Long-Term Outcome of Immediate Versus Postponed" Intervention in Patients With Infected Necrotizing Pancreatitis" (POINTER)" Multicenter Randomized Trial

Objective: To compare the long-term outcomes of immediate drainage versus the postponed-drainage approach in patients with infected necrotizing pancreatitis. Background: In the randomized POINTER trial, patients assigned to the postponed-drainage approach using antibiotic treatment required fewer interventions, as compared with immediate drainage, and over a third were treated without any intervention. Methods: Clinical data of those patients alive after the initial 6-month follow-up were re-evaluated. The primary outcome was a composite of death and major complications. Results: Out of 104 patients, 88 were re-evaluated with a median followup of 51 months. After the initial 6-month follow-up, the primary outcome occurred in 7 of 47 patients (15%) in the immediate-drainage group and 7 of 41 patients (17%) in the postponed-drainage group (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.33-2.28; P=0.78). Additional drainage procedures were performed in 7 patients (15%) versus 3 patients (7%) (RR 2.03; 95% CI 0.56-7.37; P=0.34). The median number of additional interventions was 0 (IQR 0-0) in both groups (P=0.028). In the total follow-up, the median number of interventions was higher in the immediate-drainage group than in the postponed-drainage group (4 vs. 1, P=0.001). Eventually, 14 of 15 patients (93%) in the postponed-drainage group who were successfully treated in the initial 6-month follow-up with antibiotics and without any intervention remained without intervention. At the end of follow-up, pancreatic function and quality of life were similar. Conclusions: Also, during long-term follow-up, a postponed-drainage approach using antibiotics in patients with infected necrotizing pancreatitis results in fewer interventions as compared with immediate drainage and should therefore be the preferred approach.</p

Endoscopic Versus Surgical Step-Up Approach for Infected Necrotizing Pancreatitis (ExTENSION):Long-term Follow-up of a Randomized Trial

Background & Aims: Previous randomized trials, including the Transluminal Endoscopic Step-Up Approach Versus Minimally Invasive Surgical Step-Up Approach in Patients With Infected Pancreatic Necrosis (TENSION) trial, demonstrated that the endoscopic step-up approach might be preferred over the surgical step-up approach in patients with infected necrotizing pancreatitis based on favorable short-term outcomes. We compared long-term clinical outcomes of both step-up approaches after a period of at least 5 years. Methods: In this long-term follow-up study, we reevaluated all clinical data on 83 patients (of the originally 98 included patients) from the TENSION trial who were still alive after the initial 6-month follow-up. The primary end point, similar to the TENSION trial, was a composite of death and major complications. Secondary end points included individual major complications, pancreaticocutaneous fistula, reinterventions, pancreatic insufficiency, and quality of life. Results: After a mean follow-up period of 7 years, the primary end point occurred in 27 patients (53%) in the endoscopy group and in 27 patients (57%) in the surgery group (risk ratio [RR], 0.93; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.65–1.32; P = .688). Fewer pancreaticocutaneous fistulas were identified in the endoscopy group (8% vs 34%; RR, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.08–0.83). After the initial 6-month follow-up, the endoscopy group needed fewer reinterventions than the surgery group (7% vs 24%; RR, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.09–0.99). Pancreatic insufficiency and quality of life did not differ between groups. Conclusions: At long-term follow-up, the endoscopic step-up approach was not superior to the surgical step-up approach in reducing death or major complications in patients with infected necrotizing pancreatitis. However, patients assigned to the endoscopic approach developed overall fewer pancreaticocutaneous fistulas and needed fewer reinterventions after the initial 6-month follow-up. Netherlands Trial Register no: NL8571

