Combined endoscopic and percutaneous drainage of organized pancreatic necrosis

An update on minimally invasive therapies for pancreatic necrosis

Pancreatic necrosis is a local complication of severe acute pancreatitis associated with multiple organ dysfunction, infection and increased mortality. While surgery is the mainstay for invasive management, studies have demonstrated that delaying necrosectomy translates to improved patient outcomes. Minimally invasive therapies have been described both for early and late management of necrotic pancreatic collections and fall into three broad categories: endoscopic, radiology assisted percutaneous drainage and laparoscopic or retroperitoneal surgical techniques. Such interventions may serve as temporizing measures delaying necrosectomy, but more importantly, as best demonstrated in recent randomized controlled trials, can serve as alternative approaches resulting in improved patient outcomes. Access to these techniques is based on their availability at expert centers. Minimally invasive therapies have increased in popularity, with a general consensus among experts being that reduced complications and mortality rates are realized by approaches other than open necrosectomy. However, additional well-designed, randomized trials are needed.

Pancreaticocolonic fistulas secondary to severe acute pancreatitis treated by percutaneous drainage: successful nonsurgical outcomes in a single-center case series

PURPOSE

Pancreaticocolonic fistulas (PCFs) are uncommon complications of acute necrotizing pancreatitis (ANP). Studies advocating primary surgical treatment showed severe morbidity and mortality with nonsurgical treatment, with survival rates of approximately 50%. However, a nonsurgical treatment scheme with primary percutaneous drainage and other interventions may show improved outcomes. This retrospective single-center study describes the presentation, diagnosis, course, treatment strategy, and outcome of successfully treated PCFs, with an emphasis on nonsurgical interventions.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Twenty patients with PCFs caused by ANP were treated with percutaneous drainage and medical therapy. Additional interventions included endoscopic transenteric drainage and pancreatic duct (PD) stent placement. Surgery was reserved for patients in whom this nonsurgical management failed.

RESULTS

All PCFs closed during a median follow-up of 56 days (mean, 106 d; range, 13-827 d). Treatment included percutaneous drainage of the PCF-related collection in all patients, PD stents in 60%, transenteric drainage in 15%, and definitive surgery in 15%. Indications for surgery included severe PCF-related symptoms, large feculent peritoneal collection, and colonic stricture. Two patients (10%) died, one of complications of ANP and one of esophageal carcinoma. Additional enteric fistulas were identified in 50% of patients. Median time from the most recent diagnosis of pancreatitis to PCF diagnosis was 89 days (mean, 113 d; range, 13-394 d).

CONCLUSIONS

A nonsurgical approach to PCFs caused by ANP, including percutaneous drainage and other techniques, yields good survival, with surgery reserved for cases in which this approach fails.

Interventions for necrotizing pancreatitis: summary of a multidisciplinary consensus conference

Pancreatic and peripancreatic necrosis may result in significant morbidity and mortality in patients with acute pancreatitis. Many recommendations have been made for management of necrotizing pancreatitis, but no published guidelines have incorporated the many recent developments in minimally invasive techniques for necrosectomy. Hence, a multidisciplinary conference was convened to develop a consensus on interventions for necrotizing pancreatitis. Participants included most international experts from multiple disciplines. The evidence for efficacy of interventions was reviewed, presentations were given by experts, and a consensus was reached on each topic. In summary, intervention is primarily indicated for infected necrosis, less often for symptomatic sterile necrosis, and should ideally be delayed as long as possible, preferably 4 weeks or longer after the onset of disease, for better demarcation and liquefaction of the necrosis. Both the step-up approach using percutaneous drainage followed by minimally invasive video-assisted retroperitoneal debridement and per-oral endoscopic necrosectomy have been shown to have superior outcomes to traditional open necrosectomy with respect to short-term and long-term morbidity and are emerging as treatments of choice. Applicability of these techniques depends on the availability of specialized expertise and a multidisciplinary team dedicated to the management of severe acute pancreatitis and its complications.

