Endoscopic drainage versus percutaneous drainage for the management of infected walled-off necrosis: a comparative analysis

Background Comparative data on percutaneous catheter drainage (PCD) vs EUS-guided drainage (EUS-D) for management of symptomatic walled-off-necrosis (WON), specially infected WON with/without organ failure(OF) is limited. Methods Patients with symptomatic WON were divided into two groups of PCD and EUS-D, depending on the modality of drainage. Resolution of OF, adverse events, and other outcome measures were recorded. The two modalities were compared among infected WON sub-cohort and also degree of solid component (SC). Results 218 patients (175 males; 80.3%) were included who underwent either PCD (n = 102) or EUS-D (n = 116). Clinical success was significantly higher in the EUS-D group (92.1% vs 64.6%; p < 0.0001) and even for infected WON (n = 128) (p = 0.004), with higher (p = 0.007) and faster (p < 0.0001) OF resolution. Other outcome measures including mortality were significantly higher in the PCD group. Among subgroups, PCD with >40% SC had the worst clinical success/OF resolution rates, while EUS-D with Conclusion EUS-D should be preferred over PCD in the management of WON, infected or otherwise, for higher clinical success, and higher/faster resolution of OF. PCD should be avoided in WON with>40% SC.