Evolving treatment of necrotizing pancreatitis

Background Over the past decade, the treatment of necrotizing pancreatitis (NP) has incorporated greater use of minimally invasive techniques, including percutaneous drainage and endoscopic debridement. No study has yet compared outcomes of patients treated with all available techniques. We sought to evaluate the evolution of NP treatment at our high volume pancreas center. We hypothesized that minimally invasive techniques (medical only, percutaneous, and endoscopic) were used more frequently in later years. Methods Treatment strategy of NP patients at a single academic medical center between 2005 and 2014 was reviewed. Definitive management of pancreatic necrosis was categorized as: 1) medical treatment only; 2) surgical only; 3) percutaneous (interventional radiology – IR) only; 4) endoscopic only; and 5) combination (Surgery ± IR ± Endoscopy). Results 526 NP patients included biliary (45%), alcoholic (17%), and idiopathic (20%) etiology. Select patients were managed exclusively by medical, IR, or endoscopic treatment; use of these therapies remained relatively consistent over time. A combination of therapies was used in about 30% of patients. Over time, the percentage of NP patients managed without operation increased from 28% to 41%. 247 (47%) of patients had operation as the only NP treatment; an additional 143 (27%) required surgery as part of a multidisciplinary management. Conclusion Select NP patients may be managed exclusively by medical, IR, or endoscopic treatment. Combination treatment is necessary in many NP patients, and surgical treatment continues to play an important role in the definitive therapy of necrotizing pancreatitis patients

High Rates of Readmission in Necrotizing Pancreatitis: Natural History or Opportunity for Improvement?

Background Necrotizing pancreatitis (NP) is a complex and heterogeneous disease with a protracted disease course. Hospital readmission is extremely common; however, few data exist regarding the cause of readmission in NP. Methods A retrospective review of NP patients treated between 2005 and 2017 identified patients readmitted both locally and to our hospital. All patients with unplanned hospital readmissions were evaluated to determine the cause for readmission. Clinical and demographic factors of all patients were recorded. As appropriate, two independent group t tests and Pearson’s correlation or Fisher’s exact tests were performed to analyze the relationship between index admission clinical factors and readmission. p values of < 0.05 were accepted as statistically significant. Results Six hundred one NP patients were reviewed. Median age was 52 years (13–96). Median index admission length of stay was 19 days (2–176). The most common etiology was biliary (49.9%) followed by alcohol (20.0%). Unplanned readmission occurred in 432 patients (72%) accounting for a total of 971 unique readmissions (mean readmissions/patient, 2.3). The most common readmission indications were symptomatic necrosis requiring supportive care and/or intervention (31.2%), infected necrosis requiring antibiotics and/or intervention (26.6%), failure to thrive (9.7%), and non-necrosis infection (6.6%). Patients requiring readmission had increased incidence of index admission renal failure (21.3% vs. 14.2%, p = 0.05) and cardiovascular failure (12.5% vs. 4.7%, p = 0.01). Discussion Readmission in NP is extremely common. Significant portions of readmissions are a result of the disease natural history; however, a percentage of readmissions appear to be preventable. Patients with organ failure are at increased risk for unplanned readmission and will benefit from close follow-up

Routine Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis May Be Inadequate in the Hypercoagulable State of Severe Coronavirus Disease 2019

This article is made available for unrestricted research re-use and secondary analysis in any form or be any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are granted for the duration of the World Health Organization (WHO) declaration of COVID-19 as a global pandemic.Objectives: The aim of this study was to determine the frequency of venous thromboembolism in critically ill coronavirus disease 2019 patients and associate a degree of inflammatory marker elevation to venous thromboembolism development. Design: An observational study that identified patients with severe coronavirus disease 2019 between March 12, 2020, and March 31, 2020. Data reported are those available through May 6, 2020. Setting: A multicenter study including three Indianapolis area academic hospitals. Patients: Two-hundred forty consecutive patients with confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection were admitted to one of three hospitals. One-hundred nine critically ill coronavirus disease 2019 patients admitted to the ICU were included in the analysis. Interventions: All patients received routine subcutaneous chemical venous thromboembolism prophylaxis. Measurements and main results: The primary outcome of this study was to determine the frequency of venous thromboembolism and the degree of inflammatory and coagulation marker elevation associated with venous thromboembolism development. Descriptive statistics outlined the frequency of venous thromboembolism at any time during severe coronavirus disease 2019. Clinical course and laboratory metrics were compared between patients that developed venous thromboembolism and patients that did not develop venous thromboembolism. Hypercoagulable thromboelastography was defined as two or more hypercoagulable parameters. Main results: One-hundred nine patients developed severe coronavirus disease 2019 requiring ICU care. The mean (± SD) age was 61 ± 16 years and 57% were male. Seventy-five patients (69%) were discharged home, 7 patients (6%) remain in the hospital, and 27 patients (25%) died. Venous thromboembolism was diagnosed in 31 patients (28%) 8 ± 7 days after hospital admission, including two patients diagnosed with venous thromboembolism at presentation to the hospital. Elevated admission D-dimer and peak D-dimer were associated with venous thromboembolism development (p < 0.05). D-dimer greater than 2,600 ng/mL predicted venous thromboembolism with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.760 (95% CI, 0.661-0.858; p < 0.0001), sensitivity of 89.7%, and specificity of 59.5%. Twelve patients (11%) had thromboelastography performed and 58% of these patients had a hypercoagulable study. The calculated coagulation index was hypercoagulable in 50% of patients with thromboelastography. Conclusions: These data show that coronavirus disease 2019 results in a hypercoagulable state. Routine chemical venous thromboembolism prophylaxis may be inadequate in preventing venous thromboembolism in severe coronavirus disease 2019.Dr. Kreutz’s institution received funding from Idorsia, and he received funding from Haemonetics. The remaining authors have disclosed that they do not have any potential conflicts of interest

