No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the authors.
Endoscopic or minimally invasive surgical approach for infected necrotizing pancreatitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Background/Aims
Acute pancreatitis is a common condition of the digestive system, but sometimes it develops into severe cases. In about 10–20% of patients, necrosis of the pancreas or its periphery occurs. Although most have aseptic necrosis, 30% of cases will develop infectious necrotizing pancreatitis. Infected necrotizing pancreatitis (INP) requires a critical treatment approach. Minimally invasive surgical approach (MIS) and endoscopy are the management methods. This meta-analysis compares the outcomes of MIS and endoscopic treatments.
Methods
We searched a medical database until December 2022 to compare the results of endoscopic and MIS procedures for INP. We selected eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that reported treatment complications for the meta-analysis.
Results
Five RCTs comparing a total of 284 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Among them, 139 patients underwent MIS, while 145 underwent endoscopic procedures. The results showed significant differences (p < 0.05) in the risk ratios (RRs) for major complications (RR: 0.69, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.49–0.97), new onset of organ failure (RR: 0.29, 95% CI: 0.11–0.82), surgical site infection (RR: 0.26, 95% CI: 0.07–0.92), fistula or perforation (RR: 0.27, 95% CI: 0.12–0.64), and pancreatic fistula (RR: 0.14, 95% CI: 0.05–0.45). The hospital stay was significantly shorter for the endoscopic group compared to the MIS group, with a mean difference of 6.74 days (95% CI: −12.94 to −0.54). There were no significant differences (p > 0.05) in the RR for death, bleeding, incisional hernia, percutaneous drainage, pancreatic endocrine deficiency, pancreatic exocrine deficiency, or the need for enzyme use.
Conclusions
Endoscopic management of INP performs better compared to surgical treatment due to its lower complication rate and higher patient life quality.
Infected pancreatic or peripancreatic necrosis is traditionally an indication for a therapeutic intervention. Since the first description of EUS-guided lavage (Baron et al. Gastroenterology 111:755–764, 1996) and open retroperitoneal endoscopic debridement (Seifert et al. Lancet 356:653–655, 2000) for complicated necrotizing pancreatitis more than 20 years ago, minimally invasive therapy has become standard worldwide. After open surgery was defended by expert groups still in 2005 (Werner et al. Scand J Surg 94(2):130–134, 2005; Gut 54(3):426–436, 2005), minimally invasive surgery nowadays is the only acceptable surgical approach to infected necroses that can be reasonably compared to transmural endoscopic therapy (Hollemans et al. Gastroenterology 156:1016–1026, 2019). Several studies (van Brunschot et al. Gut 67(4):697–706, 2018; Bakker et al. JAMA 307(10):1053–1061, 2012; Khreiss, J Gastrointest Surg 19(8):1441–1448, 2015; van Brunschot et al. Lancet 391(10115):51–58, 2018; Kumar et al. Pancreas 43(8):1334–1339, 2014; Bang et al. Gastroenterology 156(4):1027–1040, 2019) and meta-analyses (Hu et al. Rev Esp Enferm Dig 111(6):471–480, 2019; Khan et al. J Clin Gastroenterol 53(2):81–88, 2019; Bang et al. Dig Endosc 32(3):298–308, 2020) have proved that the endoscopic transluminal approach is superior to minimally invasive surgery. While there was no benefit in mortality, endoscopic therapy was associated with less organ failure and fistula formation as well as shorter hospital stay. In recent years, self-expanding metal stents (SEMS) in various forms specially adapted to the transmural procedure as “lumen-apposing metal stents” (LAMS) have facilitated endoscopic retroperitoneal access for repeated interventions (Binmoeller and Shah. Endoscopy. 44(5):499–503, 2012; Itoi et al. Gastrointest Endosc 75(4):870–876, 2012). In addition, the dilated pancreatic duct is now accessible for transgastromural endoscopic diagnosis and therapy.
Abstract
Purpose
The main goal of this systematic review was to assess the technical and clinical success, adverse events (AEs), surgery, and overall mortality proportion after percutaneous catheter drainage (PCD) of two pancreatic lesions.
Methods
An extant search in online databases including Scopus, PubMed (Medline), Embase (Elsevier), Web of Science, Cochrane library, and Google Scholar, was conducted to recognize all studies that used PCD intervention in the management of pancreatic necrosis (PN) and pancreatic pseudocysts (PP). Random effects meta-analysis was performed, and Cochrane’s Q test and I2 statistic were utilized to determine heterogeneity. In addition, meta-regression was used to explore the influence of categorical variables on heterogeneity.
Results
Thirty-two studies (1398 patients) including PN in 26 (1256 cases, 89.8%) studies and PP in 6 (142 cases, 10.2%) studies were identified. Technical success proportion was 100% (95% confidence interval [CI] 100%-100%, I2: 0.0%), clinical success 63% (95% CI 55%-71%, I2: 92.9%), AEs 26% (95% CI 21%-31%, I2: 78%), surgery after PCD intervention 33% (95% CI 25%-40%, I2: 92.4%), and overall mortality was 13% (95% CI 9%-17%, I2: 82.8%). The most common ADs after PCD intervention were development of fistula (106, 42.6%), hemorrhage (44, 17.7%), sepsis (40, 16.1%).
Conclusion
A significant clinical success proportion with low AEs, surgery, and overall mortality proportion after PCD intervention was found, although the results should be interpreted with caution due to the high heterogeneity.
Keywords
Percutaneous Catheter Drainage
Image-guided Procedure
Pancreatic Necrosis
Pancreatic Pseudocysts
Pancreatitis, Acute Necrotizing
Background
Infection is one of the important causes of death in patients with severe acute pancreatitis (SAP), but the bacterial spectrum and antibiotic resistance are constantly changing. Making good use of antibiotics and controlling multi-drug-resistant (MDR) bacterial infections are of vital importance in improving the cure rate of SAP. We conducted a retrospective study in the hope of providing references for antibiotic selection and control of drug-resistant bacteria.
Methods
Retrospective analysis was performed on the data of patients hospitalized in our hospital due to acute pancreatitis (AP) in the past 5 years. General data were classified and statistically analyzed. Subsequently, the bacterial spectrum characteristics and the data related to drug-resistant bacterial infection of 569 AP patients were analyzed. Finally, unconditional logistic regression analysis was conducted to analyze the risk factors of MDR infection.
