The outcomes of initial endoscopic transluminal drainage are superior to percutaneous drainage for patients with infected pancreatic necrosis: a prospective cohort study

Prognostic significance of organ failure and infected pancreatic necrosis in acute pancreatitis: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

In patients with acute pancreatitis (AP), minimally invasive treatment and the step-up approach have been widely used to deal with infected pancreatic necrosis (IPN) in the last decade. It is unclear whether IPN has become a less important determinant of mortality relative to organ failure (OF). We aimed to statistically aggregate recent evidence from published studies to determine the relative importance of IPN and OF as determinants of mortality in patients with AP (PROSPERO: CRD42020176989).

METHODS

Relevant studies were sourced from MEDLINE and EMBASE databases. Relative risk (RR) or weighted mean difference (WMD) was analyzed as outcomes. A two-sided P value of less than 0.05 was regarded as statistical significance.

RESULTS

Forty-three studies comprising 11 601 patients with AP were included. The mortality was 28% for OF patients and 24% for those with IPN. Patients with OF without IPN had a significantly higher risk of mortality compared to those with IPN but without OF (RR 3.72, P < 0.0001). However, patients with both OF and IPN faced the highest risk of mortality. Additionally, IPN increased length of stay in hospital for OF patients (WMD 28.75, P = 0.032).

CONCLUSION

Though IPN remains a significant concern, which leads to increased morbidity and longer hospital stay, it is a less critical mortality determinant compared to OF in AP.

Efficacy and safety of endoscopic drainage versus percutaneous drainage for pancreatic fluid collection; a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Pancreatic fluid collections (PFC) are debris or fluid of the pancreas that needs to be drained out. This may result from surgery or necrotizing pancreatitis. This meta-analysis compared the outcomes of PFC through endoscopic and percutaneous interventions.

METHODS

A medical database was searched up to June 2022, comparing the outcomes of endoscopic drainage (ED) and percutaneous drainage (PD) for the PFC. Eligible studies reporting clinical and technical success and adverse events were selected.

RESULTS

Seventeen studies with 1170 patients were included for meta-analysis, of which 543 patients underwent ED and 627 underwent PD. The odd ratio (OR) of technical success was 0.81 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.31, 2.1) and clinical success was in the favor of the ED group at OR 2.23 (95% CI 1.45, 3.41). Adverse events OR 0.62 (95% CI 0.27, 1.39) and stent migration OR 0.61 (95% CI 0.10, 3.88) were the same in both groups, but hospital stay pooled mean difference of 15.02 days (95% CI 9.86, 20.18), mortality OR 0.24 (95% CI 0.09, 0.67), and re-interventions OR 0.25 (95% CI 0.16, 0.40) favored ED.

CONCLUSIONS

ED is safe and efficient for PFC with higher clinical success, lower mortality rate, hospital stay, and re-interventions compared with PD.

The severity and infection of acute pancreatitis may increase the risk of bleeding in patients undergoing EUS-guided drainage and endoscopic necrosectomy: a large retrospective cohort

BACKGROUND

There has been great progress in the use of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided drainage in acute pancreatitis patients using a novel lumen-apposing metal stent (LAMS) in the last decade, but some patients experience bleeding. Our research analyzed the preprocedural risk factors for bleeding.

METHODS

From July 13, 2016 to June 23, 2021, we retrospectively analyzed all patients who received endoscopic drainage by the LAMS in our hospital. Univariate and multivariate statistical analyses were used to identify the independent risk factors. We plotted ROC curves based on the independent risk factors.

RESULTS

A total of 205 patients were analyzed and 5 patients were excluded. A total of 200 patients were included in our research. Thirty (15%) patients presented with bleeding. In the multivariate analysis, computed tomography severity index score (CTSI) score [odds ratio (OR), 2.66; 95% CI: 1.31-5.38; P = 0.007], positive blood cultures [odds ratio (OR), 5.35; 95% CI: 1.31-21.9; P = 0.02], and Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE II) score [odds ratio (OR), 1.14; 95% CI: 1. 01-1.29; P = 0.045] were associated with bleeding. The area under the ROC curve of the combined predictive indicator was 0.79.