Immediate versus postponed intervention for infected necrotizing pancreatitis

BACKGROUND Infected necrotizing pancreatitis is a potentially lethal disease that is treated with the use of a step-up approach, with catheter drainage often delayed until the infected necrosis is encapsulated. Whether outcomes could be improved by earlier catheter drainage is unknown. METHODS We conducted a multicenter, randomized superiority trial involving patients with infected necrotizing pancreatitis, in which we compared immediate drainage within 24 hours after randomization once infected necrosis was diagnosed with drainage that was postponed until the stage of walled-off necrosis was reached. The primary end point was the score on the Comprehensive Complication Index, which incorporates all complications over the course of 6 months of follow-up. RESULTS A total of 104 patients were randomly assigned to immediate drainage (55 patients) or postponed drainage (49 patients). The mean score on the Comprehensive Complication Index (scores range from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating more severe complications) was 57 in the immediate-drainage group and 58 in the postponed-drainage group (mean difference, −1; 95% confidence interval [CI], −12 to 10; P=0.90). Mortality was 13% in the immediate-drainage group and 10% in the postponed-drainage group (relative risk, 1.25; 95% CI, 0.42 to 3.68). The mean number of interventions (catheter drainage and necrosectomy) was 4.4 in the immediate-drainage group and 2.6 in the postponed-drainage group (mean difference, 1.8; 95% CI, 0.6 to 3.0). In the postponed-drainage group, 19 patients (39%) were treated conservatively with antibiotics and did not require drainage; 17 of these patients survived. The incidence of adverse events was similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS This trial did not show the superiority of immediate drainage over postponed drainage with regard to complications in patients with infected necrotizing pancreatitis. Patients randomly assigned to the postponed-drainage strategy received fewer invasive interventions

Diagnosis and treatment of pancreatic duct disruption or disconnection: an international expert survey and case vignette study

Background: Pancreatic duct disruption or disconnection is a potentially severe complication of necrotizing pancreatitis. With no existing treatment guidelines, it is unclear whether there is any consensus among experts in clinical practice. We evaluated current expert opinion regarding the diagnosis and treatment of pancreatic duct disruption and disconnection in an international case vignette study. Methods: An online case vignette survey was sent to 110 international expert pancreatologists. Expert selection was based on publications in the last 5 years and/or participation in development of IAP/APA and ESGE guidelines on acute pancreatitis. Consensus was defined as agreement by at least 75% of the experts. Results: The response rate was 51% (n = 56). Forty-four experts (79%) obtained a MRI/MRCP and 52 experts (93%) measured amylase levels in percutaneous drain fluid to evaluate pancreatic duct integrity. The majority of experts favored endoscopic transluminal drainage for infected (peri)pancreatic necrosis and pancreatic duct disruption (84%, n = 45) or disconnection (88%, n = 43). Consensus was lacking regarding the treatment of patients with persistent percutaneous drain production, and with persistent sterile necrosis. Conclusion: This international survey of experts demonstrates that there are many areas for which no consensus existed, providing clear focus for future investigation

Acute pancreatitis in COVID-19 patients: true risk?

Background: A relation between coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and acute pancreatitis has been suggested. However, the incidence and clinical relevance of this relation remain unclear. Objective: We aimed to investigate the incidence, severity and clinical impact of acute pancreatitis in patients with COVID-19. Methods: This is a cross-sectional study of a prospective, observational cohort concerning all COVID-19 patients admitted to two Dutch university hospitals between 4 March 2020 and 26 May 2020. Primary outcome was acute pancreatitis potentially related to COVD-19 infection. Acute pancreatitis was defined according to the revised Atlanta Classification. Potential relation with COVID-19 was defined as the absence of a clear aetiology of acute pancreatitis. Results: Among 433 patients with COVID-19, five (1.2%) had potentially related acute pancreatitis according to the revised Atlanta Classification. These five patients suffered from severe COVID-19 infection; all had (multiple) organ failure and 60% died. None of the patients developed necrotizing pancreatitis. Moreover, development of acute pancreatitis did not lead to major treatment consequences. Conclusions: In contrast with previous research, our study demonstrated that COVID-19 related acute pancreatitis is rare and of little clinical impact. It is therefore debatable if acute pancreatitis in COVID-19 patients requires specific screening. We hypothesize that acute pancreatitis occurs in patients with severe illness due to COVID-19 infection as a result of transient hypoperfusion and pancreatic ischemia, not as a direct result of the virus

Acute pancreatitis in COVID-19 patients: true risk?