Results
A total of 398 patients were enrolled in this study and the hospitalization data and associated results were analyzed. A total of 461 strains of pathogenic bacteria were detected, including 223 (48.4%) gram-negative bacterial strains, 190 (41.2%) gram-positive bacterial strains and 48 (10.4%) fungal strains. The detection rates of resistance in gram-negative and gram-positive bacterial strains were 48.0% (107/223) and 25.3% (48/190), respectively. There were significant differences between the MDR group and the non-MDR group for the factors of precautionary antibiotic use, kinds of antibiotics used, receipt of carbapenem, tracheal intubation, hemofiltration and number of hospitalization days in the intensive care unit. Unconditional logistic regression revealed 2 risk factors for MDR bacterial infection.
Conclusions
Our results illustrate that gram-negative bacteria were the most common pathogens in SAP infection, and the proportion of gram-positive bacteria increased notably. The rate of antibiotic resistance was higher than previously reported. Unconditional logistic regression analysis showed that using more types of antibiotics and the number of hospitalization days in the ICU were the risk factors associated with MDR bacterial infection.
Background: Infection is one of the important causes of death in patients with severe acute pancreatitis (SAP) , but the bacterial spectrum and antibiotic resistance are constantly changing. Making good use of antibiotics and controlling multi-drug-resistant (MDR) bacterial infections are of vital importance in improving the cure rate of SAP. We conducted a retrospective study in the hope of providing references for antibiotic selection and control of drug-resistant bacteria.
Methods: Retrospective analysis was performed on the data of patients hospitalized in our hospital due to acute pancreatitis (AP) in the past 5 years. General data were classified and statistically analyzed. Subsequently, the bacterial spectrum characteristics and the data related to drug-resistant bacterial infection of 569 AP patients were analyzed. Finally, unconditional logistic regression analysis was conducted to analyze the risk factors of MDR infection.
Results: A total of 398 patients were enrolled in this study and the hospitalization data and associated results were analyzed. A total of 461 strains of pathogenic bacteria were detected, including 223 (48.4%) gram-negative bacterial strains, 190 (41.2%) gram-positive bacterial strains and 48 (10.4%) fungal strains. The detection rates of resistance in gram-negative and gram-positive bacterial strains were 48.0% (107/223) and 25.3% (48/190), respectively. There were significant differences between the MDR group and the non-MDR group for the factors of precautionary antibiotic use, kinds of antibiotics used, receipt of carbapenem, tracheal intubation, hemofiltration and number of hospitalization days in the intensive care unit. Unconditional logistic regression revealed 2 risk factors for MDR bacterial infection.
Conclusions: Our results illustrate that gram-negative bacteria were the most common pathogens in SAP infection, and the proportion of gram-positive bacteria increased notably. The rate of antibiotic resistance was higher than previously reported. Unconditional logistic regression analysis showed that using more types of antibiotics and the number of hospitalization days in the ICU were the risk factors associated with MDR bacterial infection.
Background and aim:
Infected necrotizing pancreatitis is a highly morbid disease managed by minimally invasive surgical (MIS) or endoscopy-based interventions. This meta-analysis compared the clinical outcomes of patients treated using either approach.
Methods:
MEDLINE and EMBASE databases were searched to identify all randomized trials that compared MIS and endoscopy-based interventions for treatment of infected necrotizing pancreatitis. Main outcome measure was to compare rates of complications or death during 6-month follow-up.
Results:
Three studies involving 184 patients met inclusion criteria. While there was no significant difference in mortality (14.5 vs. 16.1%, risk ratio (RR) 1.02, p=0.963), new onset multiple organ failure (5.2 vs. 19.7%, RR=0.34, p=0.045), enterocutaneous fistula/perforation (3.6 vs. 17.9%, RR=0.34, p=0.034) and pancreatic fistula (4.2 vs. 38.2%, RR=0.13, p<0.001) were significantly lower for endoscopic interventions compared to MIS. There was no significant difference in intraabdominal bleeding, endocrine or exocrine pancreatic insufficiency between cohorts. Length of hospital stay was significantly shorter for endoscopy (standardized mean difference, -0.41, p=0.010).
Conclusions:
An endoscopy-based treatment approach, as compared to minimally invasive surgery, significantly reduces complications in patients with infected necrotizing pancreatitis. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
Background:
/Aims: Idiopathic acute pancreatitis (IAP) poses a diagnostic challenge for gastroenterologists, as confirmation of the disease etiology has important implications for the selection of the best possible treatment and the prevention of possible recurrence or the development of chronic pancreatitis. ERCP, EUS, and magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) are typically used to diagnose IAP when conventional radiological methods fail. However, their exact role in the diagnosis of IAP has not yet been determined.
Methods:
We searched the PubMed, EMBASE, OVID, Cochrane Library (including CENTRAL), CNKI and Wanfang databases from inception to April 2017. Studies involving the use of EUS and/or MRCP for the etiological diagnosis of IAP were included. A meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager Version 5.2 for comparative studies and R software 3.3.3 to determine diagnostic yield of the studies.
Results:
Among the 34 studies that met the inclusion criteria (n = 2338, seven studies used a combination of EUS and MRCP and included 249 patients. The results comparing EUS with MRCP showed a diagnostic yield of 153 of the 239 patients (64%) in the EUS group, which was higher than the yield of 82 of 238 patients (34%) in the MRCP group (P < 0.001) in the seven studies, and the diagnostic yield was 60% in the EUS group, 24% in the MRCP group, and 43% in the MRCP after secretin stimulation (S-MRCP) group. In our subgroup analysis of chronic pancreatitis and biliary disease, EUS was superior to MRCP (P < 0.001), but when comparing the efficacy of the modalities in the diagnosis of pancreatic divisum, S-MRCP was obviously superior to MRCP and EUS (12% vs 2% vs 2%).
Conclusions:
EUS and MRCP should both be used in the diagnostic work-up of Idiopathic acute pancreatitis (IAP) as complementary techniques. EUS had a higher diagnostic accuracy than MRCP (64% vs 34%) in the etiological diagnosis of IAP, and should be preferred for establishing a possible biliary disease and chronic pancreatitis diagnosis, whereas S-MRCP was superior to EUS and MRCP in diagnosing a possible anatomical alteration in the biliopancreatic ductal system, such as pancreatic divisum.
AIM
To determine percentage of patients of necrotizing pancreatitis (NP) requiring intervention and the types of interventions performed. Outcomes of patients of step up necrosectomy to those of direct necrosectomy were compared. Operative mortality, overall mortality, morbidity and overall length of stay were determined.
