Endoscopic Ultrasonography-Guided Versus Percutaneous Drainage for the Recurrent Pancreatic Fluid Collections.

BACKGROUND Ultrasonography-guided percutaneous drainage for pancreatic fluid collections is associated with a high recurrence rate and endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS)-guided drainage is a valuable approach. Our aim was to compare the efficacy and safety of percutaneous and EUS-guided drainage for the recurrent pancreatic fluid collections. MATERIAL AND METHODS A retrospective analysis of percutaneous-guided and EUS-guided procedures for pancreatic fluid collections drainages at a single tertiary care center between February 2017 and May 2018 was performed. Treatment success, adverse events, recurrence, need for surgery, length of hospital stays, and number of follow-up computed tomography (CT) scan were assessed. RESULTS A total of 119 pancreatic fluid collections treated with initial percutaneous drainage were included in this study and 35 patients had recurrent pancreatic fluid collections. Recurrent patients were classified based on drainage method: EUS-guided drainage (18 patients) and the second percutaneous drainage (17 patients). EUS-guided drainage revealed a shorter length of hospital stays (P<0.001), less re-intervention (P=0.047), fewer number of follow-up CT scans (P=0.006) compared with the initial percutaneous drainage. Furthermore, we also compared the clinical outcomes between the EUS-guided drainage and the second percutaneous drainage for the recurrent PFC after initially failed percutaneous drainage. EUS-guided drainage showed higher clinical success (P=0.027), shorter length of hospital stays (P<0.001), less re-intervention (P=0.012), fewer number of follow-up CT scan (P<0.001) and less recurrence P=0.027) compared to the second percutaneous drainage procedure. CONCLUSIONS EUS-guided drainage is an effective and appropriate method to treat the recurrent pancreatic fluid collections after initially failed percutaneous drainage procedure, with the advantage of higher clinical success, shorter length of hospital stays, less re-intervention, fewer number of follow-up CT scan and less recurrence compared to the percutaneous drainage.