Therapeutic anticoagulation for splanchnic vein thrombosis in acute pancreatitis:A national survey and case-vignette study

BACKGROUND: Splanchnic vein thrombosis (SVT) is a major complication of moderate and severe acute pancreatitis. There is no consensus on whether therapeutic anticoagulation should be started in patients with acute pancreatitis and SVT. AIM: To gain insight into current opinions and clinical decision making of pancreatologists regarding SVT in acute pancreatitis. METHODS: A total of 139 pancreatologists of the Dutch Pancreatitis Study Group and Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Group were approached to complete an online survey and case vignette survey. The threshold to assume group agreement was set at 75%. RESULTS: The response rate was 67% (n = 93). Seventy-one pancreatologists (77%) regularly prescribed therapeutic anticoagulation in case of SVT, and 12 pancreatologists (13%) for narrowing of splanchnic vein lumen. The most common reason to treat SVT was to avoid complications (87%). Acute thrombosis was the most important factor to prescribe therapeutic anticoagulation (90%). Portal vein thrombosis was chosen as the most preferred location to initiate therapeutic anticoagulation (76%) and splenic vein thrombosis as the least preferred location (86%). The preferred initial agent was low molecular weight heparin (LMWH; 87%). In the case vignettes, therapeutic anticoagulation was prescribed for acute portal vein thrombosis, with or without suspected infected necrosis (82% and 90%), and thrombus progression (88%). Agreement was lacking regarding the selection and duration of long-term anticoagulation, the indication for thrombophilia testing and upper endoscopy, and about whether risk of bleeding is a major barrier for therapeutic anticoagulation. CONCLUSION: In this national survey, the pancreatologists seemed to agree on the use of therapeutic anticoagulation, using LMWH in the acute phase, for acute portal thrombosis and in the case of thrombus progression, irrespective of the presence of infected necrosis.</p

Effect of Early Surgery vs Endoscopy-First Approach on Pain in Patients With Chronic Pancreatitis The ESCAPE Randomized Clinical Trial:The ESCAPE Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE For patients with painful chronic pancreatitis, surgical treatment is postponed until medical and endoscopic treatment have failed. Observational studies have suggested that earlier surgery could mitigate disease progression, providing better pain control and preserving pancreatic function. OBJECTIVE To determine whether early surgery is more effective than the endoscopy-first approach in terms of clinical outcomes. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS The ESCAPE trial was an unblinded, multicenter, randomized clinical superiority trial involving 30 Dutch hospitals participating in the Dutch Pancreatitis Study Group. From April 2011 until September 2016, a total of 88 patients with chronic pancreatitis, a dilated main pancreatic duct, and who only recently started using prescribed opioids for severe pain (strong opioids for INTERVENTIONS There were 44 patients randomized to the early surgery group who underwent pancreatic drainage surgery within 6 weeks after randomization and 44 patients randomized to the endoscopy-first approach group who underwent medical treatment, endoscopy including lithotripsy if needed, and surgery if needed. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was pain, measured on the Izbicki pain score and integrated over 18 months (range, 0-100 [increasing score indicates more pain severity]). Secondary outcomes were pain relief at the end of follow-up; number of interventions, complications, hospital admissions; pancreatic function; quality of life (measured on the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey [SF-36]); and mortality. RESULTS Among 88 patients who were randomized (mean age, 52 years; 21 (24%) women), 85 (97%) completed the trial. During 18 months of follow-up, patients in the early surgery group had a lower Izbicki pain score than patients in the group randomized to receive the endoscopy-first approach group (37 vs 49; between-group difference, -12 points [95% CI, -22 to -2]; P = .02). Complete or partial pain relief at end of follow-up was achieved in 23 of 40 patients (58%) in the early surgery vs 16 of 41 (39%)in the endoscopy-first approach group (P = .10). The total number of interventions was lower in the early surgery group (median, 1 vs 3; P <.001). Treatment complications (27% vs 25%), mortality (0% vs 0%), hospital admissions, pancreatic function, and quality of life were not significantly different between early surgery and the endoscopy-first approach. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Among patients with chronic pancreatitis, early surgery compared with an endoscopy-first approach resulted in lower pain scores when integrated over 18 months. However, further research is needed to assess persistence of differences over time and to replicate the study findings

Risk factors for complications after surgery for pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors

BACKGROUND: Surgical resection is the only potentially curative treatment for pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. The choice for the type of procedure is influenced by the expected oncological benefit and the anticipated risk of procedure-specific complications. Few studies have focused on complications in these patients. This cohort study aimed to assess complications and risk factors after resections of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. METHODS: Patients undergoing resection of a pancreatic neuroendocrine tumor were identified within 2 centers of excellence. Complications were assessed according to the Clavien-Dindo classification and the comprehensive complication index. Logistic regression was performed to compare surgical procedures with adjustment for potential confounders (Clavien-Dindo ≥3). RESULTS: The cohort comprised 123 patients, including 12 enucleations, 50 distal pancreatectomies, 51 pancreatoduodenectomies, and 10 total/combined pancreatectomies. Mortality was 0.8%, a severe complication occurred in 41.5%, and the failure-to-rescue rate was 2.0%. The median comprehensive complication index was 22.6 (0-100); the comprehensive complication index increased after more extensive resections. After adjustment, a pancreatoduodenectomy, as compared to a distal pancreatectomy, increased the risk for a severe complication (odds ratio 3.13 [95% confidence interval 1.32-7.41]). Of the patients with multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1 or von Hippel-Lindau, 51.9% developed a severe complication vs 38.5% with sporadic disease. After major resections, morbidity was significantly higher in patients with multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1/von Hippel-Lindau (comprehensive complication index 45.1 vs 28.9, P = .029). CONCLUSION: Surgery for pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors is associated with a high rate of complications but low failure-to-rescue in centers of excellence. Complications are procedure-specific. Major resections in patients with multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1/von Hippel-Lindau appear to increase the risk of complications