Resolving external pancreatic fistulas in patients with disconnected pancreatic duct syndrome: using rendezvous techniques to avoid surgery (with video)

BACKGROUND

An external pancreatic fistula (EPF) generally results from an iatrogenic manipulation of a pancreatic fluid collection (PFC), such as walled-off pancreatic necrosis (WOPN). Severe necrotizing pancreatitis can lead to complete duct disruption, causing disconnected pancreatic duct syndrome (DPDS) with viable upstream pancreas draining out of a low-pressure fistula created surgically or by a percutaneous catheter. The EPF can persist for months to years, and distal pancreatectomy, often the only permanent solution, carries a high morbidity and defined mortality.

OBJECTIVE

To describe 3 endoscopic and percutaneous rendezvous techniques to completely resolve EPFs in the setting of DPDS.

DESIGN

A retrospective review of a prospective database of 15 patients who underwent rendezvous internalization of EPFs.

SETTING

Tertiary-care pancreatic referral center.

PATIENTS

Fifteen patients between October 2002 and October 2011 with EPFs in the setting of DPDS and resolved WOPN.

INTERVENTION

Three rendezvous techniques that combined endoscopic and percutaneous procedures to internalize EPFs by transgastric, transduodenal, or transpapillary methods.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

EPF resolution and morbidity.

RESULTS

Fifteen patients (12 men) with a median age of 51 years (range 24-65 years) with EPFs and DPDS (cutoff/blowout of pancreatic duct, with inability to demonstrate upstream body/tail of pancreas on pancreatogram) resulting from severe necrotizing pancreatitis underwent 1 of 3 rendezvous procedures to eliminate the EPFs. All patients were either poor surgical candidates or refused surgery. At the time of the rendezvous procedure, WOPN had fully resolved, DPDS was confirmed on pancreatography, and the EPF had persisted for a median of 5 months (range 1-48 months), producing a median output of 200 mL/day (range 50-700 mL/day). The rendezvous technique in 10 patients used the existing percutaneous drainage fistula to puncture into the stomach/duodenum to deliver wires that were captured endoscopically. The transenteric fistula was dilated and two endoprostheses placed into the lesser sac. A second technique was used in 3 patients where EUS was used to avoid large varices and create a fistula to the percutaneous drainage catheter. Wires were delivered transenterally then grasped by an interventional radiologist. The new fistula was dilated, and, again, two endoprostheses were placed. Two patients underwent a rendezvous technique that resulted in transpapillary stents and removal of percutaneous catheters. The median duration to EPF closure was 7 days (range 1-73 days) during a median follow-up of 25 months (range 6-113 months). No EPF has recurred in any patient, although 3 symptomatic fluid collections have occurred. These collections have been successfully treated with combined percutaneous and endoscopic treatment or endoscopic treatment alone. One patient had postprocedural fever. There were no associated deaths.

LIMITATIONS

Small, selected group of patients without a comparative group.

CONCLUSION

The management of EPFs in the setting of DPDS is challenging but can be treated effectively by combined endoscopic and percutaneous rendezvous techniques. The rendezvous procedures were associated with minimal morbidity, no mortality, avoidance of surgery, and complete elimination of the EPFs.

Endoscopic approach to pancreatic pseudocyst, abscess and necrosis: review on recent progress

AIM

The aim of this study is to introduce recent progress in the treatment of pancreatic pseudocyst, abscess and necrosis using the endoscopic approach.

METHODS

Studies on PubMed and MEDLINE from the last 30 years on progress in the management of the complications from severe pancreatitis were researched and reviewed. Herein, the indication for intervention, definition of fluid collection associated with acute pancreatitis and treatment modalities of these complications are summarized.

RESULTS

Three types of management are employed for complications of severe pancreatitis: the endoscopic, surgical and percutaneous approaches.

CONCLUSIONS

Over the years, as technical expertise has increased and instruments for endoscopy have improved, patients who had endoscopic surgery to address the complications of severe pancreatitis have had higher survival rates, lower mortality rates and lower complication rates than those having open debridement. However, traditional open abdominal surgery should be advocated when minimally invasive management fails or necrosis is extensive and extends diffusely to areas such as the paracolic gutter and the groin (i.e. locations not accessible by endoscopy).

Management of infected pancreatic necrosis using retroperitoneal necrosectomy with flexible endoscope: 10 years of experience

BACKGROUND

This study was designed to provide our experience in the management of infected and drained pancreatic necrosis using the retroperitoneal approach.