METHODS
After institutional ethics committee clearance and waiver of consent, records of patients of pancreatitis were reviewed. After excluding patients as per criteria, epidemiologic and clinical data of patients of NP was noted. Treatment protocol was reviewed. Data of patients in whom step-up approach was used was compared to those in whom it was not used.
RESULTS
A total of 41 interventions were required in 39% patients. About 60% interventions targeted the pancreatic necrosis while the rest were required to deal with the complications of the necrosis. Image guided percutaneous catheter drainage was done in 9 patients for infected necrosis all of whom required further necrosectomy and in 3 patients with sterile necrosis. Direct retroperitoneal or anterior necrosectomy was performed in 15 patients. The average time to first intervention was 19.6 d in the non step-up group (range 11-36) vs 18.22 d in the Step-up group (range 13-25). The average hospital stay in non step-up group was 33.3 d vs 38 d in step up group. The mortality in the step-up group was 0% (0/9) vs 13% (2/15) in the non step up group. Overall mortality was 10.3% while post-operative mortality was 8.3%. Average hospital stay was 22.25 d.
CONCLUSION
Early conservative management plays an important role in management of NP. In patients who require intervention, the approach used and the timing of intervention should be based upon the clinical condition and local expertise available. Delaying intervention and use of minimal invasive means when intervention is necessary is desirable. The step-up approach should be used whenever possible. Even when the classical retroperitoneal catheter drainage is not feasible, there should be an attempt to follow principles of step-up technique to buy time. The outcome of patients in the step-up group compared to the non step-up group is comparable in our series. Interventions for bowel diversion, bypass and hemorrhage control should be done at the appropriate times.
Acute pancreatitis is one of the most common GI conditions requiring acute hospitalisation and has a rising incidence. In recent years, important insights on the management of acute pancreatitis have been obtained through numerous randomised controlled trials. Based on this evidence, the treatment of acute pancreatitis has gradually developed towards a tailored, multidisciplinary effort, with distinctive roles for gastroenterologists, radiologists and surgeons. This review summarises how to diagnose, classify and manage patients with acute pancreatitis, emphasising the evidence obtained through randomised controlled trials.
Acute necrotizing pancreatitis accounts for 10% of acute pancreatitis (AP) cases and is associated with a higher mortality and morbidity. Necrosis within the first 4 weeks of disease onset is defined as an acute necrotic collection (ANC), while walled off pancreatic necrosis (WOPN) develops after 4 weeks of disease onset. An infected or symptomatic WOPN requires drainage. The management of pancreatic necrosis has shifted away from open necrosectomy, as it is associated with a high morbidity, to less invasive techniques. In this review, we summarize the current management and therapies for acute necrotizing pancreatitis.
Severe acute pancreatitis is often complicated by the development of pancreatic fluid collections (PFCs), which may be associated with significant morbidity and mortality. It is crucial to accurately classify these collections as a pseudocyst or walled-off necrosis (WON) given significant differences in outcomes and management. Interventions for PFCs have increasingly shifted to less invasive strategies, with endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided methods being shown to be safer and equally effective as more invasive surgical techniques. In recent years, many new developments have improved the safety and efficacy of EUS-guided interventions, such as the introduction of lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMS), direct endoscopic necrosectomy (DEN) and multiple other adjunctive techniques. Despite these developments, treatment of PFCs, and infected WON in particular, continues to be associated with significant morbidity and mortality. In this article, we discuss the EUS-guided management of PFCs while reviewing the latest developments and controversies in the field. We end by summarizing our own approach to managing PFCs.
Walled-off necrosis (WON) is a relatively new term for encapsulated necrotic tissue after severe acute pancreatitis. Various terminologies such as pseudocyst, necroma, pancreatic abscess and infected necrosis were previously used in the literature, resulting in confusion. The current and past terminologies must be reconciled to meaningfully interpret past data. Recently, endoscopic necrosectomy was introduced as a treatment option and is now preferred over surgical necrosectomy when the expertise is available. However, high-quality evidence is still lacking, and there is no standard management strategy for WON. The consensus meeting aimed to clarify the diagnostic criteria for WON and the role of endoscopic interventions in its management. In the Consensus Conference, 25 experts from 8 Asian countries took an active role and examined key clinical aspects of WON diagnosis and endoscopic management. Statements were crafted based on literature review and expert opinion, employing the modified Delphi method. All statements were substantiated by the level of evidence and the strength of the recommendation. We created 27 consensus statements for WON diagnosis and management, including details of endoscopic procedures. When there was not enough solid evidence to support the statements, this was clearly acknowledged to facilitate future research. Proposed management strategies were formulated and are illustrated using flow charts. These recommendations, which are based on the best current scientific evidence and expert opinion, will be useful for guiding endoscopic management of WON. Part 1 of this statement focused on the epidemiology, diagnosis and timing of intervention.
Objectives:
Population-based data on the risk of diabetes mellitus onset after acute pancreatitis (AP) are lacking. We assessed the incidence of diabetes in AP survivors compared with matched controls.
Methods:
The study cohort, drawn from Taiwan National Health Insurance claims data, included 2,966 first-attack AP patients and 11,864 non-AP general controls individually matched on age and sex, with an AP/non-AP ratio of 1:4. Incidence rate was estimated under Poisson assumption. Relative risks of diabetes were indicated by hazard ratios (HRs) estimated from Cox proportional hazard regression models with a partitioning of time at 3 months to account for proportionality.
Results:
In the first partition of time (<3 months), the incidences of diabetes were 60.8 and 8.0 per 1,000 person-years in AP and control groups, respectively; representing a covariate-adjusted HR of 5.90 (95% confidence interval (CI) 3.37-10.34). In the second partition (≥3 months), the incidences of diabetes were 22.5 and 6.7 per 1,000 person-years in AP and control groups, respectively (adjusted HR 2.54, 95% CI 2.13-3.04). In the second partition, the risk of diabetes was greater in men than in women (HR 3.21 vs. 1.58, P=0.0004). When the analyses were stratified by severity of AP, the results for mild AP were similar to those for all AP.
Conclusions:
The risk of diabetes increases by twofold after AP; therefore, a long-term screening is necessary to evaluate diabetes after an attack regardless of severity. Further research should be conducted to develop cost-effective follow-up strategies, and to elucidate the underlying mechanisms of the relationship between diabetes and AP.Am J Gastroenterol advance online publication, 3 November 2015; doi:10.1038/ajg.2015.356.