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

Somatostatin analogues for the prevention of pancreatic fistula after open pancreatoduodenectomy:A nationwide analysis

BACKGROUND: Somatostatin analogues (SA) are currently used to prevent postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF) development. However, its use is controversial. This study investigated the effect of different SA protocols on the incidence of POPF after pancreatoduodenectomy in a nationwide population.METHODS: All patients undergoing elective open pancreatoduodenectomy were included from the Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Audit (2014-2017). Patients were divided into six groups: no SA, octreotide, lanreotide, pasireotide, octreotide only in high-risk (HR) patients and lanreotide only in HR patients. Primary endpoint was POPF grade B/C. The updated alternative Fistula Risk Score was used to compare POPF rates across various risk scenarios.RESULTS: 1992 patients were included. Overall POPF rate was 13.1%. Lanreotide (10.0%), octreotide-HR (9.4%) and no protocol (12.7%) POPF rates were lower compared to the other protocols (varying from 15.1 to 19.1%, p = 0.001) in crude analysis. Sub-analysis in patients with HR of POPF showed a significantly lower rate of POPF when treated with lanreotide (10.0%) compared to no protocol, octreotide and pasireotide protocol (21.6-26.9%, p = 0.006). Octreotide-HR and lanreotide-HR protocol POPF rates were comparable to lanreotide protocol, however not significantly different from the other protocols. Multivariable regression analysis demonstrated lanreotide protocol to be positively associated with a low odds-ratio (OR) for POPF (OR 0.387, 95% CI 0.180-0.834, p = 0.015). In-hospital mortality rates were not affected.CONCLUSION: Use of lanreotide in all patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy has a potential protective effect on POPF development. Protocols for HR patients only might be favorable too. However, future studies are warranted to confirm these findings.</p

Nationwide Outcome after Pancreatoduodenectomy in Patients at very High Risk (ISGPS-D) for Postoperative Pancreatic Fistula

OBJECTIVE: To assess nationwide surgical outcome after pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) in patients at very high risk for postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF), categorized as ISGPS-D.SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Morbidity and mortality after ISGPS-D PD is perceived so high that a recent randomized trial advocated prophylactic total pancreatectomy (TP) as alternative aiming to lower this risk. However, current outcomes of ISGPS-D PD remain unknown as large nationwide series are lacking.METHODS: Nationwide retrospective analysis including consecutive patients undergoing ISGPS-D PD (i.e., soft texture and pancreatic duct ≤3 mm), using the mandatory Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Audit (2014-2021). Primary outcome was in-hospital mortality and secondary outcomes included major morbidity (i.e., Clavien-Dindo grade ≥IIIa) and POPF (ISGPS grade B/C). The use of prophylactic TP to avoid POPF during the study period was assessed.RESULTS: Overall, 1402 patients were included. In-hospital mortality was 4.1% (n=57), which decreased to 3.7% (n=20/536) in the last 2 years. Major morbidity occurred in 642 patients (45.9%) and POPF in 410 (30.0%), which corresponded with failure to rescue in 8.9% (n=57/642). Patients with POPF had increased rates of major morbidity (88.0% vs. 28.3%; P&lt;0.001) and mortality (6.3% vs. 3.5%; P=0.016), compared to patients without POPF. Among 190 patients undergoing TP, prophylactic TP to prevent POPF was performed in 4 (2.1%).CONCLUSION: This nationwide series found a 4.1% in-hospital mortality after ISGPS-D PD with 45.9% major morbidity, leaving little room for improvement through prophylactic TP. Nevertheless, given the outcomes in 30% of patients who develop POPF, future randomized trials should aim to prevent and mitigate POPF in this high-risk category.</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

Nationwide Outcome after Pancreatoduodenectomy in Patients at very High Risk (ISGPS-D) for Postoperative Pancreatic Fistula

OBJECTIVE: To assess nationwide surgical outcome after pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) in patients at very high risk for postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF), categorized as ISGPS-D.SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Morbidity and mortality after ISGPS-D PD is perceived so high that a recent randomized trial advocated prophylactic total pancreatectomy (TP) as alternative aiming to lower this risk. However, current outcomes of ISGPS-D PD remain unknown as large nationwide series are lacking.METHODS: Nationwide retrospective analysis including consecutive patients undergoing ISGPS-D PD (i.e., soft texture and pancreatic duct ≤3 mm), using the mandatory Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Audit (2014-2021). Primary outcome was in-hospital mortality and secondary outcomes included major morbidity (i.e., Clavien-Dindo grade ≥IIIa) and POPF (ISGPS grade B/C). The use of prophylactic TP to avoid POPF during the study period was assessed.RESULTS: Overall, 1402 patients were included. In-hospital mortality was 4.1% (n=57), which decreased to 3.7% (n=20/536) in the last 2 years. Major morbidity occurred in 642 patients (45.9%) and POPF in 410 (30.0%), which corresponded with failure to rescue in 8.9% (n=57/642). Patients with POPF had increased rates of major morbidity (88.0% vs. 28.3%; P&lt;0.001) and mortality (6.3% vs. 3.5%; P=0.016), compared to patients without POPF. Among 190 patients undergoing TP, prophylactic TP to prevent POPF was performed in 4 (2.1%).CONCLUSION: This nationwide series found a 4.1% in-hospital mortality after ISGPS-D PD with 45.9% major morbidity, leaving little room for improvement through prophylactic TP. Nevertheless, given the outcomes in 30% of patients who develop POPF, future randomized trials should aim to prevent and mitigate POPF in this high-risk category.</p