METHODS

This was a prospective observational study in a tertiary care university hospital. Thirty-two patients with confirmed infected pancreatic necrosis were studied. Superficial necrosectomy was performed with lavage and aspiration of debris. This was achieved though a retroperitoneal approach of the pancreatic area and under the direct vision of a flexible endoscope. The follow-up procedure using retroperitoneal endoscopy did not require taking the patient to the operating room. The main outcome measures were infection control, morbidity, and mortality related to technique, reintervention, and long-term follow-up.

RESULTS

No significant morbidity or mortality related to the technique was observed in all of the patients with infected pancreatic necrosis treated with this retroperitoneal approach compared with published data using other approaches. Reinterventions were not required and patients are currently asymptomatic.

CONCLUSIONS

Retroperitoneal access of the pancreatic area is a good approach for drainage and debridement of infected pancreatic necrosis. Translumbar retroperitoneal endoscopy allows exploration under direct visual guidance avoiding open transabdominal reintervention and the risk of contamination of the abdominal cavity. This technique does not increase morbidity and mortality, can be performed at the patients' bedside as many times as necessary, and has advantages over other retroperitoneal approaches.

[The pancreas and the biliary tract. Acute pancreatitis]

The present article reviews the conclusions of the most interesting studies on acute pancreatitis presented at Digestive Disease Week 2011. Specific prognostic systems for acute pancreatitis show moderate accuracy in predicting outcome, which may be improved by step-up combination rules. The presence of systemic inflammatory response syndrome seems to be a better marker of severity than the bedside index for severity in acute pancreatitis (BISAP) score. Admission hematocrit, 24 h creatinine and 24 h BUN seem to predict the development of pancreatic necrosis. Cardiovascular disease may be associated with an increased risk of severe post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) acute pancreatitis. Prognostic abdominal computed tomography scan should be avoided until the second day of admission. Endoscopic necrosectomy may be associated with shorter length of hospital stay, similar radiologic success and probably a lower incidence of complications than open necrosectomy. Combination therapy involving endoscopic plus percutaneous drainage is associated with good long-term outcomes. Outcome is better in patients who receive more than one third of their 72 h total fluid therapy within the first 24 h. The best predictor of a high need for fluid therapy in the first 48 h is leukocyte count.

Dual modality drainage for symptomatic walled-off pancreatic necrosis reduces length of hospitalization, radiological procedures, and number of endoscopies compared to standard percutaneous drainage

BACKGROUND

Symptomatic walled-off pancreatic necrosis (WOPN) treated with dual modality endoscopic and percutaneous drainage (DMD) has been shown to decrease length of hospitalization (LOH) and use of radiological resources in comparison to standard percutaneous drainage (SPD).

AIM

The aim of this study is to demonstrate that as the cohort of DMD and SPD patients expand, the original conclusions are durable.

METHODS

The database of patients receiving treatment for WOPN between January 2006 and April 2011 was analyzed retrospectively.

PATIENTS

One hundred two patients with symptomatic WOPN who had no previous drainage procedures were evaluated: 49 with DMD and 46 with SPD; 7 were excluded due to a salvage procedure.

RESULTS

Patient characteristics including age, sex, etiology of pancreatitis, and severity of disease based on computed tomographic severity index were indistinguishable between the two cohorts. The DMD cohort had shorter LOH, time until removal of percutaneous drains, fewer CT scans, drain studies, and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCPs; p < 0.05 for all). There were 12 identifiable complications during DMD, which were successfully treated without the need for surgery. The 30-day mortality in DMD was 4% (one multi-system organ failure and one out of the hospital with congestive heart failure). Three patients receiving SPD had surgery, and three (7%) died in the hospital.

CONCLUSION

DMD for symptomatic WOPN reduces LOH, radiological procedures, and number of ERCPs compared to SPD.

Long-term results after endoscopic drainage and necrosectomy of symptomatic pancreatic fluid collections

AIMS

To determine the immediate and long-term results of endoscopic drainage and necrosectomy for symptomatic pancreatic fluid collections.

METHODS

The data of 80 patients with symptomatic pancreatic fluid collections (mean diameter: 11.7 cm, range 3-20; pseudocysts: 24/80, abscess: 20/80, infected walled-off necrosis: 36/80) referred for endoscopic management from October 1997 to March 2008 were analyzed retrospectively.