In the last decades, the treatment of pancreatic pseudocysts and necrosis occurring in the clinical context of acute and chronic pancreatitis has shifted towards minimally invasive endoscopic interventions. Surgical procedures can be avoided in many cases by using endoscopically placed, Endoscopic ultrasonography-guided techniques and drainages. Endoscopic ultrasound enables the placement of transmural plastic and metal stents or nasocystic tubes for the drainage of peripancreatic fluid collections. The development of self-expanding metal stents and exchange free delivering systems have simplified the drainage of pancreatic fluid collections. This review will discuss available therapeutic techniques and new developments.
Necrotizing pancreatitis is an uncommon yet serious complication of acute pancreatitis with mortality rates reported up to 15% that reach 30% in case of infection. Traditionally open surgical debridement was the only tool in our disposal to manage this serious clinical entity. This approach is however associated with poor outcomes. Management has now shifted away from open surgical debridement to a more conservative management and minimally invasive approaches. Contemporary approach to patients with necrotizing pancreatitis and/or infectious pancreatitis is summarized in the 3Ds: Delay, Drain and Debride. Patients can be managed in the intensive care unit and any intervention should be delayed. Percutaneous drainage can be utilized first and early in the course of the disease, followed by endoscopic drainage or video assisted retroperitoneoscopic drainage if necrosectomy is deemed necessary. Open surgery is now less frequently performed and should be reserved for cases refractory to any other approach. The management of necrotizing pancreatitis therefore requires a multidisciplinary dynamic model of approach rather than being a surgical disease.
To explore the effect of retroperitoneal laparoscopic debridement and drainage on infected necrosis in severe acute pancreatitis.
This retrospective study included 18 patients with severe acute pancreatitis (SAP) undergoing retroperitoneal laparoscopic debridement and drainage from May 2006 to April 2012 in our hospital. All patients had infected retroperitoneal necrosis and single or multiple peritoneal abscesses. Eleven patients transferred to our hospital were treated with the retroperitoneal laparoscopic debridement and drainage within 24-72 hours after admission. Conservative treatments were given to eight patients. Retroperitoneal laparoscopic debridement and drainage were applied 3-11 days after admission.
All patients had infection of necrotic pancreas or peripancreatic tissues. Twelve patients had organ failure. Three patients underwent secondary surgery. Laparotomy with debridement and drainage were applied to one patient who had a huge lesser sac abscess 7 days after first surgery. The other two patients were given secondary retroperitoneal laparoscopic debridement and drainage. One case was complicated by retroperitoneal hemorrhage, four cases had pancreatic leakage, and no intestinal fistula was found. The patients' heart rate, respiration, temperature, and white blood cell count were significantly improved 48 hours after surgery compared with those prior to surgery (p<0.05). The average length of stay in hospitals was 40.8 days (range, 6-121 days), and the drainage tube indwelling time was 44.4 days (range, 2-182 days).
Retroperitoneal laparoscopic debridement and drainage is an SAP surgical treatment with a minimally invasive procedure and a good effect, and can be applied for infected retroperitoneal necrosis in early SAP.
Background: Necrotizing pancreatitis with infected necrotic tissue is associated with a high rate of complications and death. Standard treatment is open necrosectomy. The outcome may be improved by a minimally invasive step-up approach. Methods: In this multicenter study, we randomly assigned 88 patients with necrotizing pancreatitis and suspected or confirmed infected necrotic tissue to undergo primary open necrosectomy or a step-up approach to treatment. The step-up approach consisted of percutaneous drainage followed, if necessary, by minimally invasive retroperitoneal necrosectomy. The primary end point was a composite of major complications (new-onset multiple-organ failure or multiple systemic complications, perforation of a visceral organ or enterocutaneous fistula, or bleeding) or death. Results: The primary end point occurred in 31 of 45 patients (69%) assigned to open necrosectomy and in 17 of 43 patients (40%) assigned to the step-up approach (risk ratio with the step-up approach, 0.57; 95% confidence interval, 0.38 to 0.87; P = 0.006). Of the patients assigned to the step-up approach, 35% were treated with percutaneous drainage only. New-onset multiple-organ failure occurred less often in patients assigned to the step-up approach than in those assigned to open necrosectomy (12% vs. 40%, P = 0.002). The rate of death did not differ significantly between groups (19% vs. 16%, P = 0.70). Patients assigned to the step-up approach had a lower rate of incisional hernias (7% vs. 24%, P = 0.03) and new-onset diabetes (16% vs. 38%, P = 0.02). Conclusions: A minimally invasive step-up approach, as compared with open necrosectomy, reduced the rate of the composite end point of major complications or death among patients with necrotizing pancreatitis and infected necrotic tissue. (Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN13975868.). Copyright
Throughout much of history, surgery of the pancreas was restricted to drainage of abscesses and treatment of traumatic wounds. At the turn of the 20th century under the impetus of anesthesia, such surgical stalwarts as Mayo Robson, Mickulicz, and Moynihan began to deploy laparotomy and gauze drainage in an effort to salvage patients afflicted with severe acute pancreatitis (SAP). Over the next thirty years, surgical intervention in SAP became the therapy for choice, despite surgical mortality rates that often exceeded 50%.When the discovery of the serum test for amylase revealed that clinically milder forms of acute pancreatitis existed that could respond to nonoperative therapy, a wave of conservatism emerged, and, for the next quarter century, surgical intervention for SAP was rarely practiced. However, by the 1960s, conservative mortality rates for SAP were reported to be as high as 60% to 80%, leading surgeons to not only refine the indications for surgery in SAP, but also to consider new approaches. Extensive pancreatic resections for SAP became the vogue in continental surgical centers in the 1960s and 1970s, but often resulted in high mortality rates and inadvertent removal of viable tissue.Accurate diagnosis of pancreatic necrosis by dynamic CT led to new approaches for management. Some surgeons recommended restricting intervention to those with documented infected necrosis, and proposed delayed exploration employing sequestrectomy and open-packing. Others advocated debridement early in the course of the disease for all patients with necrotizing pancreatitis, regardless of the status of infection. In the 1990s, however, a series of prospective studies emerged proving that nonoperative management of patients with sterile pancreatic necrosis was superior to surgical intervention, and that delayed intervention provided improved surgical mortality rates.The surgical odyssey in managing the necrotizing form of SAP, from simple drainage, to resection, to debridement, to sequestrectomy, although somewhat tortuous, is nevertheless an notable example of how evidence-based knowledge leads to improvement in patient care. Today's 10% to 20% surgical mortality rates reflect not only considerable advances in surgical management, but also highlight concomitant improvements in fluid therapy, antibiotics, and intensive care. Although history documents the important contributions that surgical practitioners have made to acute pancreatitis and its complications, surgeons are rarely complacent, and the recent emergence of minimally invasive techniques holds future promise for patients afflicted with this "... most formidable of catastrophes."