CONCLUSION

Bleeding in endoscopic drainage by the LAMS is significantly associated with the CTSI score, positive blood cultures, and APACHE II score. This result could help clinicians make more appropriate choices.

Endoscopic Ultrasound-guided Drainage of Patients With Infected Walled-off Necrosis: Which Stent to Choose?

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided drainage is the preferred treatment of pancreatic fluid collections (PFC). However, the choice of the stent for EUS-guided drainage in critically ill PFC cases with infected walled-off necrosis (WON) and/or organ failure (OF) remains unknown.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Between January 2018 and December 2019, consecutive patients with symptomatic PFC subjected to EUS-guided drainage using biflanged metal stents (BFMS) or double-pigtail plastic stents (DPPS) were compared for technical success, clinical success, duration of the procedure, need for intensive care unit stay, duration of intensive care unit stay, ventilator need, resolution of OF, the duration for resolution of OF, complications, need for salvage percutaneous drainage or surgery and mortality. A subgroup of patients having infected WON with/without OF were analyzed separately.

RESULTS

Among 120 patients (84.6% males) with PFC (108 WON, 22 pseudocyst) who underwent EUS-guided drainage, there was no difference in outcome parameters in BFMS and DPPS groups. Among patients with WON, clinical success was significantly higher (96.2% vs. 81.8%, P=0.04), with significantly shorter hospital stay (6 vs. 10 d) and procedure duration (17.18±4.6 vs. 43.6±9.7 min, P<0.0001) in the BFMS group. Among patients with infected WON with/without OF, the clinical success was significantly higher (100% vs. 73.9%, P=0.02), and the duration of the procedure was significantly lower (16.28±4.4 vs. 44.39±10.7, P<0.0001) in BFMS compared with DPPS group.

CONCLUSION

EUS-guided drainage of WON using BFMS scores over DPPS. In patients having infected WON with/without OF, BFMS may be preferred over DPPS.

Association between morphological features of necrotizing pancreatitis on endoscopic ultrasound and outcomes of the endoscopic transmural step-up approach

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the association between necrotic collections on endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) and outcomes of the endoscopic transmural step-up approach in necrotizing pancreatitis (NP).

METHODS

Adult NP patients who had undergone endoscopic transmural step-up approach, endoscopic transmural drainage or endoscopic transmural necrosectomy, were retrospectively enrolled, and divided into groups 1, 2 and 3 based on the amount of solid necrotic debris (quantified as a percentage of the total collection size of <30%, 30%-50%, and >50%).

RESULTS

A total of 134 patients were included, of whom 52, 59 and 23 patients were categorized into groups 1, 2 and 3. Patients with more solid necrotic debris required more necrosectomy sessions (group 3 vs group 2 vs group 1: 2.0 vs 1.0 vs 1.0, P < 0.001), were more likely to experience stent occlusion (group 3 vs group 2 vs group 1: 34.8% vs 16.9% vs 9.6%, P = 0.011), and had a longer hospitalization (group 3 vs group 2 vs group 1: 40.0 d vs 28.0 d vs 25.5 d, P = 0.015). High procalcitonin level (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 6.14, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.40-26.94, P = 0.016) and any organ failure (aOR 11.51, 95% CI 2.42-54.78, P = 0.002) were independently associated with clinical failure of endoscopic transmural step-up approach.

CONCLUSIONS

More solid necrotic debris on EUS is related to more necrosectomy sessions, higher incidence of stent occlusion and longer hospitalization. A nomogram combining procalcitonin and any organ failure performs well in predicting clinical failure of endoscopic transmural step-up approach.