RESULTS

Endoscopic drainage techniques included endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided aspiration (2/80), EUS-guided transenteric drainage (70/80) and non-EUS-guided drainage across a spontaneous transenteric fistula (8/80). Endoscopic necrosectomy was carried out in 49/80 (abscesses: 14/20; infected necrosis: 35/36). Procedural complications were bleeding (12/80), perforation (7/80), portal air embolism (1/80) and Ogilvie Syndrome (1/80). Initial technical success was achieved in 78/80 (97.5%) and clinical resolution of the collections was achieved endoscopically in 67/80 (83.8%), with surgery required in 13/80 (perforation: four; endoscopically inaccessible areas: two; inadequate drainage: seven). Within 6 months five patients required surgery due to recurrent fluid collections; over a mean follow up of 31 months, surgery was required in four more patients due to recurrent collections as a consequence of underlying pancreatic duct abnormalities that could not be treated endoscopically. The long-term success of endoscopic treatment was 58/80 (72.5%).

CONCLUSIONS

Endoscopic drainage of symptomatic pancreatic fluid collections is safe and effective, with excellent immediate and long-term results. Endoscopic necrosectomy has a risk of serious complications. The underlying pancreatic duct abnormalities must be addressed to prevent recurrence of fluid collections.

Endoscopic transmural drainage of peripancreatic fluid collections: outcomes and predictors of treatment success in 211 consecutive patients

OBJECTIVES

Endoscopy is a minimally invasive technique for the drainage of peripancreatic fluid collections. This study evaluated the clinical outcomes and predictors of treatment success in consecutive patients undergoing endoscopic transmural drainage of peripancreatic fluid collections.

METHODS

This is a retrospective study of patients who underwent endoscopic drainage of peripancreatic fluid collections over 7 years. Prior to drainage, an ERCP was attempted for stent placement in all patients with a pancreatic duct leak. Drainages were performed using conventional endoscopy or endoscopic ultrasound. Transmural stents and/or drainage catheters were deployed and endoscopic necrosectomy was undertaken when required. Data on clinical outcomes and complications were collected prospectively.

RESULTS

A total of 211 patients underwent drainage of peripancreatic fluid collections that was classified as pseudocyst in 45%, abscess in 28%, and necrosis in 27%. Mean diameter of the fluid collection was 100.6 mm, and 34.5% of patients had pancreatic duct stent placement. Median duration of follow-up was 356 days. Treatment success was 85.3% and was higher for pseudocyst and abscess compared to necrosis (93.5% vs. 63.2%, p < 0.0001). Complications were encountered in 17 patients (8.5%) and was higher for drainage of necrosis than pseudocyst or abscess (15.8% vs. 5.2%, p = 0.02). Treatment success was more likely for patients with pseudocyst or abscess than necrosis (adjusted OR = 7.6, 95% CI [2.9, 20.1], p < 0.0001) when adjusted for serum albumin and white cell count, type of endoscopic modality or accessory used, pancreatic duct stenting, luminal compression, size and location of fluid collection.

CONCLUSIONS

Endoscopic therapy is a highly effective technique for the management of patients with non-necrotic peripancreatic fluid collections.

Expandable stents: unique devices and clinical uses

The use of stents throughout the gastrointestinal tract has evolved over the past century. The evolution of endoscopic ultrasound and significant improvements in stent design are key factors that have allowed endoscopists to drive the use of stents in gastroenterology into new directions. Endoscopic creativity remains crucial in the evolution of any new endoscopic technology. Finally, the use of multidisciplinary teams, including endoscopists, radiologists, and surgeons, allows for the exchange of ideas and procedural planning necessary for successful innovation.

Multiple transluminal gateway technique for EUS-guided drainage of symptomatic walled-off pancreatic necrosis

BACKGROUND

Walled-off pancreatic necrosis often leads to severe clinical deterioration necessitating open debridement or endoscopic necrosectomy. A new EUS-based approach was devised to manage this condition by creating multiple transluminal gateways to facilitate effective drainage of the necrotic contents.

OBJECTIVE

To compare treatment outcomes between patients with walled-off pancreatic necrosis managed endoscopically by a multiple transluminal gateway technique (MTGT) or a conventional drainage technique (CDT).