Evidence based medicine insists on rigorous standards to appraise clinical interventions. Failure to apply the same rules to its own tools could be equally damaging
The advent of evidence based medicine has generated considerable interest in developing and applying methods that can improve the appraisal and synthesis of data from diverse studies. Some methods have become an integral part of systematic reviews and meta-analyses, with reviewers, editors, instructional handbooks, and guidelines encouraging their routine inclusion. However, the evidence for using these methods is sometimes lacking, as the reliance on funnel plots shows.
The funnel plot is a scatter plot of the component studies in a meta-analysis, with the treatment effect on the horizontal axis and some measure of weight, such as the inverse variance, the standard error, or the sample size, on the vertical axis. Light and Pillemer proposed in 1984: “If all studies come from a single underlying population, this graph should look like a funnel, with the effect sizes homing in on the true underlying value as n increases. [If there is publication bias] there should be a bite out of the funnel.”1 Many meta-analyses show funnel plots or perform various tests that examine whether there is asymmetry in the funnel plot and directly interpret the results as showing evidence for or against the presence of publication bias.
The plot's wide popularity followed an article published in the BMJ in 1997.2 That pivotal article has already received over 800 citations (as of December 2005) in the Web of Science. With two exceptions, this is more citations than for any other paper published by the BMJ in the past decade. The authors were careful to state many reasons why funnel plot asymmetry may not necessarily reflect publication bias. However, apparently many readers did not go beyond the …
The American Journal of Gastroenterology is published by Nature Publishing Group (NPG) on behalf of the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG). Ranked the #1 clinical journal covering gastroenterology and hepatology*, The American Journal of Gastroenterology (AJG) provides practical and professional support for clinicians dealing with the gastroenterological disorders seen most often in patients. Published with practicing clinicians in mind, the journal aims to be easily accessible, organizing its content by topic, both online and in print. www.amjgastro.com, *2007 Journal Citation Report (Thomson Reuters, 2008)
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.
Background:
Infected necrotising pancreatitis is a potentially lethal disease and an indication for invasive intervention. The surgical step-up approach is the standard treatment. A promising alternative is the endoscopic step-up approach. We compared both approaches to see whether the endoscopic step-up approach was superior to the surgical step-up approach in terms of clinical and economic outcomes.
Methods:
In this multicentre, randomised, superiority trial, we recruited adult patients with infected necrotising pancreatitis and an indication for invasive intervention from 19 hospitals in the Netherlands. Patients were randomly assigned to either the endoscopic or the surgical step-up approach. The endoscopic approach consisted of endoscopic ultrasound-guided transluminal drainage followed, if necessary, by endoscopic necrosectomy. The surgical approach consisted of percutaneous catheter drainage followed, if necessary, by video-assisted retroperitoneal debridement. The primary endpoint was a composite of major complications or death during 6-month follow-up. Analyses were by intention to treat. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN09186711.
Findings:
Between Sept 20, 2011, and Jan 29, 2015, we screened 418 patients with pancreatic or extrapancreatic necrosis, of which 98 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to the endoscopic step-up approach (n=51) or the surgical step-up approach (n=47). The primary endpoint occurred in 22 (43%) of 51 patients in the endoscopy group and in 21 (45%) of 47 patients in the surgery group (risk ratio [RR] 0·97, 95% CI 0·62-1·51; p=0·88). Mortality did not differ between groups (nine [18%] patients in the endoscopy group vs six [13%] patients in the surgery group; RR 1·38, 95% CI 0·53-3·59, p=0·50), nor did any of the major complications included in the primary endpoint.
Interpretation:
In patients with infected necrotising pancreatitis, the endoscopic step-up approach was not superior to the surgical step-up approach in reducing major complications or death. The rate of pancreatic fistulas and length of hospital stay were lower in the endoscopy group. The outcome of this trial will probably result in a shift to the endoscopic step-up approach as treatment preference.
Funding:
The Dutch Digestive Disease Foundation, Fonds NutsOhra, and the Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development.
Background and objective The Atlanta classification of acute pancreatitis enabled standardised reporting of research and aided communication between clinicians. Deficiencies identified and improved understanding of the disease make a revision necessary. Methods A web-based consultation was undertaken in 2007 to ensure wide participation of pancreatologists. After an initial meeting, the Working Group sent a draft document to 11 national and international pancreatic associations. This working draft was forwarded to all members. Revisions were made in response to comments, and the web-based consultation was repeated three times. The final consensus was reviewed, and only statements based on published evidence were retained. Results The revised classification of acute pancreatitis identified two phases of the disease: early and late. Severity is classified as mild, moderate or severe. Mild acute pancreatitis, the most common form, has no organ failure, local or systemic complications and usually resolves in the first week. Moderately severe acute pancreatitis is defined by the presence of transient organ failure, local complications or exacerbation of co-morbid disease. Severe acute pancreatitis is defined by persistent organ failure, that is, organ failure >48?h. Local complications are peripancreatic fluid collections, pancreatic and peripancreatic necrosis (sterile or infected), pseudocyst and walled-off necrosis (sterile or infected). We present a standardised template for reporting CT images. Conclusions This international, web-based consensus provides clear definitions to classify acute pancreatitis using easily identified clinical and radiologic criteria. The wide consultation among pancreatologists to reach this consensus should encourage widespread adoption.
Background:
Minimal access techniques have gained popularity for the management of necrotizing pancreatitis, but only a few studies compared open necrosectomy with a less invasive treatment. The aim of this study was to evaluate the outcomes of minimally invasive treatment for necrotizing pancreatitis in comparison with open necrosectomy.
Materials and methods:
This retrospective study included 70 patients who underwent minimally invasive intervention or open surgical debridement for necrotizing pancreatitis between January 2007 and December 2014. Data were analyzed for postoperative morbidity and outcome.