A Novel Strategy for Transmural Stent Removal in Necrotizing Pancreatitis Undergoing Endoscopic Transmural Necrosectomy

BACKGROUND

Although metal stents have been widely used in the endoscopic step-up approach for necrotizing pancreatitis, the exact timing of transmural stent removal has not been well studied. Here, we report a novel strategy for stent removal and compare it with the conventional strategy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This retrospective, nested, case-control study analyzed all adult necrotizing pancreatitis patients who underwent endoscopic transmural necrosectomy (ETN). Clinical outcomes were compared between case group (a novel strategy in which the stents were removed during the last necrosectomy when the ETN endpoint was achieved) and 1:1 necrosis extent matched control group (the conventional strategy).

RESULTS

Baseline characteristics was comparable between case group (n=37) and control group (n=37). Three (8.1%) patients in case group and 1 (2.7%) patient in control group needed additional ETN after stent removal (P>0.05). Nearly all patients (case: 97.3%; control: 94.6%) achieved clinical success. There was no difference in disease-related (case: 40.5%; control: 37.8%) or stent-related (case: 27.0%; control: 16.2%) complications. Case group had a trend of shorter length of stent placement (median: 20.0 vs. 29.5 d, P>0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The novel strategy of transmural stent removal during last necrosectomy might be feasible which needed further validation. Compared with the convention strategy, the novel strategy avoids one endoscopy procedure and should be considered in clinical practice.

Risk factors for bleeding in patients with acute necrotizing pancreatitis undergoing endoscopic necrosectomy

BACKGROUND

This study investigated risk factors for bleeding in patients with acute necrotizing pancreatitis (ANP) undergoing endoscopic necrosectomy (EN) and the effect of endoscopic haemostasis.

METHODS

145 patients with ANP who underwent EN were recruited from January 2014 to December 2018. Patients with and without bleeding were allocated to the bleeding and nonbleeding groups, respectively. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to assess independent risk factors for bleeding.

RESULTS

39 patients (26.9%) experienced bleeding. The body mass index and culture-confirmed infectious pancreatic necrosis (IPN), renal failure and continuous renal replacement therapy rates were significantly higher in the bleeding group (all P < 0.01). In addition, the number of debridement procedures was significantly higher in the bleeding group (P = 0.004), accompanied by a higher mortality rate and greater hospitalization costs (all P < 0.05). Most cases of bleeding during EN were successfully stopped by endoscopic haemostasis (94.1%), but this was difficult to achieve after EN. Multivariate analysis revealed that renal failure (odds ratio [OR]: 3.77, P = 0.02), culture-confirmed IPN (OR: 3.19, P = 0.02), and ≥3 debridement procedures (OR: 12.92, P = 0.001) were associated with an increased bleeding risk.

CONCLUSION

Renal failure, culture-confirmed IPN, and multiple debridement procedures were independent risk factors for bleeding in patients with ANP who underwent EN.

Effectiveness of digestive endoscopy and surgery in the treatment of necrotizing pancreatitis: a meta-analysis and systematic review

Background

Digestive endoscopy and surgery are the primary invasive methods for the clinical treatment of necrotizing pancreatitis. However, there are relatively few studies evaluating the effectiveness and safety of these two methods.

Methods

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on endoscopic and surgical treatment of necrotizing pancreatitis published from January 2000 to December 2020 were searched in the PubMed, Medline, Embase, China Biology Medicine Disc (CBM), and WanFang databases. The Cochrane System Review Manual was adopted to evaluate the quality of the included literature, and Review Manager 5.3 was used for data analysis.

