for the endoscopic management of peripancreatic fluid collections. Clin Endosc 2021; 54: 505-521
• 13 Nayar M, Leeds JS, Oppong K. UK & Ireland LAMS Colloborative. Lumen-apposing metal stents for drainage of pancreatic fluid collections: does timing of removal matter?. Gut 2022; 71: 850-853
• 14 Higgins J, Thomas J, Chandler J. et al. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 6.4 (updated August 2023) [Internet]. 2023 Accessed: 21 March 2025. Available from: www.training.cochrane.org/handbook
• 15 Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M. et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst Rev 2015; 4: 1
• 16 Wells GA, Shea B, O’Connell D. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomised studies in meta-analyses. Accessed: 21 March 2025. Available from: www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxford.asp
• 17 Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R. et al. GRADE guidelines 6. Rating the quality of evidence--imprecision. . J Clin Epidemiol 2011; 64: 1283-1293
• 18 Puhan MA, Schünemann HJ, Murad MH. et al. A GRADE Working Group approach for rating the quality of treatment effect estimates from network meta-analysis. BMJ 2014; 349: g5630
• 19 DerSimonian R, Laird N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 1986; 7: 177-188
• 20 Borenstein M, Hedges LV, Higgins JPT. et al. A basic introduction to fixed-effect and random-effects models for meta-analysis. Res Synth Methods 2010; 1: 97-111
• 21 Higgins JPT, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ. et al. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ 2003; 327: 557-560
• 22 Rücker G, Schwarzer G, Carpenter JR. et al. Undue reliance on I(2) in assessing heterogeneity may mislead. BMC Med Res Methodol 2008; 8: 79
• 23 Karstensen JG, Novovic S, Hansen EF. et al. EUS-guided drainage of large walled-off pancreatic necroses using plastic versus lumen-apposing metal stents: a single-centre randomised controlled trial. Gut 2023; 72: 1167-1173
• 24 Gornals JB, Velasquez-Rodriguez JG, Bas-Cutrina F. et al. Plastic pigtail vs lumen-apposing metal stents for drainage of walled-off necrosis (PROMETHEUS study): an open-label, multicenter randomized trial. Surg Endosc 2024; 38: 2148-2159
• 25 Koduri KK, Jagtap N, Lakhtakia S. et al. Biflanged metal stents versus plastic stents in the endoscopic ultrasound-guided drainage of walled-off necrosis: a randomized controlled trial. Endoscopy 2024; 56: 915-923
• 26 Boxhoorn L, Verdonk RC, Besselink MG. et al. Comparison of lumen-apposing metal stents versus double-pigtail plastic stents for infected necrotising pancreatitis. Gut 2023; 72: 66-72
• 27 Willems P, Esmail E, Paquin S. et al. Safety and efficacy of early versus late removal of LAMS for pancreatic fluid collections. Endosc Int Open 2024; 12: E317-E323
• 28 Ioannidis JP, Trikalinos TA. The appropriateness of asymmetry tests for publication bias in meta-analyses: a large survey. CMAJ 2007; 176: 1091-1096
• 29 Terrin N, Schmid CH, Lau J. In an empirical evaluation of the funnel plot, researchers could not visually identify publication bias. J Clin Epidemiol 2005; 58: 894-901