Results:
Of 70 patients, 22 patients underwent primary open necrosectomy and 48 patients were treated with minimally invasive techniques. Percutaneous and endoscopic drainage were successful in 34.9% and 75.0% of patients, respectively. The rates of postoperative new-onset organ failure and intensive care unit stay were significantly lower in the minimally invasive group (25.0% versus 54.5%; P = 0.016, and 29.2% versus 54.5%; P = 0.041, respectively). Gastrointestinal fistulas occurred more frequently after primary open necrosectomy (36.4% versus 10.4%; P = 0.009). Mortality was comparable in both groups (18.6% versus 27.3%; P = 0.420). Mortality for salvage open necrosectomy was similar to that for primary open debridement (28.6% versus 27.3%; P = 0.924). The independent risk factors for major postoperative complications were primary open necrosectomy (P = 0.028) and shorter interval to first intervention (P = 0.020). Mortality was independently associated only with older age (P = 0.009).
Conclusions:
Minimally invasive treatment should be preferred over open necrosectomy for initial management of necrotizing pancreatitis.
Background:
The interventional management of necrotizing pancreatitis has evolved from early open surgery to delayed endoscopic or percutaneous intervention. However, few studies have directly compared the three treatment modalities. We aim to compare the outcomes of patients who had endoscopic, percutaneous or surgical interventions for necrotizing pancreatitis at our institution.
Methods:
This is a retrospective cohort study of patients who had interventions for necrotizing pancreatitis at our institution from 2005 to 2014. Primary outcome was length of stay (LOS); secondary outcomes were complication rate and number of procedures required for resolution of necrosis.
Results:
Thirty patients were included. Mortality rate was 13% (four patients). Median LOS and time to intervention was 88 and 28 days, respectively. There were no significant differences in the computed tomography severity indices and 48-h C-reactive protein levels among the three groups. Initial endoscopic intervention was associated with a median LOS of 62 days compared with 101 days in the percutaneous group and 91 days in the surgical group (P = 0.04). There were higher rates of pancreatic fistulae (40%) (P = 0.012) and new onset diabetes (30%) (P = 0.046) in the surgical group. Median number of procedures was similar among the three groups. Median LOS for patients with delayed intervention (fourth to sixth week of pancreatitis) was 66 days, compared with 137 days in patients with early intervention (first to third week) and 104 days in patients with late intervention (seventh week onwards) (P ≤ 0.001).
Conclusion:
A delayed, endoscopy first approach appears to be a reasonable strategy as it is associated with decreased LOS and low complication rate.
Objective:
To examine the outcomes from minimal access retroperitoneal pancreatic necrosectomy (MARPN) and open pancreatic necrosectomy (OPN) for severe necrotizing pancreatitis in a single center.
Background:
The optimal management of severe pancreatic necrosis is evolving with a few large center single series.
Methods:
Between 1997 and 2013, patients with necrotizing pancreatitis at the Liverpool Pancreas Center were reviewed. Outcome measures were retrospectively analyzed by intention to treat.
Results:
There were 394 patients who had either MARPN (274, 69.5%) or OPN (120, 30.5%). Complications occurred in 174 MARPN patients (63.5%) and 98 (81.7%) OPN patients (P < 0.001). OPN was associated with increased postoperative multiorgan failure [42 (35%) vs 56 (20.4%), P = 0.001] and median (inter-quartile range) Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score 9 (6-11.5) vs 8 (5-11), P < 0.001] with intensive care required less frequently in MARPN patients [40.9% (112) vs 75% (90), P < 0.001]. The mortality rate was 42 (15.3%) in MARPNs and 28 (23.3%) in OPNs (P = 0.064). Both the mortality and the overall complication rates decreased between 1997-2008 and 2008-2013 [49 (23.8%) vs 21 (11.2%) P = 0.001, respectively; and 151 (73.3%) vs 121 (64.4%), P = 0.080, respectively). Increased mortality was independently associated with age (P < 0.001), preoperative intensive care stay (P = 0.014), and multiple organ failure (P < 0.001); operation before 2008 (P < 0.001) and conversion to OPN (P = 0.035). MARPN independently reduced mortality odds risk (odds ratio = 0.27; 95% confidence interval = 0.12-0.57; P < 0.001).
Conclusions:
Increasing experience and advances in perioperative care have led to improvement in outcomes. The role of MARPN in reducing complications and deaths within a multimodality approach remains substantial and should be used initially if feasible.
Walled-off pancreatic necrosis (WON) is a sequela of acute necrotizing pancreatitis in 15-40 % of cases. We sought to compare the outcomes of minimally invasive surgical and endoscopic cyst gastrostomy (CG) and necrosectomy for the management for sterile WON at a tertiary care high-volume pancreas center.
This is a retrospective review of patients who underwent minimally invasive surgical or endoscopic CG and necrosectomy for clinically sterile WON between 2008 and 2013. Peri-procedural outcomes including costs were analyzed and compared.
Twenty patients underwent minimally invasive surgical (robotic = 14, laparoscopic = 6) CG and necrosectomy, and 20 patients underwent endoscopic treatment. The surgical cohort had a larger median cyst size and higher CCI score. For the surgical cohort, median OR time was 167.5 min, estimated blood loss was 30 ml, and 65 % underwent concomitant cholecystectomy. There was no mortality in either group and no difference in complication rates (20 %). The failure rate was similar (15 versus 10 %, P = 0.66). Although surgery was associated with a lower re-intervention rate (0 versus 1, P = 0.008), the endotherapy group was associated with shorter total LOS (inclusive of re-interventions) (7 versus 3 days, P = 0.032). The cost of the index procedure was significantly higher for the surgery group (P = 0.014); however, when considering all readmissions and re-interventions until resolution of the WON, the total cost was similar for both groups.
Minimally invasive surgical and endoscopic CG and necrosectomy are comparable treatments for sterile WON in terms of outcomes and overall cost. The surgical approach may be considered advantageous when a concomitant cholecystectomy is required.
Surgical necrosectomy, but is still associated with a high morbidity. Indications of the endoscopic route, a new less invasive technique are not defined yet. To compare characteristics and clinical outcome of patients treated by the two techniques, a bi-centric retrospective comparison of 21 patients treated by surgical necrosectomy in one center (group S) with 11 patients treated in another center by endoscopic transgastric necrosectomy (group E) was performed. Clinical severity scores were significantly higher in group S although CT severity score did not differ between groups. Acute postoperative complications including pancreatic fistula occurred more frequently in group S (86% vs. 27%, P = 0.002). ICU and hospital length of stay were higher in group S (84 vs. 4 days; P = 0.008 and 58 vs. 15 days; P = 0.005 respectively). Long-term complication did not differ between groups. Compared to surgery, endoscopic necrosectomy exhibited lower rate of complications and reduced hospital length of stays. Endoscopic transgastric necrosectomy appears as a safe and effective procedure and has to be included in the therapeutic algorithm of infected pancreatic necrosis.
