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

Splanchnic vein thrombosis in necrotizing pancreatitis:a post-hoc analysis of a nationwide prospective cohort

Background: Treatment guidelines for splanchnic vein thrombosis in necrotizing pancreatitis are lacking due to insufficient data on the full clinical spectrum. Methods: We performed a post-hoc analysis of a nationwide prospective necrotizing pancreatitis cohort. Multivariable analyses were used to identify risk factors and compare the clinical course of patients with and without SVT. Results: SVT was detected in 97 of the 432 included patients (22%) (median onset: 4 days). Risk factors were left, central, or subtotal necrosis (OR 28.52; 95% CI 20.11–40.45), right or diffuse necrosis (OR 5.76; 95% CI 3.89–8.51), and younger age (OR 0.94; 95% CI 0.90–0.97). Patients with SVT had higher rates of bleeding (n = 10,11%) and bowel ischemia (n = 4,4%) compared to patients without SVT (n = 14,4% and n = 2,0.6%; OR 3.24; 95% CI 1.27–8.23 and OR 7.29; 95% CI 1.31–40.4, respectively), and were independently associated with ICU admission (adjusted OR 2.53; 95% CI 1.37–4.68). Spontaneous recanalization occurred in 62% of patients (n = 40/71). Radiological and clinical outcomes did not differ between patients treated with and without anticoagulants. Discussion: SVT is a common and early complication of necrotizing pancreatitis, associated with parenchymal necrosis and younger age. SVT is associated with increased complications and a worse clinical course, whereas anticoagulant use does not appear to affect outcomes.</p

Role of endoscopic ultrasonography in the diagnostic work-up of idiopathic acute pancreatitis (PICUS):study protocol for a nationwide prospective cohort study

INTRODUCTION: Idiopathic acute pancreatitis (IAP) remains a dilemma for physicians as it is uncertain whether patients with IAP may actually have an occult aetiology. It is unclear to what extent additional diagnostic modalities such as endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) are warranted after a first episode of IAP in order to uncover this aetiology. Failure to timely determine treatable aetiologies delays appropriate treatment and might subsequently cause recurrence of acute pancreatitis. Therefore, the aim of the Pancreatitis of Idiopathic origin: Clinical added value of endoscopic UltraSonography (PICUS) Study is to determine the value of routine EUS in determining the aetiology of pancreatitis in patients with a first episode of IAP. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: PICUS is designed as a multicentre prospective cohort study of 106 patients with a first episode of IAP after complete standard diagnostic work-up, in whom a diagnostic EUS will be performed. Standard diagnostic work-up will include a complete personal and family history, laboratory tests including serum alanine aminotransferase, calcium and triglyceride levels and imaging by transabdominal ultrasound, magnetic resonance imaging or magnetic resonance cholangiopancreaticography after clinical recovery from the acute pancreatitis episode. The primary outcome measure is detection of aetiology by EUS. Secondary outcome measures include pancreatitis recurrence rate, severity of recurrent pancreatitis, readmission, additional interventions, complications, length of hospital stay, quality of life, mortality and costs, during a follow-up period of 12 months. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: PICUS is conducted according to the Declaration of Helsinki and Guideline for Good Clinical Practice. Five medical ethics review committees assessed PICUS (Medical Ethics Review Committee of Academic Medical Center, University Medical Center Utrecht, Radboud University Medical Center, Erasmus Medical Center and Maastricht University Medical Center). The results will be submitted for publication in an international peer-reviewed journal. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Netherlands Trial Registry (NL7066). Prospectively registered