Background: A relation between coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and acute pancreatitis has been suggested. However, the incidence and clinical relevance of this relation remain unclear. Objective: We aimed to investigate the incidence, severity and clinical impact of acute pancreatitis in patients with COVID-19. Methods: This is a cross-sectional study of a prospective, observational cohort concerning all COVID-19 patients admitted to two Dutch university hospitals between 4 March 2020 and 26 May 2020. Primary outcome was acute pancreatitis potentially related to COVD-19 infection. Acute pancreatitis was defined according to the revised Atlanta Classification. Potential relation with COVID-19 was defined as the absence of a clear aetiology of acute pancreatitis. Results: Among 433 patients with COVID-19, five (1.2%) had potentially related acute pancreatitis according to the revised Atlanta Classification. These five patients suffered from severe COVID-19 infection; all had (multiple) organ failure and 60% died. None of the patients developed necrotizing pancreatitis. Moreover, development of acute pancreatitis did not lead to major treatment consequences. Conclusions: In contrast with previous research, our study demonstrated that COVID-19 related acute pancreatitis is rare and of little clinical impact. It is therefore debatable if acute pancreatitis in COVID-19 patients requires specific screening. We hypothesize that acute pancreatitis occurs in patients with severe illness due to COVID-19 infection as a result of transient hypoperfusion and pancreatic ischemia, not as a direct result of the virus

Diagnosis and treatment of pancreatic duct disruption or disconnection: an international expert survey and case vignette study.

Pancreatic duct disruption or disconnection is a potentially severe complication of necrotizing pancreatitis. With no existing treatment guidelines, it is unclear whether there is any consensus among experts in clinical practice. We evaluated current expert opinion regarding the diagnosis and treatment of pancreatic duct disruption and disconnection in an international case vignette study. An online case vignette survey was sent to 110 international expert pancreatologists. Expert selection was based on publications in the last 5 years and/or participation in development of IAP/APA and ESGE guidelines on acute pancreatitis. Consensus was defined as agreement by at least 75% of the experts. The response rate was 51% (n = 56). Forty-four experts (79%) obtained a MRI/MRCP and 52 experts (93%) measured amylase levels in percutaneous drain fluid to evaluate pancreatic duct integrity. The majority of experts favored endoscopic transluminal drainage for infected (peri)pancreatic necrosis and pancreatic duct disruption (84%, n = 45) or disconnection (88%, n = 43). Consensus was lacking regarding the treatment of patients with persistent percutaneous drain production, and with persistent sterile necrosis. This international survey of experts demonstrates that there are many areas for which no consensus existed, providing clear focus for future investigation

Long-Term Outcome of Immediate Versus Postponed" Intervention in Patients With Infected Necrotizing Pancreatitis" (POINTER)" Multicenter Randomized Trial

Objective: To compare the long-term outcomes of immediate drainage versus the postponed-drainage approach in patients with infected necrotizing pancreatitis. Background: In the randomized POINTER trial, patients assigned to the postponed-drainage approach using antibiotic treatment required fewer interventions, as compared with immediate drainage, and over a third were treated without any intervention. Methods: Clinical data of those patients alive after the initial 6-month follow-up were re-evaluated. The primary outcome was a composite of death and major complications. Results: Out of 104 patients, 88 were re-evaluated with a median followup of 51 months. After the initial 6-month follow-up, the primary outcome occurred in 7 of 47 patients (15%) in the immediate-drainage group and 7 of 41 patients (17%) in the postponed-drainage group (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.33-2.28; P=0.78). Additional drainage procedures were performed in 7 patients (15%) versus 3 patients (7%) (RR 2.03; 95% CI 0.56-7.37; P=0.34). The median number of additional interventions was 0 (IQR 0-0) in both groups (P=0.028). In the total follow-up, the median number of interventions was higher in the immediate-drainage group than in the postponed-drainage group (4 vs. 1, P=0.001). Eventually, 14 of 15 patients (93%) in the postponed-drainage group who were successfully treated in the initial 6-month follow-up with antibiotics and without any intervention remained without intervention. At the end of follow-up, pancreatic function and quality of life were similar. Conclusions: Also, during long-term follow-up, a postponed-drainage approach using antibiotics in patients with infected necrotizing pancreatitis results in fewer interventions as compared with immediate drainage and should therefore be the preferred approach.</p