Objectives:
Infected walled-off pancreatic necrosis (WOPN) is a complication of acute pancreatitis requiring intervention. Surgery is associated with considerable morbidity. Percutaneous catheter drainage (PCD), initial therapy in the step-up approach, minimizes complications. Direct endoscopic necrosectomy (DEN) has demonstrated safety and efficacy. We compared outcome and health care utilization of DEN versus step-up approach.
Methods:
This was a matched cohort study using a prospective registry. Twelve consecutive DEN patients were matched with 12 step-up approach patients. Outcomes were clinical resolution after primary therapeutic modality, new organ failure, mortality, endocrine or exocrine insufficiency, length of stay, and health care utilization.
Results:
Clinical resolution in 11 of 12 patients after DEN versus 3 of 12 step-up approach patients after PCD (P < 0.01). Nine step-up approach patients required surgery; 7 of these experienced complications. Direct endoscopic necrosectomy resulted in less new antibiotic use, pulmonary failure, endocrine insufficiency, and shorter length of stay (P < 0.05). Health care utilization was lower after DEN by 5.2:1 (P < 0.01).
Conclusions:
Direct endoscopic necrosectomy may be superior to step-up approach for WOPN with suspected or established infection. Primary PCD generally delayed definitive therapy. Given the higher efficacy, shorter length of stay, and lower health care utilization, DEN could be the first-line therapy for WOPN, with primary PCD for inaccessible or immature collections.
Treatment of patients with necrotizing pancreatitis has become more conservative and less invasive, but there are few data from prospective studies to support the efficacy of this change. We performed a prospective multicenter study of treatment outcomes among patients with necrotizing pancreatitis.
We collected data from 639 consecutive patients with necrotizing pancreatitis, from 2004 to 2008, treated at 21 Dutch hospitals. Data were analyzed for disease severity, interventions (radiologic, endoscopic, surgical), and outcome.
Overall mortality was 15% (n=93). Organ failure occurred in 240 patients (38%), with 35% mortality. Treatment was conservative in 397 patients (62%), with 7% mortality. An intervention was performed in 242 patients (38%), with 27% mortality; this included early emergency laparotomy in 32 patients (5%), with 78% mortality. Patients with longer times between admission and intervention had lower mortality: 0 to 14 days, 56%; 14 to 29 days, 26%; and >29 days, 15% (P<.001). A total of 208 patients (33%) received interventions for infected necrosis, with 19% mortality. Catheter drainage was most often performed as the first intervention (63% of cases), without additional necrosectomy in 35% of patients. Primary catheter drainage had fewer complications than primary necrosectomy (42% vs 64%, P=.003). Patients with pancreatic parenchymal necrosis (n=324), compared with patients with only peripancreatic necrosis (n=315), had a higher risk of organ failure (50% vs 24%, P<.001) and mortality (20% vs 9%, P<.001).
Approximately 62% of patients with necrotizing pancreatitis can be treated without an intervention and with low mortality. In patients with infected necrosis, delayed intervention and catheter drainage as first treatment improves outcome.
A "step-up" approach is currently the treatment of choice for acute necrotizing pancreatitis. Our aim was to evaluate the outcome of minimally invasive retroperitoneal necrosectomy (MINE) and endoscopic transgastric necrosectomy (ETG) and to compare it to open necrosectomy (ONE).
Patients with acute pancreatitis admitted to our institution from 1998 to 2010 (n = 334) were identified. From these, patients who underwent either ONE, MINE, or ETG were selected for further analysis. Statistical analysis employed 2-sided Fisher's exact test and Mann-Whitney U-test.
From 2002 to 2010, 32 patients with acute necrotizing pancreatitis were treated by minimally invasive procedures including MINE (n = 14) and ETG (n = 18) or with the classic technique of ONE (n = 30). Time from onset of symptoms to intervention was less for ONE than for MINE or ETG (median, 11 vs 39 vs 54 days; P < .05). The rate of critically ill patients with sepsis or septic shock was greatest in ONE (93%) and MINE (71%) compared with ETG (17%; P < .05). Problems after ONE and MINE were ongoing sepsis (ONE 73% vs MINE 29% vs ETG 11%) and bleeding requiring intervention (ONE 26% vs MINE 21% vs ETG 17%). A specific complication of ETG was gastric perforation into the peritoneal cavity during the procedure (28%), requiring immediate open pseudocystogastrostomy. Laparotomy was necessary in 21% after MINE and 28% after ETG owing to specific complications or persistent infected necrosis. Overall mortality was greatest after ONE (ONE 63% vs MINE 21% vs ETG 6%; P < .05).
Morbidity and mortality remains high in acute necrotizing pancreatitis. Operative procedures should be delayed as long as possible to decrease morbidity and mortality. Minimally invasive procedures can avoid laparotomy, but also introduce specific complications requiring immediate or secondary open operative treatment. Minimally invasive procedures require unique expertise and therefore should only be performed at specialized centers.
To the Editor: The findings of the PENGUIN (Pancreatitis, Endoscopic Transgastric vs Primary Necrosectomy in Patients With Infected Necrosis) trial1 suggest that endoscopic transgastric necrosectomy reduces death or complications compared with surgical necrosectomy for the treatment of infected necrotizing pancreatitis. These results are heavily influenced by an unusually high 40% mortality rate in the surgical necrosectomy group, which we believe calls into question the reported superiority of endoscopic transgastric necrosectomy. The latest published data from our institution show an 11% mortality rate after open surgical necrosectomy in 167 patients.2 Other contemporary surgical series have demonstrated a mortality of 4% to 18%.3 Based on these data, the advantages of endoscopic necrosectomy are less clear. Future studies will continue to define the role of endoscopic necrosectomy in patients with infected necrotizing pancreatitis, but unless surgical therapy is performed with acceptable mortality, the effect will be questionable. At centers achieving comparable results with other techniques, the limitations of endoscopic transgastric debridement—the need for multiple procedures, the requirement for favorable anatomy, and the difficulty of acquiring adequate expertise—may supersede small advantages in morbidity and mortality.
