Minimally invasive and endoscopic versus open necrosectomy for necrotising pancreatitis: a pooled analysis of individual data for 1980 patients

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2877488

Minimally invasive and endoscopic versus open necrosectomy for necrotising pancreatitis: a pooled analysis of individual data for 1980 patients

Minimally invasive surgical necrosectomy and endoscopic necrosectomy, compared with open necrosectomy, might improve outcomes in necrotising pancreatitis, especially in critically ill patients. Evidence from large comparative studies is lacking. We combined original and newly collected data from 15 published and unpublished patient cohorts (51 hospitals; 8 countries) on pancreatic necrosectomy for necrotising pancreatitis. Death rates were compared in patients undergoing open necrosectomy versus minimally invasive surgical or endoscopic necrosectomy. To adjust for confounding and to study effect modification by clinical severity, we performed two types of analyses: logistic multivariable regression and propensity score matching with stratification according to predicted risk of death at baseline (low: <5%; intermediate: ≥5% to <15%; high: ≥15% to  <35%; and very high: ≥35%). Among 1980 patients with necrotising pancreatitis, 1167 underwent open necrosectomy and 813 underwent minimally invasive surgical (n=467) or endoscopic (n=346) necrosectomy. There was a lower risk of death for minimally invasive surgical necrosectomy (OR, 0.53; 95% CI 0.34 to 0.84; p=0.006) and endoscopic necrosectomy (OR, 0.20; 95% CI 0.06 to 0.63; p=0.006). After propensity score matching with risk stratification, minimally invasive surgical necrosectomy remained associated with a lower risk of death than open necrosectomy in the very high-risk group (42/111 vs 59/111; risk ratio, 0.70; 95% CI 0.52 to 0.95; p=0.02). Endoscopic necrosectomy was associated with a lower risk of death than open necrosectomy in the high-risk group (3/40 vs 12/40; risk ratio, 0.27; 95% CI 0.08 to 0.88; p=0.03) and in the very high-risk group (12/57 vs 28/57; risk ratio, 0.43; 95% CI 0.24 to 0.77; p=0.005). In high-risk patients with necrotising pancreatitis, minimally invasive surgical and endoscopic necrosectomy are associated with reduced death rates compared with open necrosectom

Minimally invasive intervention for infected necrosis in acute pancreatitis

Infected necrosis is the main indication for invasive intervention in acute necrotizing pancreatitis. The 2013 IAP/APA guidelines state that percutaneous catheter drainage should be the first step in the treatment of infected necrosis. In 50-65% of patients, additional necrosectomy is required after catheter drainage, which was traditionally done by open necrosectomy. Driven by the perceived lower complication rate, there is an increasing trend toward minimally invasive percutaneous and endoscopic transluminal necrosectomy. The authors present an overview of current minimally invasive treatment options for necrotizing pancreatitis and review recent developments in clinical studie

Predicting success of catheter drainage in infected necrotizing pancreatitis

Introduction: At least 30% of patients with infected necrotizing pancreatitis are successfully treated with catheter drainage alone. It is currently not possible to predict which patients also need necrosectomy. We evaluated predictive factors for successful catheter drainage. Methods: This was a post hoc analysis of 130 prospectively included patients undergoing catheter drainage for (suspected) infected necrotizing pancreatitis. Using logistic regression, we evaluated the association between success of catheter drainage (ie, survival without necrosectomy) and 22 factors regarding demographics, disease severity (eg, Acute Physiology And Chronic Health Evaluation II score, organ failure), and morphologic characteristics on computed tomography (eg, percentage of necrosis). Results: Catheter drainage was performed percutaneously in 113 patients and endoscopically in 17 patients. Infected necrosis was confirmed in 116 patients (89%). Catheter drainage was successful in 45 patients (35%). In multivariable regression, the following factors were associated with a reduced chance of success: male sex [odds ratio (OR) = 0.27; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.09–0.55; P 50%: OR = 0.54; 95% CI: 0.30–0.96; P = 0.03), and heterogeneous collection (OR = 0.21; 95% CI: 0.06–0.67; P < 0.01). A prediction model incorporating these factors demonstrated an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.76. A prognostic nomogram yielded success probability of catheter drainage from 2% to 91%. Conclusions: Male sex, multiple organ failure, increasing percentage of pancreatic necrosis and heterogeneity of the collection are negative predictors for success of catheter drainage in infected necrotizing pancreatitis. The constructed nomogram can guide prognostication in clinical practice and risk stratification in clinical studies

Superiority of Step-up Approach vs Open Necrosectomy in Long-term Follow-up of Patients With Necrotizing Pancreatitis