DESIGN

Retrospective study.

SETTING

Tertiary-care referral center.

PATIENTS

This study involved patients with severe acute pancreatitis complicated by walled-off pancreatic necrosis managed endoscopically.

INTERVENTION

In MTGT, 2 or 3 transmural tracts were created by using EUS guidance between the necrotic cavity and the GI lumen. While one tract was used to flush normal saline solution via a nasocystic catheter, multiple stents were deployed in others to facilitate drainage of necrotic contents. In the CDT, two stents with a nasocystic catheter were deployed via 1 transmural tract.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Resolution of symptoms, radiological findings on follow-up CT, and the need for subsequent surgery or endoscopic necrosectomy.

RESULTS

Of 60 patients with symptomatic walled-off pancreatic necrosis, 12 (3 women, mean age 55.1 years) were managed by MTGT and 48 (12 women, mean age 55.2 years) by CDT. Treatment was successful in 11 of 12 (91.7%) patients managed by MTGT versus 25 of 48 (52.1%) managed by CDT (P = .01). Although 1 patient in the MTGT cohort required endoscopic necrosectomy, in the CDT cohort, 17 required surgery, 3 underwent endoscopic necrosectomy, and 3 died of multiple-organ failure. Treatment success was more likely for patients treated by MTGT than by CDT (adjusted odds ratio = 9.24; 95% confidence interval, 1.08-79.02; P = .04) when we adjusted for the size of the walled-off pancreatic necrosis and pancreatic duct stent placement.

LIMITATIONS

Selective patient population.

CONCLUSION

The EUS-guided MTGT is an effective treatment option for the management of symptomatic walled-off pancreatic necrosis because it obviates the need for surgery and endoscopic necrosectomy and its attendant procedure-related morbidity. Prospective studies are required to confirm these preliminary but promising data.

Direct endoscopic necrosectomy for the treatment of walled-off pancreatic necrosis: results from a multicenter U.S. series

BACKGROUND

Direct endoscopic necrosectomy (DEN) for treatment of walled-off pancreatic necrosis (WOPN) has been performed as an alternative to operative or percutaneous therapy.

OBJECTIVE

To report the largest combined experience of DEN performed for WOPN.

DESIGN

Retrospective chart review.

SETTING

Six U.S. tertiary medical centers.

PATIENTS

A total of 104 patients with a history of acute pancreatitis and symptomatic WOPN since 2003.

INTERVENTIONS

DEN for WOPN.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Resolution or near-resolution of WOPN without the need for surgical or percutaneous intervention and procedural complications.

RESULTS

Successful resolution was achieved in 95 of 104 patients (91%). Of the patients in whom it failed, 5 died during follow-up before resolution, 2 underwent operative drainage for persistent WOPN, 1 required surgery for massive bleeding on fistula tract dilation, and 1 died periprocedurally. The mean time to resolution from the initial DEN was 4.1 months. The first débridement was performed a mean of 63 days after the initial onset of acute pancreatitis. In 73%, the entry was transgastric with median tract dilation diameter of 18 mm. The median number of procedures was 3 with 2 débridements. Complications occurred in approximately 14% and included 5 retrogastric perforations/pneumoperitoneum, which were managed nonoperatively. Univariate analysis identified a body mass index >32 as a risk factor for failed DEN.

LIMITATIONS

Retrospective, highly specialized centers.

CONCLUSIONS

This large, multicenter series demonstrates that transmural, minimally invasive endoscopic débridement of WOPN performed in the United States is an efficacious and reproducible technique with an acceptable safety profile.

Systematic review of percutaneous catheter drainage as primary treatment for necrotizing pancreatitis

BACKGROUND

The role of percutaneous catheter drainage (PCD) in patients with (infected) necrotizing pancreatitis was evaluated.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed. Inclusion criteria were: consecutive cohort of patients with necrotizing pancreatitis undergoing PCD as primary treatment for peripancreatic collections; indication for PCD either (suspected) infected necrosis or symptomatic sterile pancreatic necrosis; and outcomes reported to include percentage of infected peripancreatic collections, need for additional surgical necrosectomy, complications and deaths. Exclusion criteria were: cohort of fewer than five patients; cohort included patients with chronic pancreatitis; selected subgroup of patients with acute pancreatitis studied, such as those with pseudocysts, pancreatic abscesses and/or exclusively sterile pancreatic necrosis; and cohort in which PCD was combined with another minimally invasive strategy and results for PCD alone not reported separately.

