Necrosectomy could be successfully performed through the stent in all needed cases. The stent was easily extracted at the end of the therapy period. Based on results of this study, stent migration rate was low. The Nagi stent™ may be considered as the first option for patients undergoing EUTMD of PFC’s. Further prospective randomized

controlled trials comparing this stent to multiple plastic stents is recommended. Key Word(s): 1. pseudocyst; 2. WOPN; 3. endoscopic drainage; 4. fully covered SEMS; Details N (total = 21) Percent Puncture site Esophagus 1 5 Stomach 18 86 Duodenum 2 9 Access – 19G FNA needle 21 100 Balloon dilatation of track 4 mm 9 43 6 mm 3 14 8 mm 8 38 15 mm 1 5 Concurrent drainage Double pigtail plastic stent 10 48 Nasocystic drain 7 33 Necrosectomy 7 33 Stent removal   14 67 Days after insertion, mean (range) Pembrolizumab 49.1 (45–60) Technical success 21 100 Clinical success 21 100 Complications – stent migration 1 5 Presenting Author: VINITA CHAUDHARY Additional Authors: SURINDERS RANA, DEEPAKK BHASIN, CHALAPATHI RAO, RAJESH GUPTA Corresponding Author: DEEPAKK BHASIN Affiliations: PGIMER Objective: Pancreatic pseudocysts are usually located in peripancreatic area and are rarely located at atypical locations. There is paucity of data on EUS features of pseudocysts at atypical locations.

Methods: Retrospective analysis of patients with pseudocysts at atypical locations seen over last four years. Results: Ten patients (all males; age 21–58 years) were studied. The location of pseudocysts buy CP-690550 was: mediastinum (6), liver (1), and

intramural gastric wall (1) and duodenal wall (2). The pseudocysts occurred as a consequence of acute pancreatitis in 2 patients (alcohol in both) and chronic pancreatitis in 8 patients (alcohol in all and one of these patient had coexistent pancreas divisum). All patients presented with abdominal pain. One each patient also had dysphagia, gastric outlet obstruction and jaundice because of biliary obstruction. The pseduocysts were well demonstrated on EUS. It could also identify necrotic debris as echogenic contents in the cyst and 9/10 (90%) STK38 of patients did not have any necrotic debris in the pseudocysts. In patients with intramural pseudocysts, EUS could clearly demonstrate its intramural location (in all the three patients muscularis propria could be seen intact around the pseudocyst). All the three patients of intramural pseudocyst were successfully treated with single time EUS guided aspiration whereas patient with intra hepatic pseudocyst was successfully manage conservatively. Five of 6 patients with mediastinal pseudocyst were successfully treated with endoscopic transpapillary drainage whereas one patient refused further treatment and was lost to follow up. Conclusion: EUS is a useful investigation for pancreatic pseudocysts at atypical locations. Key Word(s): 1. EUS; 2. pseudocyst; 3. pancreatitis; 4.