Item does not contain fulltex

Optimal timing of cholecystectomy after necrotising biliary pancreatitis

Following an episode of acute biliary pancreatitis, cholecystectomy is advised to prevent recurrent biliary events. There is limited evidence regarding the optimal timing and safety of cholecystectomy in patients with necrotising biliary pancreatitis. Design: A post hoc analysis of a multicentre prospective cohort. Patients with biliary pancreatitis and a CT severity score of three or more were included in 27 Dutch hospitals between 2005 and 2014. Primary outcome was the optimal timing of cholecystectomy in patients with necrotising biliary pancreatitis, defined as: the optimal point in time with the lowest risk of recurrent biliary events and the lowest risk of complications of cholecystectomy. Secondary outcomes were the number of recurrent biliary events, periprocedural complications of cholecystectomy and the protective value of endoscopic sphincterotomy for the recurrence of biliary events. Results: Overall, 248 patients were included in the analysis. Cholecystectomy was performed in 191 patients (77%) at a median of 103 days (P25-P75: 46-222) after discharge. Infected necrosis after cholecystectomy occurred in four (2%) patients with persistent peripancreatic collections. Before cholecystectomy, 66 patients (27%) developed biliary events. The risk of overall recurrent biliary events prior to cholecystectomy was significantly lower before 10 weeks after discharge (risk ratio 0.49 (95% CI 0.27 to 0.90); p=0.02). The risk of recurrent pancreatitis before cholecystectomy was significantly lower before 8 weeks after discharge (risk ratio 0.14 (95% CI 0.02 to 1.0); p=0.02). The complication rate of cholecystectomy did not decrease over time. Endoscopic sphincterotomy did not reduce the risk of recurrent biliary events (OR 1.40 (95% CI 0.74 to 2.83)). Conclusion: The optimal timing of cholecystectomy after necrotising biliary pancreatitis, in the absence of peripancreatic collections, is within 8 weeks after discharge

Patient selection for urgent endoscopic retrograde cholangio-pancreatography by endoscopic ultrasound in predicted severe acute biliary pancreatitis (APEC-2):A multicentre prospective study

Objective: Routine urgent endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) with endoscopic biliary sphincterotomy (ES) does not improve outcome in patients with predicted severe acute biliary pancreatitis. Improved patient selection for ERCP by means of endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) for stone/sludge detection may challenge these findings. Design: A multicentre, prospective cohort study included patients with predicted severe acute biliary pancreatitis without cholangitis. Patients underwent urgent EUS, followed by ERCP with ES in case of common bile duct stones/sludge, within 24 hours after hospital presentation and within 72 hours after symptom onset. The primary endpoint was a composite of major complications or mortality within 6 months after inclusion. The historical control group was the conservative treatment arm (n=113) of the randomised APEC trial (Acute biliary Pancreatitis: urgent ERCP with sphincterotomy versus conservative treatment, patient inclusion 2013-2017) applying the same study design. Results: Overall, 83 patients underwent urgent EUS at a median of 21 hours (IQR 17-23) after hospital presentation and at a median of 29 hours (IQR 23-41) after start of symptoms. Gallstones/sludge in the bile ducts were detected by EUS in 48/83 patients (58%), all of whom underwent immediate ERCP with ES. The primary endpoint occurred in 34/83 patients (41%) in the urgent EUS-guided ERCP group. This was not different from the 44% rate (50/113 patients) in the historical conservative treatment group (risk ratio (RR) 0.93, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.29; p=0.65). Sensitivity analysis to correct for baseline differences using a logistic regression model also showed no significant beneficial effect of the intervention on the primary outcome (adjusted OR 1.03, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.90, p=0.92). Conclusion: In patients with predicted severe acute biliary pancreatitis without cholangitis, urgent EUS-guided ERCP with ES did not reduce the composite endpoint of major complications or mortality, as compared with conservative treatment in a historical control group. Trial registration number: ISRCTN15545919.</p

Superiority of Step-up Approach vs Open Necrosectomy in Long-term Follow-up of Patients With Necrotizing Pancreatitis

Background & Aims: In a 2010 randomized trial (the PANTER trial), a surgical step-up approach for infected necrotizing pancreatitis was found to reduce the composite endpoint of death or major complications compared with open necrosectomy; 35% of patients were successfully treated with simple catheter drainage only. There is concern, however, that minimally invasive treatment increases the need for reinterventions for residual peripancreatic necrotic collections and other complications during the long term. We therefore performed a long-term follow-up study. Methods: We reevaluated all the 73 patients (of the 88 patients randomly assigned to groups) who were still alive after the index admission, at a mean 86 months (±11 months) of follow-up. We collected data on all clinical and health care resource utilization endpoints through this follow-up period. The primary endpoint was death or major complications (the same as for the PANTER trial). We also measured exocrine insufficiency, quality of life (using the Short Form-36 and EuroQol 5 dimensions forms), and Izbicki pain scores. Results: From index admission to long-term follow-up, 19 patients (44%) died or had major complications in the step-up group compared with 33 patients (73%) in the open-necrosectomy group (P =.005). Significantly lower proportions of patients in the step-up group had incisional hernias (23% vs 53%; P =.004), pancreatic exocrine insufficiency (29% vs 56%; P =.03), or endocrine insufficiency (40% vs 64%; P =.05). There were no significant differences between groups in proportions of patients requiring additional drainage procedures (11% vs 13%; P =.99) or pancreatic surgery (11% vs 5%; P =.43), or in recurrent acute pancreatitis, chronic pancreatitis, Izbicki pain scores, or medical costs. Quality of life increased during follow-up without a significant difference between groups. Conclusions: In an analysis of long-term outcomes of trial participants, we found the step-up approach for necrotizing pancreatitis to be superior to open necrosectomy, without increased risk of reinterventions

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