Evidence Hub

Predicting the need for step-up after EUS-guided drainage of peripancreatic fluid collections, including Quadrant Necrosis Infection score validation: a prospective cohort study

G. Vanella, Roberto Leone, F. Frigo, Gemma Rossi, P. Zaccari, D. Palumbo, G. Guazzarotti, F. Aleotti et al.

Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, 2025

19 citations

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Factors predicting the need for step-up procedures after EUS-guided drainage (EUS-FCD) of peripancreatic fluid collections (PFCs) were explored in retrospective studies restricted to Walled-Off Necrosis (WON) and Lumen Apposing Metal Stents (LAMS).

METHODS

All consecutive candidates for EUS-FCD between 2020-2024 were included in a Prospective Registry of Therapeutic EUS (PROTECT, NCT04813055), with prospective monthly follow-up evaluating clinical success, adverse events and recurrences. Prospectively assessed baseline clinical and morphological factors, including the Quadrant-Necrosis-Infection (QNI) classification, were included in a stepwise logistic regression model to predict the need for step-up. The agreement between EUS and Radiology in assessing the extent of necrosis was compared with Cohen's kappa.

RESULTS

Seventy patients (29 post-surgical collections, 21 pseudocysts, and 20 WONs) were treated with double-pigtail plastic stents (DPPS) in 59% of cases and LAMS in 41%. Clinical success was 92.9%, with a need for step-up (mostly endoscopic necrosectomy) in 35.7% of cases. Necrosis ≥60% (OR=7.7, 95%CI 1.4-43) and being in the high-risk QNI group (OR=4.6, 95%CI 1.4-15) were the only independent predictors of any step-up. The same factors predicted the endoscopist's decision to allocate PFCs to LAMS vs. DPPS. The high-risk QNI group was associated with a significantly longer hospital stay (12 days vs. 4 days, p=0.004). EUS tended to upscale the…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free