Results

Ten articles were included in this meta-analysis, involving a total of 401 patients, including 188 in the endoscopy group and 213 in the surgery group. Meta-analysis results revealed that the clinical remission rate (CRR) [odds ratio (OR) =1.30, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.58-2.92, P=0.52], new organ failure rate (OFR) (OR =0.53, 95% CI: 0.26-1.09, P=0.08), abdominal bleeding rate (ABR) (OR =0.62, 95% CI: 0.33-1.15, P=0.13), and intensive care unit (ICU) stay time (IST) [mean deviation (MD) =-7.33, 95% CI: -16.76 to 2.11, P=0.13] were not significantly different between the endoscopy and surgery groups. In the endoscopy group, the mortality rate (OR =0.56, 95% CI: 0.31-1.02, P=0.05), intestinal fistula rate (IFR) or gastrointestinal perforation rate (GPR) (OR =0.50, 95% CI: 0.26-0.99, P=0.05), and pancreatic fistula rate (PFR) (OR =0.09, 95% CI: 0.04-0.23, P<0.00001) were markedly lower compared to the surgery group.

Discussion

There was no obvious difference in the clinical efficacy of endoscopic and surgical treatment of necrotizing pancreatitis. However, endoscopy can greatly reduce the incidence of postoperative death and major complications in patients.

Comparison of Different Surgical Methods for Necrotizing Pancreatitis: A Meta-Analysis

Purpose: To compare the effectiveness and safety of three methods of open necrosectomy, minimally invasive surgery and endoscopic step-up approach for necrotizing pancreatitis.

Methods: We searched Pubmed, Embase, ScienceDirect, and CNKI full text database (CNKI) (to December 25, 2019). RCT, prospective cohort study (PCS), and retrospective cohort study (RCS) comparing the effectiveness and safety of any two of above-mentioned three methods were included.

Results: There was no significant difference in major complications or death, and mortality between the minimally invasive surgery treatment group and the endoscopic step-up approach treatment group (RR = 1.66, 95%CI: 0.83–3.33, P = 0.15; RR = 1.05, 95%CI: 0.59–1.86, P = 0.87); the incidence rate of new-onset multiple organ failure, enterocutaneous fistula, pancreatic-cutaneous fistula, intra-abdominal bleeding, and endocrine pancreatic insufficiency in the endoscopic step-up approach treatment group was significantly lower than minimally invasive surgery group (RR = 2.65, 95%CI: 1.10–6.36, P = 0.03; RR = 6.63, 95%CI: 1.59–27.60, P = 0.009; RR = 7.73, 95%CI: 3.00–19.89, P < 0.0001; RR = 1.91, 95%CI: 1.13–3.24, P = 0.02; RR = 1.83, 95%CI: 1.9–3.16, P = 0.02); hospital stay in the endoscopic step-up approach group was significantly shorter than minimally invasive surgical treatment group (MD = 11.26, 95%CI: 5.46–17.05, P = 0.0001). The incidence of pancreatic-cutaneous fistula in the endoscopic escalation step therapy group was significantly lower than that in the open necrosectomy group (RR = 0.11, 95%CI: 0.02–0.58, P = 0.009).

Conclusion: Compared with minimally invasive surgery and open necrosectomy, although endoscopic step-up approach cannot reduce the main complications or death and mortality of patients, it can significantly reduce the incidence of some serious complications, such as pancreatic-cutaneous fistula, enterocutaneous fistula, intra-abdominal bleeding, endocrine pancreatic insufficiency, and can significantly shorten the patient's hospital stay.

Predicting the Need for Step-Up Therapy After EUS-Guided Drainage of Pancreatic Fluid Collections With Lumen-Apposing Metal Stents

BACKGROUND & AIMS

A significant proportion of individuals with pancreatic fluid collections (PFCs) require step-up therapy after endoscopic drainage with lumen-apposing metal stents. The aim of this study is to identify factors associated with PFCs that require step-up therapy.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study of patients undergoing endoscopic ultrasound-guided drainage of PFCs with lumen-apposing metal stents from April 2014 to October 2019 at a single center was performed. Step-up therapy included direct endoscopic necrosectomy, additional drainage site (endoscopic or percutaneous), or surgical intervention after the initial drainage procedure. Multivariable logistic regression was performed using a backward stepwise approach with a P ≤ .2 threshold for variable retention to identify factors predictive for the need for step-up therapy.

