Percutaneous Versus EUS-guided Drainage of Symptomatic Fluid Collections After Left Pancreatectomy

Trial statusNot yet recruiting
Trial phaseNot applicable
Trial typeInterventional
Biological sexAll
Age18+
SponsorAcademisch Medisch Centrum - Universiteit van Amsterdam (AMC-UvA)

About this trial

Fluid collections are a complication after pancreatic surgery. These fluid collections can be treated with two treatment options. One option is percutaneous drainage, where an external drainage tube is placed in the collection. The second option is endoscopic ultrasound-guided drainage (EUS) with a stent. Both options have similar results in previous clinical studies, but they have not been directly compared in a randomized clinical trial.

The goal of this clinical trial is to compare percutaneous drainage with EUS-guided drainage. The main questions it aims to answer are:

* Is EUS-guided drainage of symptomatic fluid collections non-inferior to percutaneous catheter drainage in terms of safety? * Is EUS-guided drainage superior in terms of 30-day quality of life, compared to percutaneous drainage?

Researchers will compare EUS-guided drainage with percutaneous drainage to see if they are similar in safety outcomes and different in quality-of-life outcomes.

Participants will:

* Be randomized between percutaneous drainage and EUS-guided drainage. * Fill-out surveys and pain score when they start the study, and then after 1 week and 3 months. * Fill-out an extra pain score on day 1 and day 3. * Receive a phone call from the study team after 1 month, where they will be asked how they are doing. Together with the study team member they fill out the surveys that are taken after 1 month.

Eligibility criteria

Qualifiers

≥18 years

Symptoms of abdominal pain and/or persistent nausea.

Suspected infection/ sepsis

Drainage of the fluid collection is feasible both endoscopically and percutaneously as per the treating team. NB: Preferably this is also assessed and supported by the expert panel, but this is NOT mandatory given the potential urgent nature of the intervention. The investigators expect that multidisciplinary consultation with both intervening specialties precedes the feasibility assessment.

Disqualifiers

<18 years

The fluid collection is not endoscopically or percutaneously feasible per the expert panel's judgement or the treatment team in acute situations, for example due to collection location too far from the gastrointestinal tract.

Prior drainage attempts of the fluid collection.

Received an indwelling percutaneous drain intraoperatively. Intraoperatively placed drains are only permitted when at least removed 5 days prior to development of the fluid collection.

Trial design

Treatments tested in this trial

  • Plastic double pigtail stent
  • Percutaneous catheter

Treatment groups

96 Participants
are divided into 2 treatment groups

Sponsors and collaborators

Academisch Medisch Centrum - Universiteit van Amsterdam (AMC-UvA)

Lead sponsor

Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria Integrata Verona

Collaborator

Leiden University Medical Center

Collaborator

Radboud University Medical Center

Collaborator

St. Antonius Hospital

Collaborator

OLVG

Collaborator

University Medical Center Groningen

Collaborator

Maastricht University Medical Center

Collaborator

Medisch Spectrum Twente

Collaborator

Catharina Ziekenhuis Eindhoven

Collaborator

University Hospital Heidelberg

Collaborator

Erasmus Medical Center

Collaborator

IRCCS San Raffaele

Collaborator

Orlando Health, Inc.

Collaborator

Universitaire Ziekenhuizen KU Leuven

Collaborator

University Hospital, Ghent

Collaborator