For decades, treatment of severe acute pancreatitis and pancreatic necrosis incorporated aggressive pancreatic debridement via an open necrosectomy.1 The indications for surgical intervention included confirmed or suspected nonviable pancreatic parenchyma, infection within that necrotic collection, or both. This approach often resulted in poor outcomes due to precipitation of a systemic inflammatory response with subsequent organ failure as a result of gross disturbance of an infected necrotic collection.2 In the 1990s, it became apparent that this approach was not required for most patients with sterile pancreatic necrosis.3 However, patients presenting to the hospital with infected pancreatic necrosis—as evidenced by a positive culture from a pancreatic aspirate or gas in the pancreatic phlegmon identified by CT scan—often were promptly taken to the operating room because of the perception that delay in operative intervention with drainage would result in an extremely high mortality rate. Despite advances in critical care, open necrosectomy has both substantial complication rates and mortality rates, in some series as high as 92% and 58%, respectively.4,5
The influence of disease progression and pancreatic surgery on the appearance of diabetes mellitus in patients with chronic pancreatitis is unknown.
A prospective cohort study of 500 consecutive patients with chronic pancreatitis (alcoholics, 85%) followed up over a mean period of 7.0 +/- 6.8 years in a medical-surgical institution between 1973 and 1996 was performed. Multivariate analysis of risk factors for diabetes mellitus was performed after exclusion of 47 patients. Patients who underwent elective pancreatic surgery (n = 231, 51%) were compared with patients who never underwent surgery (n = 222, 49%).
The cumulative rate of diabetes mellitus was 83% +/- 4% 25 years after the clinical onset of chronic pancreatitis (insulin requirement, 54% +/- 6%). The prevalence of diabetes mellitus did not increase in the surgical group overall but was higher 5 years after distal pancreatectomy (57% +/- 8%) than after pancreaticoduodenectomy (36% +/- 18%), pancreatic drainage (36% +/- 13%), or cystic, biliary, or digestive drainage (24% +/- 7%) (P = 0. 005), without difference in the latter ones. Pancreatic drainage did not prevent the onset of diabetes mellitus. Distal pancreatectomy (risk ratio, 2.4; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.6-3.8; P < 0.0001) and early onset of pancreatic calcifications (risk ratio, 3.2; CI, 2. 2-4.7; P < 0.0001) were the only independent risk factors for diabetes mellitus.
The risk of diabetes mellitus is not influenced by elective pancreatic surgical procedures other than distal pancreatectomy in patients with chronic pancreatitis. This risk seems to be largely caused by progression of the disease because it increased by more than 3-fold after the onset of pancreatic calcifications.
The management of acute pancreatitis (AP) is still based on speculative and unproven paradigms in many centers. Therefore, we performed an evidence-based analysis to assess the best available treatment.
A comprehensive Medline and Cochrane Library search was performed evaluating the indication and timing of interventional and surgical approaches, and the value of aprotinin, lexipafant, gabexate mesylate, and octreotide treatment. Each study was ranked according to the evidence-based methodology of Sackett; whenever feasible, we performed new meta-analyses using the random-effects model. Recommendations were based on the available level of evidence (A=large randomized; B=small randomized; C=prospective trial).
None of the evaluated medical treatments is recommended (level A). Patients with AP should receive early enteral nutrition (level B). While mild biliary AP is best treated by primary cholecystectomy (level B), patients with severe biliary AP require emergency endoscopic papillotomy followed by interval cholecystectomy (level A). Patients with necrotizing AP should receive imipenem or meropenem prophylaxis to decrease the risk of infected necrosis and mortality (level A). Sterile necrosis per se is not an indication for surgery (level C), and not all patients with infected necrosis require immediate surgery (level B). In general, early necrosectomy should be avoided (level B), and single necrosectomy with postoperative lavage should be preferred over "open-packing" because of fewer complications with comparable mortality rates (level C).
While providing new insights into key aspects of AP management, this evidence-based analysis highlights the need for further clinical trials, particularly regarding the indications for antibiotic prophylaxis and surgery.
Background:
UK guidelines for gallstone pancreatitis (GSP) advocate definitive treatment during the index admission, or within 2 weeks of discharge. However, this target may not always be achievable. This study reviewed current management of GSP in a university hospital and evaluated the risk associated with interval cholecystectomy.
Methods:
All patients that presented with GSP over a 4-year period (2002-2005) were stratified for disease severity (APACHE II). Patient demographics, time to definitive therapy [index cholecystectomy; endoscopic sphincterotomy (ES); Interval cholecystectomy], and readmission rates were analysed retrospectively.
Results:
100 patients admitted with GSP. Disease severity was mild in 54 patients and severe in 46 patients. Twenty-two patients unsuitable for surgery underwent ES as definitive treatment with no readmissions. Seventy-eight patients underwent cholecystectomy, of which 40 (58%) had an index cholecystectomy, and 38 (42%) an interval cholecystectomy. Only 10 patients with severe GSP had an index cholecystectomy, whilst 30 were readmitted for Interval cholecystectomy (p = 0.04). The median APACHE score was 4 [standard deviation (SD) 3.8] for index cholecystectomy and 8 (SD 2.6) for Interval cholecystectomy (p < 0.05). Median time (range) to surgery was 7.5 (2-30) days for index cholecystectomy and 63 (13-210) days for Interval cholecystectomy. Fifty percent (19/38) of patients with GSP had ES prior to discharge for interval cholecystectomy. Two (5%) patients were readmitted: with acute cholecystitis (n = 1) and acute pancreatitis (n = 1) , whilst awaiting interval cholecystectomy. No mortality was noted in the Index or Interval group.
Conclusions:
This study demonstrates that overall 62% (22 endoscopic sphincterotomy and 40 index cholecystectomy) of patients with GSP have definitive therapy during the Index admission. However, surgery was deferred in the majority (n = 30) of patients with severe GSP, and 19/30 underwent ES prior to discharge. ES and interval cholecystectomy in severe GSP is associated with minimal morbidity and readmission rates, and is considered a reasonable alternative to an index cholecystectomy in patients with severe GSP.
- S S Vege
- M J Dimagno
- C E Forsmark
- M Martel
- A N Barkun
Vege SS, DiMagno MJ, Forsmark CE, Martel M and
Barkun AN. Initial Medical Treatment of Acute
Pancreatitis: American Gastroenterological Association
Institute Technical Review. Gastroenterology. 2018;
154：1103-39.
- M Hecker
- Mayer K Askevold
Hecker M, Mayer K and Askevold I, et al. [Acute
pancreatitis]. Anaesthesist. 2014; 63：253-63.
Minimal Access Retroperitoneal Pancreatic Necrosectomy
- Mgt Raraty
- C M Halloran
- S Dodd
Raraty MGT, Halloran CM and Dodd S, et al. Minimal
Access Retroperitoneal Pancreatic Necrosectomy. Ann
Surg. 2010; 251：787-93.