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

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

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

Treatment of disrupted and disconnected pancreatic duct in necrotizing pancreatitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background: Necrotizing pancreatitis may lead to loss of integrity of the pancreatic duct, resulting in leakage of pancreatic fluid. Pancreatic duct disruption or disconnection is associated with a prolonged disease course and particular complications. Since a standard treatment for this condition is currently lacking, we performed a systematic review of the literature to compare outcomes of various treatment strategies. Methods: A systematic review was performed according to the PRISMA guidelines in the PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane databases. Included were articles considering the treatment of patients with disrupted or disconnected pancreatic duct resulting from acute necrotizing pancreatitis. Results: Overall, 21 observational cohort studies were included comprising a total of 583 relevant patients. The most frequently used treatment strategies included endoscopic transpapillary drainage, endoscopic transluminal drainage, surgical drainage or resection, or combined procedures. Pooled analysis showed success rates of 81% (95%-CI: 60–92%) for transpapillary and 92% (95%-CI: 77–98%) for transluminal drainage, 80% (95%-CI: 67–89%) for distal pancreatectomy and 84% (95%-CI: 73–91%) for cyst-jejunostomy. Success rates did not differ between surgical procedures (cyst-jejunostomy and distal pancreatectomy (risk ratio = 1.06, p = .26)) but distal pancreatectomy was associated with a higher incidence of endocrine pancreatic insufficiency (risk ratio = 3.06, p = .01). The success rate of conservative treatment is unknown. Discussion: Different treatment strategies for pancreatic duct disruption and duct disconnection after necrotizing pancreatitis show high success rates but various sources of bias in the available studies are likely. High-quality prospective, studies, including unselected patients, are needed to establish the most effective treatment in specific subgroups of patients, including timing of treatment and long-term follow-up

Various Modalities Accurate in Diagnosing a Disrupted or Disconnected Pancreatic Duct in Acute Pancreatitis: A Systematic Review

Background: Severe pancreatitis may result in a disrupted pancreatic duct, which is associated with a complicated clinical course. Diagnosis of a disrupted pancreatic duct is not standardized in clinical practice or international guidelines. We performed a systematic review of the literature on imaging modalities for diagnosing a disrupted pancreatic duct in patients with acute pancreatitis. Methods: A systematic search was performed in PubMed, Embase and Cochrane library databases to identify all studies evaluating diagnostic modalities for the diagnosis of a disrupted pancreatic duct in acute pancreatitis. All data regarding diagnostic accuracy were extracted. Results: We included 8 studies, evaluating five different diagnostic modalities in 142 patients with severe acute pancreatitis. Study quality was assessed, with proportionally divided high and low risk of bias and low applicability concerns in 75% of the studies. A sensitivity of 100% was reported for endoscopic ultrasound and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. The sensitivity of magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography with or without secretin was 83%. A sensitivity of 92% was demonstrated for a combined cohort of secretin-magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography and magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography. A sensitivity of 100% and specificity of 50% was found for amylase measurements in drain fluid compared with ERCP. Conclusions: This review suggests that various diagnostic modalities are accurate in diagnosing a disrupted pancreatic duct in patients with acute pancreatitis. Amylase measurement in drain fluid should be standardized. Given the invasive nature of other modalities, secretin-magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography or magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography would be recommended as first diagnostic modality. Further prospective studies, however, are needed

Endoscopic ultrasonography can detect a cause in the majority of patients with idiopathic acute pancreatitis:a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background Idiopathic acute pancreatitis (IAP) has a 25 % pancreatitis recurrence rate. Endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) may diagnose treatable causes of IAP and hence prevent recurrence. The goal of this systematic review with meta-analysis is to determine the diagnostic yield of EUS and its impact on recurrence. Methods PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library were systematically searched for English studies on EUS in adults with IAP. The primary outcome was diagnostic yield. Secondary outcomes included recurrence. Methodological quality was assessed using the QUADAS-2 score. Meta-analysis was performed to calculate the pooled diagnostic yield and risk ratio with 95 % confidence intervals (CI) using a random-effects model with inverse variance method. Results 22 studies were included, with 1490 IAP patients who underwent EUS. Overall diagnostic yield was 59 % (874 /1490; 95 %CI 52 % - 66 %). The most common etiologies were biliary (429 /1490; 30 %, 95 %CI 21 % - 41 %) and chronic pancreatitis (271 /1490; 12 %, 95 %CI 8 % - 19 %). In 2 % of patients, neoplasms were detected (45 /1490; 95 %CI 1 % - 4 %). There was no difference in yield between patients with or without recurrent IAP before EUS (risk ratio 0.89, 95 %CI 0.71 - 1.11). Conclusions EUS is able to identify a potential etiology in the majority of patients with IAP, detecting mostly biliary origin or chronic pancreatitis, but also neoplasms in 2 % of patients. EUS may be associated with a reduction of recurrence rate. Future studies should include complete diagnostic work-up and preferably include patients with a first episode of IAP only