RESULTS

One hundred thirty-six patients were included in the final study cohort, of whom 69 (50.7%) required step-up therapy. Independent predictors of step-up therapy included: collection size measuring ≥10 cm (odds ratio [OR], 8.91; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.36-23.61), paracolic extension of the PFC (OR, 4.04; 95% CI, 1.60-10.23), and ≥30% solid necrosis (OR, 4.24; 95% CI, 1.48-12.16). In a sensitivity analysis of 81 patients with walled-off necrosis, 51 (63.0%) required step-up therapy. Similarly, factors predictive of the need for step-up therapy for walled-off necrosis included: collection size measuring ≥10 cm (OR, 6.94; 95% CI, 1.76-27.45), paracolic extension of the PFC (OR, 3.79; 95% CI, 1.18-12.14), and ≥30% solid necrosis (OR, 7.10; 95% CI, 1.16-43.48).

CONCLUSIONS

Half of all patients with PFCs drained with lumen-apposing metal stents required step-up therapy, most commonly direct endoscopic necrosectomy. Individuals with PFCs ≥10 cm in size, paracolic extension, or ≥30% solid necrosis are more likely to require step-up therapy and should be considered for early endoscopic reintervention.

Is endoscopic drainage better than percutaneous drainage for patients with pancreatic fluid collections? A comparative meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

though endoscopic and percutaneous drainage have emerged as the most common minimally invasive treatments for pancreatic fluid collections (PFCs), estimates of therapeutic superiority for either treatment have yielded inconsistent results.

METHODS

we retrieved studies comparing the efficacy and safety of these two approaches in PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library. Primary outcomes were differences in technical success, clinical success, and adverse events, and secondary outcomes included differences in reintervention, need for surgical intervention, mortality, recurrence rate, and length of hospital stay.

RESULTS

there were nonsignificant differences in technical success rate (OR 0.54; CI: 0.15-1.86), clinical success rate (OR 1.39; CI: 0.82-2.37), adverse events rate (OR 1.21; CI: 0.70-2.11), mortality rate (OR 0.81; CI: 0.30-2.16), and recurrence rate (OR 1.94; CI 0.74-5.07) between the two groups. Reintervention rate (OR 0.19; CI: 0.08-0.45) and percentage of need for surgical intervention (OR 0.08; CI: 0.02-0.39) in the endoscopic drainage group were much lower than in the percutaneous drainage group. Total length of hospital stay (standard mean difference [SMD] -0.60; CI: -0.84 to -0.36) in the endoscopic drainage group was shorter; however, there was a nonsignificant difference in the length of post-procedure hospital stay (SMD: -0.30; CI: -1.05-0.44) between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

endoscopic drainage is effective for PFCs, and superior in terms of lower reintervention and need for surgery rates over traditional percutaneous drainage, despite a similar clinical efficacy and safety compared with traditional percutaneous drainage.

Safety and efficacy of lumen-apposing metal stents versus plastic stents to treat walled-off pancreatic necrosis: systematic review and meta-analysis