RESULTS

Eleven studies, including 384 patients, fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Only one study was a randomized controlled trial; most others were retrospective case series. Four studies reported on the presence of organ failure before PCD; this occurred in 67·2 per cent of 116 patients. Infected necrosis was proven in 271 (70·6 per cent) of 384 patients. No additional surgical necrosectomy was required after PCD in 214 (55·7 per cent) of 384 patients. Complications consisted mostly of internal and external pancreatic fistulas. The overall mortality rate was 17·4 per cent (67 of 384 patients). Nine of 11 studies reported mortality separately for patients with infected necrosis undergoing PCD; the mortality rate in this group was 15·4 per cent (27 of 175).

CONCLUSION

A considerable number of patients can be treated with PCD without the need for surgical necrosectomy.

Progress in the management of necrotizing pancreatitis

Pancreatic necrosis, a complication of severe pancreatitis, may become infected, resulting in significant morbidity and potential mortality. Infected necrosis was heretofore considered a surgical condition, and despite aggressive operative management, the mortality remained high. With a better understanding of the natural history of necrosis, established methods to diagnose infection and the increasing use of minimally invasive techniques, less aggressive therapies have been utilized with some success. The present study evaluated a step-up approach for the treatment of infected pancreatic necrosis, utilizing endoscopic and percutaneous techniques, and if ineffective, necrosectomy with a minimally invasive retroperitoneal approach. They compared this step-up approach to the standard open necrosectomy. They demonstrated that when using such an approach compared with open necrosectomy, the frequency of major complications such as organ failure, perforation, fistula or even death was significantly less than in those who received conventional open necrosectomy. Indeed, for those randomized to the step-up approach, roughly a third of the patients were successfully treated with percutaneous drainage alone. In the long-term, development of diabetes was also less frequent in those receiving less aggressive therapy. These findings, in combination with other reports, suggest that the dogma that open necrosectomy is mandatory for all patients with infected necrosis should be re-evaluated, and that less aggressive treatments as part of a multidisciplinary approach can reduce morbidity and mortality.

Endoscopic and percutaneous drainage of symptomatic walled-off pancreatic necrosis reduces hospital stay and radiographic resources

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Walled-off pancreatic necrosis (WOPN), a complication of severe acute pancreatitis (SAP), can become infected, obstruct adjacent structures, and result in clinical deterioration of patients. Patients with WOPN have prolonged hospitalizations, needing multiple radiologic and medical interventions. We compared an established treatment of WOPN, standard percutaneous drainage (SPD), with combined modality therapy (CMT), in which endoscopic transenteric stents were added to a regimen of percutaneous drains.

METHODS

Symptomatic patients with WOPN between January 2006 and August 2009 were treated with SPD (n = 43, 28 male) or CMT (n = 23, 17 male) and compared by disease severity, length of hospitalization, duration of drainage, complications, and number of radiologic and endoscopic procedures.

RESULTS

Patient age (59 vs 54 years), sex (77% vs 58% male), computed tomography severity index (8.0 vs 7.2), number of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatographies (2.0 vs 2.6), and percentage with disconnected pancreatic ducts (50% vs 46%) were equivalent in the CMT and SPD arms, respectively. Patients undergoing CMT had significantly decreased length of hospitalization (26 vs 55 days, P < .0026), duration of external drainage (83.9 vs 189 days, P < .002), number of computed tomography scans (8.95 vs 14.3, P < .002), and drain studies (6.5 vs 13, P < .0001). Patients in the SPD arm had more complications.

CONCLUSIONS

For patients with symptomatic WOPN, CMT provided a more effective and safer management technique, resulting in shorter hospitalizations and fewer radiologic procedures than SPD.

Primary conservative treatment results in mortality comparable to surgery in patients with infected pancreatic necrosis

BACKGROUND & AIMS

The standard treatment for patients with infected pancreatic necrosis (IPN) is surgical necrosectomy. We compared the outcomes of surgical treatment versus primary conservative treatment (patients kept in intensive care unit and treated with antibiotics, organ support, intensive nutritional support, and, if required, percutaneous drainage) among patients with IPN.

