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

Hospital costs of delayed gastric emptying following pancreatoduodenectomy and the financial headroom for novel prophylactic treatment strategies

Background: Delayed gastric emptying (DGE) is one of the most common complications following pancreatoduodenectomy (PD). In-hospital costs of DGE are unknown as well as the financial headroom for novel prophylactic treatments. This retrospective study aims to estimate the hospital costs of DGE and model the financial headroom per patient for new prophylactic treatment strategies within budget. Methods: Retrospective analysis of a single-center prospective database including patients after PD (2010–2017). In-hospital costs for clinically relevant DGE (ISGPS grade B/C) were calculated by comparing patient groups with and without DGE or other complications. The financial headroom per patient was modelled for potential reductions (0–100%) of empirical DGE baseline risks (15–30%). Results: Overall, DGE was present in 156 (26.9%) of 581 patients after PD. Costs for patients with isolated DGE (n = 90) were €10,295 higher than for patients without complications (n = 333). Costs for patients with other complications including DGE (n = 66) were €9008 higher than for patients with other complications without DGE (n = 92). The financial headroom for a novel prophylactic treatment per patient undergoing PD was €975 per 10% absolute decrease of DGE risk. Conclusion: Hospital costs of DGE after PD are substantial. The financial headroom per patient for new DGE prophylactic treatments can be easily calculated via www.pancreascalculator.com