Short- and long-term outcomes of a disruption and disconnection of the pancreatic duct in necrotizing pancreatitis: a multicenter cohort study in 896 patients : Disrupted pancreatic duct in acute pancreatitis

OBJECTIVES: Necrotizing pancreatitis may result in a disrupted or disconnected pancreatic duct (DPD) with the potential for long lasting negative impact on a patient's clinical outcome. There is a lack of detailed data on the full clinical spectrum of DPD which is critical for the development of better diagnostic and treatment strategies. METHODS: We performed a long-term post-hoc analysis of a prospectively collected nationwide cohort of 896 patients with necrotizing pancreatitis (2005-2015). The median follow-up after hospital admission was 75 months (P25-P75:41-151). Clinical outcomes of patients with and without DPD were compared using regression analyses, adjusted for potential confounders. Predictive features for DPD were explored. RESULTS: DPD was confirmed in 243 (27%) of the 896 patients and resulted in worse clinical outcomes during both the patient's initial admission and follow-up. During hospital admission, DPD was associated with an increased rate of new-onset intensive care unit admission (adjusted-OR2.52 [95%-CI 1.62-3.93]), new-onset organ failure (adjusted-OR2.26 [95%-CI 1.45-3.55]), infected necrosis (adjusted-OR4.63 [95%-CI 2.87-7.64]) and pancreatic interventions (adjusted-OR7.55 [95%-CI 4.23-13.96]). During long-term follow-up, DPD increased the risk of pancreatic intervention (adjusted-OR9.71 [95%-CI 5.37-18.30], recurrent pancreatitis (adjusted-OR2.08 [95%-CI 1.32-3.29]), chronic pancreatitis (adjusted-OR2.73 [95%-CI 1.47-5.15]) and endocrine pancreatic insufficiency (adjusted-OR1.63 [95%-CI 1.05-2.53]).Central or subtotal pancreatic necrosis on computed tomography (CT), (OR9.49 [95%-CI 6.31-14.29] and a high levels of serum C-reactive protein (CRP) in the first 48 hours after admission (per 10 points increase, OR1.02 [95%-CI 1.00-1.03] were identified as independent predictors for developing DPD. CONCLUSIONS: At least one of every four patients with necrotizing pancreatitis suffer from DPD which is associated with detrimental, short and long-term interventions and complications. Central and subtotal pancreatic necrosis and high levels of serum CRP in the first 48 hours are independent predictors for DPD

Comparison of lumen-apposing metal stents versus double-pigtail plastic stents for infected necrotising pancreatitis

Objective Lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMS) are believed to clinically improve endoscopic transluminal drainage of infected necrosis when compared with double-pigtail plastic stents. However, comparative data from prospective studies are very limited. Design Patients with infected necrotising pancreatitis, who underwent an endoscopic step-up approach with LAMS within a multicentre prospective cohort study were compared with the data of 51 patients in the randomised TENSION trial who had been assigned to the endoscopic step-up approach with double-pigtail plastic stents. The clinical study protocol was otherwise identical for both groups. Primary end point was the need for endoscopic transluminal necrosectomy. Secondary end points included mortality, major complications, hospital stay and healthcare costs. Results A total of 53 patients were treated with LAMS in 16 hospitals during 27 months. The need for endoscopic transluminal necrosectomy was 64% (n=34) and was not different from the previous trial using plastic stents (53%, n=27)), also after correction for baseline characteristics (OR 1.21 (95% CI 0.45 to 3.23)). Secondary end points did not differ between groups either, which also included bleeding requiring intervention-5 patients (9%) after LAMS placement vs 11 patients (22%) after placement of plastic stents (relative risk 0.44; 95% CI 0.16 to 1.17). Total healthcare costs were also comparable (mean difference -euro6348, bias-corrected and accelerated 95% CI -euro26 386 to euro10 121). Conclusion Our comparison of two patient groups from two multicentre prospective studies with a similar design suggests that LAMS do not reduce the need for endoscopic transluminal necrosectomy when compared with double-pigtail plastic stents in patients with infected necrotising pancreatitis. Also, the rate of bleeding complications was comparable