Endoscopic versus percutaneous management for symptomatic pancreatic fluid collections: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND: Symptomatic pancreatic fluid collections (PFCs) are managed by surgical, percutaneous, or endoscopic drainage. Due to morbidity associated with surgical drainage, percutaneous and/or endoscopic options have increasingly been used as initial management. AIMS: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing the efficacy and safety of endoscopic versus percutaneous drainage for management of PFCs. METHODS: We searched several databases from inception through 31 August 2017 to identify comparative studies using endoscopic or percutaneous drainage for PFCs. Our primary outcome was clinical success. Secondary outcomes were technical success, adverse events (AE), rates of recurrence, requirement for subsequent procedures, and length of stay in hospital. Pooled risk ratios (RR) and mean difference (MD) were calculated for categorical and continuous outcomes, respectively. RESULTS: Seven studies with 490 patients were included in the final analysis. Pooled RR for clinical success was 0.40 (0.26, 0.61), I (2) = 42 % in favor of endoscopic management. On sensitivity analysis, after excluding one study on patients with walled-off necrosis (WON), the clinical success was 0.43 (0.28, 0.66) with no heterogeneity. Pooled RR for technical success was 1.50 (0.52, 4.37) with no heterogeneity. Pooled RR for AE and rate of recurrence were 0.77 (0.46, 1.28) and 0.60 (0.29, 1.24), respectively. Pooled MD for length of stay in hospital and rate of re-intervention were – 8.97 (– 12.88, – 5.07) and – 0.66 (– 0.93, – 0.38), respectively, in favor of endoscopic drainage. CONCLUSIONS: Endoscopic drainage should be the preferred therapeutic modality for PFCs compared to percutaneous drainage as it is associated with significantly better clinical success, a lower re-intervention rate, and a shorter hospital length of stay.