METHODS

We performed retrospective comparative (with prospectively acquired database) and prospective observational studies; data were collected from all consecutive patients with acute pancreatitis (n = 804), and those with IPN formed the study group. Patients with IPN were divided into 2 groups on the basis of diagnosis of IPN during 1997-2002 (group 1, n = 30) or 2003-2006 (group 2, n = 50). Eighteen patients in group 1 were treated by surgical necrosectomy, and 40 patients in group 2 were given primary conservative treatment; surgery was performed on patients if conservative treatment failed (n = 10). The primary outcome measure was mortality.

RESULTS

The mortality was comparable in group 1 versus group 2 (43% vs 28%; P = .22). During a period of 10 years, the patients who received primary conservative treatment had significantly higher survival rates than those who received surgery (76.9% vs 46.4%; P = .005). In the prospective study during 2007-2008, the mortality from infected necrosis was 29.6% after primary conservative treatment, confirming the results of the comparative study.

CONCLUSIONS

In treating patients with IPN, a primary conservative strategy resulted in mortality that was comparable with that after surgery, and 76% of the patients were able to avoid surgery; 54.5% of IPN patients were successfully managed with the primary conservative strategy.

Therapeutic pancreatic endoscopy

Although the common indications for therapeutic pancreatic endoscopy - management of ductal strictures and calculi - have remained constants, the last decade has witnessed the emergence of several new endoscopic techniques for managing pancreatic disorders. While many of the advances in therapeutic pancreatic endoscopy have paralleled the shift of endoscopic ultrasound from a purely diagnostic to therapeutic modality, other new techniques are simply modifications on existing procedures. Despite these exciting times in therapeutic endoscopy, it is important to recognize that the endoscopist is one part of an interdisciplinary team of experts - a model which is essential in the successful management of patients with pancreatic disorders.

The society for gastrointestinal intervention. Are we, as an organization of disparate disciplines, cooperative or competitive?