Background and study aims  Lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMS) are increasingly used for drainage of walled-off pancreatic necrosis (WON). Recent studies suggested greater adverse event (AE) rates with LAMS for WON. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the safety and efficacy of LAMS with double-pigtail plastic stents (DPPS) for endoscopic drainage of WON. The primary aim was to evaluate stent-related AEs. Methods  In October 2019, we searched the Ovid (Embase, MEDLINE, Cochrane) and Scopus databases for studies assessing a specific LAMS or DPPS for WON drainage conducted under EUS guidance. Safety outcomes were AE rates of bleeding, stent migration, perforation, and stent occlusion. Efficacy outcomes were WON resolution and number of procedures needed to achieve resolution. A subanalysis including non-EUS-guided cases was performed. Results  Thirty studies including one randomized controlled trial (total 1,524 patients) were analyzed. LAMS were associated with similar bleeding (2.5 % vs. 4.6 %, P =  0.39) and perforation risk (0.5 % vs. 1.1 %, P =  0.35) compared to DPPS. WON resolution (87.4 % vs. 87.5 %, P =  0.99), number of procedures to achieve resolution (2.09 vs. 1.88, P =  0.72), stent migration (5.9 % vs. 6.8 %, P =  0.79), and stent occlusion (3.8 % vs. 5.2 %, P =  0.78) were similar for both groups. Inclusion of non-EUS-guided cases led to significantly higher DPPS bleeding and perforation rates. Conclusions  LAMS and DPPS were associated with similar rates of AEs and WON resolution when limiting analysis to EUS-guided cases. Higher bleeding rates were seen in historical studies of DPPS without EUS guidance. Additional high-quality studies of WON treatment using consistent outcome definitions are needed.

Efficacy and safety of endoscopic vs surgical management of necrotizing pancreatitis: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Endoscopy and surgery are the two major invasive interventions for necrotizing pancreatitis. However, studies comparing their efficacy and safety are lacking.

AIM

To systemically compare the efficacy and safety of endoscopic and surgical interventions for necrotizing pancreatitis.

METHODS

PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, CNKI, Wanfang database, and Sino Med were searched to identify all randomized control trials (RCT) and cohort studies comparing the efficacy and safety of endoscopic vs surgical management of necrotizing pancreatitis from January 2000 to June 2019. Revman 5.3 was used for statistical analysis.

RESULTS

A total of eight studies were included, with three RCT and five cohort studies. The total number of patients involved was 366, with 167 in the endoscopy group and 199 in the surgery group. Meta-analysis showed no significant difference between the two groups in clinical remission (odds ratio [OR] = 1.3, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.58-2.92, P = 0.52), primary composite endpoint (relative risk [RR] = 0.46, 95%CI: 0.17-1.27, P = 0.14), or mortality (OR = 0.78, 95%CI: 0.37-1.56, P = 0.52). Compared to surgery, endoscopic therapy significantly reduced the rates of postoperative complications including new-onset organ failure (OR = 0.40, 95%CI: 0.18-0.90, P = 0.03), enterocutaneous fistula or perforation of a visceral organ (OR = 0.46, 95%CI: 0.23-0.91, P = 0.02), and pancreatic fistula (OR = 0.09, 95%CI: 0.03-0.24, P < 0.00001).

CONCLUSION

Endoscopic treatment, as compared to surgery, significantly reduces complications in patients with necrotizing pancreatitis.

Step-up approach for the management of pancreatic necrosis: a review of the literature

Infected necrotizing pancreatitis is a challenging condition to treat because of the profound inflammatory response these patients undergo which can then be exacerbated by interventions. Treatment of this condition has evolved in timing of intervention as well as method of intervention and includes less invasive options for treatment such as percutaneous drainage and endoscopic drainage, in addition to less invasive endoscopic and video-assisted or laparoscopic debridements. The precise optimal treatment strategy for these patients is an ongoing topic of discussion and may be different for each patient as this is a heterogenous condition.

An endoscopic or minimally invasive surgical approach for infected necrotizing pancreatitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIM

the incidence of acute pancreatitis is rising across the world, thus further increasing the burden on healthcare services. Approximately 10% of patients with acute pancreatitis will develop infected necrotizing pancreatitis (INP), which is the leading cause of high mortality in the late phase. There is currently no consensus with regard to the use of endoscopic or minimally invasive surgery as the first-line therapy of choice for INP. However, more clinical research with regard to the superiority of an endoscopic approach has been recently published. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine which of the two treatments leads to a better prognosis.