The continuum of complications in survivors of necrotizing pancreatitis

Background: Necrotizing pancreatitis survivors develop complications beyond infected necrosis that often require invasive intervention. Remarkably few data have cataloged these late complications after acute necrotizing pancreatitis resolution. We sought to identify the types and incidence of complications after necrotizing pancreatitis. Design: An observational study was performed evaluating 647 patients with necrotizing pancreatitis captured in a single-institution database between 2005 and 2017 at a tertiary care hospital. Retrospective review and analysis of newly diagnosed conditions attributable to necrotizing pancreatitis was performed. Exclusion criteria included the following: death before disease resolution (n = 57, 9%) and patients lost to follow-up (n = 12, 2%). Results: A total of 578 patients were followed for a median of 46 months (range, 8 months to 15 y) after necrotizing pancreatitis. In 489 (85%) patients 1 or more complications developed and included symptomatic disconnected pancreatic duct syndrome (285 of 578, 49%), splanchnic vein thrombosis (257 of 572, 45%), new endocrine insufficiency (195 of 549, 35%), new exocrine insufficiency (108 of 571, 19%), symptomatic chronic pancreatitis (93 of 571, 16%), incisional hernia (89 of 420, 21%), biliary stricture (90 of 576, 16%), chronic pain (44 of 575, 8%), gastrointestinal fistula (44 of 578, 8%), pancreatic duct stricture (30 of 578, 5%), and duodenal stricture (28 of 578, 5%). During the follow-up period, a total of 340 (59%) patients required an invasive intervention after necrotizing pancreatitis resolution. Invasive pancreatobiliary intervention was required in 230 (40%) patients. Conclusion: Late complications are common in necrotizing pancreatitis survivors. A broad variety of problems manifest themselves after resolution of the acute disease process and often require invasive intervention. Necrotizing pancreatitis patients should be followed lifelong by experienced clinicians

Biliary Stricture after Necrotizing Pancreatitis: An Underappreciated Challenge

Objective: Biliary stricture in necrotizing pancreatitis (NP) has not been systematically categorized; therefore, we sought to define the incidence and natural history of biliary stricture caused by NP. Summary/Background Data: Benign biliary stricture occurs secondary to bile duct injury, anastomotic narrowing, or chronic inflammation and fibrosis. The profound loco-regional inflammatory response of NP creates challenging biliary strictures. Methods: NP patients treated between 2005–2019 were reviewed. Biliary stricture was identified on cholangiography as narrowing of the extrahepatic biliary tree to < 75% of the diameter of the unaffected duct. Biliary stricture risk factors and outcomes were evaluated. Results: Among 743 NP patients, 64 died, 13 were lost to follow up; therefore, a total of 666 patients were included in the final cohort. Biliary stricture developed in 108 (16%) patients. Mean follow up was 3.5 ± 3.3 years. Median time from NP onset to biliary stricture diagnosis was 4.2 months (IQR, 1.8–10.9). Presentation was commonly clinical or biochemical jaundice, n = 30 (28%) each. Risk factors for stricture development were splanchnic vein thrombosis and pancreatic head parenchymal necrosis. Median time to stricture resolution was 6.0 months after onset (2.8–9.8). A mean of 3.3 ± 2.3 procedures were performed. Surgical intervention was required in 22 (20%) patients. Endoscopic treatment failed in 17% (17/99) of patients and was not associated with stricture length. Operative treatment of biliary stricture was more likely in patients with infected necrosis or NP disease duration ≥6 months. Conclusion: Biliary stricture occurs frequently after necrotizing pancreatitis and is associated with splanchnic vein thrombosis and pancreatic head necrosis. Surgical correction was performed in 20%