This is the Fourth Annual Meeting of the Society for Gastrointestinal Intervention, a multi-disciplinary group of practitioners committed to a minimally invasive approach to both the diagnosis and treatment of digestive disorders. The key concepts are minimally invasive and multi-disciplinary which can be construed as practicing in parallel with occasional lines of procedural and clinical interaction or inter-disciplinary in which patients are acutely cared for by a team, with treatments tailored to the patient and not the discipline that touches the patient first. In reality, many of us exist in both worlds. Most universities and large clinics are structured in departments along traditional training lines. As such, Interventional Radiology is housed in the Radiology Department, Laparoscopic Surgery (and potentially NOTES), as a component of the General Surgery Division, and Therapeutic Endoscopy usually resides within a gastroenterology structural framework. These divisions have historically been kept separate by multiple forces: salaries and budgets usually reside in a larger division. As a group, the amount of practice devoted to GI disorders is variable (for instance, minimally invasive surgeons may approach the adrenal glands or lung lesions in some institutions and interventional radiologists often sample tissue in multiple areas outside the GI tract, and by virtue of access to the vascular tree, can stent, embolize, or TPA almost any area of the body), as well as inherent differences in our individual abilities to access organs. I have already mentioned that angiographic capabilities allow the interventional radiologist access to virtually every GI organ and those capabilities allow therapeutic options for bleeding, tumor embolization, stenting of stenotic lesions, and formation of intravascular shunts. As such, there is very limited interdisciplinary competition here although capsule endoscopy as well as double and single balloon enteroscopy have improved the endoscopist's diagnostic and potential therapeutic reach. However, many of these diagnostic triumphs for obscure or massive GI bleed are simply to tattoo lesions that require surgical removal by laparoscopic or traditional surgery. Cooperation. However, there are potential competitive areas in the treatment of GI vascular lesions also. Whereas endoscopic band ligation has supplanted EVS, splenic devascularization, and most shunting procedures for patients with esophageal varices, endoscopic techniques have had less long-term success with glue injection for gastric varices. Multiple randomized, prospective trials have suggested therapeutic primacy of TIPS with embolization of recalcitrant vessels as an option or back-up. Despite this, therapeutic endoscopists have learned valuable lesions from our IR colleagues and studies are underway using endoscopically injected coils in addition to cyanoacrylate in an attempt to improve acute and long-term bleeding control. Nor is there any major competition in the treatment of primary or metastatic liver tumors by chemoembolization, RF current, or other thermal modalities, although selected patients with single lesions or multiple lesions isolated to a single lobe may be better handled surgically if there is curative intent. Finally, there is little IR, and progressively less, surgical competition for the treatment of high-grade dysplasia or superficial malignancies in the setting of Barrett's esophagus which are adequately treated in most patients by mucosectomy, RF ablation, or cryotherapy but require direct mucosal visualization to direct this therapy. The same has proven true for many years for colorectal polyps, superficial gastric cancers, and ampullary adenomas that had historically all been treated with major surgical resections. Still, there are many patients with advanced lesions who are good operative candidates who should be approached with conventional or minimally invasive surgery with the intent of operative cure. Cooperative, not competitive. The potential for competition between disciplines comes in mundane situations and clinical settings that have historically been "owned" by a single discipline. On the one hand, placement of PEGS and PEJs, initially done endoscopically, can be done with equal facility and occasional failure, by endoscopists and interventional radiologists, reserving failed attempts for minimally invasive surgery. What resources are utilized with these three methods? Are there advantages to defining the mucosa of the gut lumen in all, or even a subset of patients? By way of contrast, acute cholecystectomy tubes in high surgical risk patients have usually been the domain of the radiologist, although I described transcystic duct gallbladder decompression endoscopically 2½ decades ago. With the advent of new devices delivered under EUS control, the gallbladder will now be readily accessible endoscopically. What does this mean both for the acutely ill patient without a window to approach their gallbladder radiologically? Will this play a bit part and a cooperative technique to expand our therapeutic armamentarium or will it become competitive therapeutically not only for IR but for minimally invasive surgeons? The same may be said for EUS's ability to inject genes, caustics, or chemo-therapeutic agents into organs adjacent to the lumen. What is the role of TNFerade injection into unresectable pancreatic cancers and the role of absolute alcohol or Taxitol to treat cystic neoplasms of the pancreas? The real issue of competition or cooperation between the disciplines comes when treating patients with unresectable and obstructing GI neoplasms, from my perspective. The latter may occur almost anywhere in the GI tract but, of course, are more commonly noted proximally (esophagus, stomach, duodenum) and distally (left colon) as well as proximal and distal biliary obstructions. Recognizing that the occasional mid-small bowel and many proximal colon lesions are better handled with an endoscopic approach because of loss of vector force and difficulty pushing a catheter through large diameter, acutely angulated lumens, all others are fair game from my perspective. To my knowledge, although there are studies demonstrating the superiority of SEMS over open or laparoscopic bypass for malignant gastric outlet obstruction insofar as return of gut function, hospitalization time, and resource utilization, there are no studies demonstrating the superiority of one discipline or another in the placement of SEMS. Nor have cost data emerged suggesting the superiority of one technique over another from a cost standpoint. Unless or until we have such studies, this suggests to me that institutional interest and expertise should play a major role in how these unfortunate patients have continuity of their GI tract re-established. The situation is a bit more complex in pancreaticobiliary malignancy. There are 2 prospective randomized trials (level 1 evidence) that suggest that patients with proximal strictures (Bismuth II-IV) in conjunction with bile duct and gallbladder cancer, respectively, may be more successfully stented percutaneously and certainly it is easier to deliver brachytherapy or PDT under protocol to these patients who have indwelling external drains. In contrast, there are no data, positive or negative, to suggest that PTBD is a preferable treatment for distal biliary malignant obstruction, and in most parts of the world, the endoscopic approach has supplanted the percutaneous one just as metal stents have replaced plastic prostheses to preclude recurrent bouts of stent dysfunction and need for additional ERCP. The question posed at the beginning of this syllabus contribution: Are we competitive or cooperative? The answer is obviously both but, hopefully, our choice of treatment should depend less on who touches the patient first and more on skill sets within an institution and what is the best treatment for this particular individual. The importance of the SGI is technical and informational cross-fertilization. If your university or clinic will not allow blurring of training barriers to put therapeutic endoscopists, minimally invasive surgeons, and interventional radiologists together as a department or institute, you can nevertheless work together as a team in the best interest of your patients.