METHODS

four databases (Medline, SINOMED, EMBASE and Cochrane Library) were searched for eligible studies from 1980 to 2018, comparing endoscopic and minimally invasive surgery for INP.

RESULTS

two randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and seven clinical cohort studies were included. After the analysis of data amenable to polling, significant advantages were found in favor of the endoscopic approach in terms of pancreatic fistulas (OR = 0.10, 95% CI 0.04-0.30, p < 0.001) and the length of hospital stay (weighted mean difference [WMD] = -24.72, 95% CI = -33.87 to -15.57, p < 0.001). No marked differences were found in terms of mortality, multiple organ failure, intra-abdominal bleeding, enterocutaneous fistula, recurrence of pseudocysts, and length of stay (LOS) in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU), endocrine insufficiency and exocrine insufficiency.

CONCLUSION

compared with minimally invasive surgery, an endoscopic approach evidently improved short-term outcomes for infected necrotizing pancreatitis, including pancreatic fistula and the length of hospital stay. Furthermore, relevant multicenter RCTs are eager to validate these findings.

Stent-Assisted Percutaneous Endoscopic Necrosectomy for Infected Pancreatic Necrosis: Technical Report and a Pilot Study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

A variety of minimally invasive techniques have been proposed to replace open surgery for the treatment of infected pancreatic necrosis (IPN). In this study, we evaluate the feasibility and safety of the stent-assisted percutaneous endoscopic necrosectomy (SAPEN) procedure.

METHODS

Data were collected on all patients who underwent the SAPEN procedure between October 2017 and March 2018. The demographic and clinical characteristics of the study patients were analyzed. A composite primary endpoint of major complications and/or death was used. Three different cases were selected to illustrate different technical aspects of the SAPEN procedure.

RESULTS

The placement of a percutaneous stent was successful in all of the 23 patients (17 males, six females). IPN was successfully managed in 16/23 (70%) patients, with the need for open surgery in seven patients (30%), with a median of two (range 1-5) SAPEN procedures. No significant procedure-related complications occurred. Overall 11/23 (48%) patients had a major complication and/or death.

CONCLUSIONS

In conclusion, the SAPEN procedure was effective in treating IPN without adding extra procedural risk. The role and benefits of the SAPEN procedure now need to be demonstrated in larger controlled study.

A meta-analysis and systematic review of percutaneous catheter drainage in treating infected pancreatitis necrosis

BACKGROUND

In the current meta-analysis, we focus on the exploration of percutaneous catheter drainage (PCD) in terms of its overall safety as well as efficacy in the treatment of infected pancreatitis necrosis based on qualified studies.

METHODS

The following electronic databases were searched to identify eligible studies through the use of index words updated to May 2018: PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase. Relative risk (RR) or mean difference (MD) along with 95% confidence interval (95% CI) were utilized for the main outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 622 patients in the PCD group and 650 patients in the control group from 13 studies were included in the present meta-analysis. The aggregated results indicated that the incidence of bleeding was decreased significantly (RR: 0.42, 95% CI: 0.25-0.70) in the PCD group as compared with the control group. In addition, PCD decreased the mortality (RR: 0.76, 95% CI: 0.41-1.42), hospital duration (SMD: -0.22, 95% CI: -0.77 to -0.33), duration in intensive care unit (ICU) (SMD: -0.13, 95% CI: -0.30 to -0.04), pancreatic fistula (RR: 0.73, 95% CI: 0.46-1.17), and organ failure (RR: 0.91, 95% CI: 0.45-1.82) in comparison with the control group, but without statistical significance.

CONCLUSION

Our findings provide evidence for the treatment effect of PCD in the decrease of bleeding, mortality, duration in hospital and ICU, pancreatic fistula, organ failure as compared with the surgical treatment. In conclusion, further studies based on high-quality RCTs with larger sample size and long-term follow-ups are warranted for the confirmation of PCD efficacy in treating infected pancreatitis necrosis.