Visceral artery pseudoaneurysm in necrotizing pancreatitis: incidence and outcomes

Background: Visceral artery pseudoaneurysms (VA-PSA) occur in necrotizing pancreatitis; however, little is known about their natural history. This study sought to evaluate the incidence and outcomes of VA-PSA in a large cohort of patients with necrotizing pancreatitis. Methods: Data for patients with necrotizing pancreatitis who were treated between 2005 and 2017 at Indiana University Health University Hospital and who developed a VA-PSA were reviewed to assess incidence, presentation, treatment and outcomes. Results: Twenty-eight of 647 patients with necrotizing pancreatitis (4.3%) developed a VA-PSA between 2005 and 2017. The artery most commonly involved was the splenic artery (36%), followed by the gastroduodenal artery (24%). The most common presenting symptom was bloody drain output (32%), followed by incidental computed tomographic findings (21%). The median time from onset of necrotizing pancreatitis to diagnosis of a VA-PSA was 63.5 days (range 1-957 d). Twenty-five of the 28 patients who developed VA-PSA (89%) were successfully treated with percutaneous angioembolization. Three patients (11%) required surgery: 1 patient rebled following embolization and required operative management, and 2 underwent upfront operative management. The mortality rate attributable to hemorrhage from a VA-PSA in the setting of necrotizing pancreatitis was 14% (4 of 28 patients). Conclusion: In this study, VA-PSA occurred in 4.3% of patients with necrotizing pancreatitis. Percutaneous angioembolization effectively treated most cases; however, mortality from VA-PSA was high (14%). A high degree of clinical suspicion remains critical for early diagnosis of this potentially fatal problem

Preoperative Nomogram Predicts Non-home Discharge in Patients Undergoing Pancreatoduodenectomy

Background In patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy, non-home discharge is common and often results in an unnecessary delay in hospital discharge. This study aimed to develop and validate a preoperative prediction model to identify patients with a high likelihood of non-home discharge following pancreatoduodenectomy. Methods Patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy from 2013 to 2018 were identified using an institutional database. Patients were categorized according to discharge location (home vs. non-home). Preoperative risk factors, including social determinants of health associated with non-home discharge, were identified using Pearson’s chi-squared test and then included in a multiple logistic regression model. A training cohort composed of 80% of the sampled patients was used to create the prediction model, and validation carried out using the remaining 20%. Statistical significance was defined as P < 0.05. Results Seven hundred sixty-six pancreatoduodenectomy patients met the study criteria for inclusion in the analysis (non-home, 126; home, 640). Independent predictors of non-home discharge on multivariable analysis were age, marital status, mental health diagnosis, functional health status, dyspnea, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. The prediction model was then used to generate a nomogram to predict likelihood of non-home discharge. The training and validation cohorts demonstrated comparable performances with an identical area under the curve (0.81) and an accuracy of 84%. Conclusion A prediction model to reliably assess the likelihood of non-home discharge after pancreatoduodenectomy was developed and validated in the present study

Venous thromboembolism in critically ill COVID-19 patients receiving prophylactic or therapeutic anticoagulation: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Many aspects of care such as management of hypercoagulable state in COVID-19 patients, especially those admitted to intensive care units is challenging in the rapidly evolving pandemic of novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We seek to systematically review the available evidence regarding the anticoagulation approach to prevent venous thromboembolism (VTE) among COVID-19 patients admitted to intensive care units. Electronic databases were searched for studies reporting venous thromboembolic events in patients admitted to the intensive care unit receiving any type of anticoagulation (prophylactic or therapeutic). The pooled prevalence (and 95% confidence interval [CI]) of VTE among patients receiving anticoagulant were calculated using the random-effects model. Subgroup pooled analyses were performed with studies reported prophylactic anticoagulation alone and with studies reported mixed prophylactic and therapeutic anticoagulation. We included twelve studies (8 Europe; 2 UK; 1 each from the US and China) in our systematic review and meta-analysis. All studies utilized LMWH or unfractionated heparin as their pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis, either prophylactic doses or therapeutic doses. Seven studies reported on the proportion of patients with the previous history of VTE (range 0–10%). The pooled prevalence of VTE among ICU patients receiving prophylactic or therapeutic anticoagulation across all studies was 31% (95% CI 20–43%). Subgroup pooled analysis limited to studies reported prophylactic anticoagulation alone and mixed (therapeutic and prophylactic anticoagulation) reported pooled prevalences of VTE of 38% (95% CI 10–70%) and 27% (95% CI 17–40%) respectively. With a high prevalence of thromboprophylaxis failure among COVID-19 patients admitted to intensive care units, individualised rather than protocolised VTE thromboprophylaxis would appear prudent at interim