Safety and clinical outcomes of early dual modality drainage (< 28 days) compared to later drainage of pancreatic necrotic fluid collections: a propensity score-matched study

The i-EUS consensus on the management of pancreatic fluid collections - Part 1

Pancreatic fluid collections (PFCs), including pancreatic pseudocysts (PPs) and walled-off pancreatic necrosis (WON), are common complications of pancreatitis and pancreatic surgery. Historically, the treatment of these conditions has relied on surgical and radiological approaches; however, it has later shifted toward an endoscopy-based approach. With the development of dedicated lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMS), interventional Endoscopic Ultrasound (EUS)-guided procedures have become the standard approach for PFC drainage. However, there is still limited consensus on several aspects of the multidisciplinary management of PFCs. The interventional endoscopy and ultrasound (i-EUS) group is an Italian network of clinicians and scientists with special interest in biliopancreatic interventional endoscopy, especially interventional EUS. This manuscript describes the first part of the results of a consensus conference organized by i-EUS with the aim of providing evidence-based guidance on aspects such as indications for treating PFCs, the timing of intervention, and different technical strategies for managing patients with PFCs.

Impact of the Timing of Percutaneous Catheter Drainage following Endoscopic Drainage on Outcomes in Acute Necrotizing Pancreatitis

Background  The role of dual-modality drainage of walled-off necrosis (WON) in patients with acute pancreatitis (AP) is established. However, there are no data on the association of clinical outcomes with the timing of percutaneous catheter drainage (PCD). We investigated the impact of the timing of PCD following endoscopic drainage of WON on clinical outcomes in AP. Materials and Methods  This retrospective study comprised consecutive patients with necrotizing AP who underwent endoscopic cystogastrostomy (CG) of WON followed by PCD between September 2018 and March 2023. Based on endoscopic CG to PCD interval, patients were divided into groups (≤ and >3 days, ≤ and >1 week, ≤ and >10 days, and ≤ and >2 weeks). Baseline characteristics and indications of CG and PCD were recorded. Clinical outcomes were compared between the groups, including length of hospitalization, length of intensive care unit stay, need for surgical necrosectomy, and death during hospitalization. Results  Thirty patients (mean age ± standard deviation, 35.5 ± 12.7 years) were evaluated. The mean CG to PCD interval was 11.2 ± 7.5 days. There were no significant differences in baseline characteristics and indications of CG and PCD between the groups. The mean pain to CG interval was not significantly different between the groups. Endoscopic necrosectomy was performed in a significantly greater proportion of patients undergoing CG after 10 days ( p  = 0.003) and after 2 weeks ( p  = 0.032). There were no significant differences in the complications and clinical outcomes between the groups. Conclusion  The timing of PCD following endoscopic CG does not affect clinical outcomes.

Repetitive endoscopic drainage as initial intervention is safe and effective for early treatment of pancreatic necrotic collections

BACKGROUND

While endoscopic step-up approach with delayed drainage (more than 28 days from diagnosis) was shown to produce the best outcomes in the treatment of pancreatic walled-off necrosis (WON), we assessed our single centre experience of early versus delayed endoscopic drainage of pancreatic necrotic collections.

METHODS

Patients who underwent endoscopic drainage of pancreatic necrotic collections between 2011 and 2022 under Monash Health were identified. They were excluded if below 18 years old or their follow up data were missing. The included patients' medical records, pathology results, and imaging findings were retrospectively reviewed.

RESULTS

A total of 60 patients were included. 31.58% required percutaneous drainage and 15% received either endoscopic or surgical necrosectomy. The disease related mortality was 8.47% and the average length of stay (LOS) was 70.92 days. No significant difference was shown in disease-related mortality (10.5% vs. 7.5%, P = 0.697) or LOS (75.35 vs. 68.7, P = 0.644) between early and delayed drainage cohorts, but patients who received early drainage have higher qSOFA score on the day of drainage (2 vs. 0, P = 0.004).

DISCUSSION

Repetitive endoscopic drainage with selective percutaneous drainage is effective in the management of pancreatic necrotic collections. Early drainage should be considered in patients who developed severe sepsis.

Early Endoscopic Interventions for Pancreatic Necrosis: Indications, Technique, and Outcomes

Endoscopic transmural drainage is usually performed for symptomatic well-encapsulated walled-off necrosis (WON) that usually develops in the delayed phase (> 4 weeks after disease onset) of acute necrotising pancreatitis (ANP). Endoscopic drainage is usually not advocated in the early (< 4 weeks after disease onset) stage of illness because of the risk of complications due to an incompletely formed encapsulating wall and poor demarcation of viable from necrotic tissue. However, emerging data from expert tertiary care centres over the last few years shows that the early endoscopic transluminal drainage approach is effective and safe. The development of lumen-apposing metal stents and better accessories for endoscopic necrosectomy has fuelled the expansion of indications of endoscopic drainage of pancreatic necrosis. However, early endoscopic drainage is associated with higher rates of adverse events; therefore, careful patient selection is paramount. This article will review the current indications, techniques and outcomes of early endoscopic transluminal drainage in pancreatic necrotic collections.

Comparison of early and late intervention for necrotizing pancreatitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

Postponed open necrosectomy or minimally invasive intervention has become the treatment option for necrotizing pancreatitis. Nevertheless, several studies point to the safety and efficacy of early intervention for necrotizing pancreatitis. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare clinical outcomes of acute necrotizing pancreatitis between early and late intervention.

METHODS

Literature search was performed in multiple databases for articles that compared the safety and clinical outcomes of early (<4 weeks from the onset of pancreatitis) versus late intervention (≥4 weeks from the onset of pancreatitis) for necrotizing pancreatitis published up to August 31, 2022. The meta-analysis was performed to determine pooled odds ratio (OR) of mortality rate and procedure-related complications.

RESULTS

Fourteen studies were included in the final analysis. For open necrosectomy intervention, the overall pooled OR of mortality rate with the late intervention compared with early intervention was 7.09 (95% confidence interval [CI] 2.33-21.60; I2  = 54%; P = 0.0006). For minimally invasive intervention, the overall pooled OR of mortality rate with the late intervention compared with early intervention was 1.56 (95% CI 1.11-2.20; I2  = 0%; P = 0.01). The overall pooled OR of pancreatic fistula with the late minimally invasive intervention compared with early intervention was 2.49 (95% CI 1.75-3.52; I2  = 0%; P < 0.00001).

CONCLUSION

These results showed the benefit of late interventions in patients with necrotizing pancreatitis in both minimally invasive procedures and open necrosectomy. Late intervention is preferred in the management of necrotizing pancreatitis.

Surgical management of acute pancreatitis: Historical perspectives, challenges, and current management approaches

Acute pancreatitis (AP) is a serious condition presenting catastrophic consequences. In severe AP, the mortality rate is high, and some patients initially diagnosed with mild-to-moderate AP can progress to a life-threatening severe state. Treatment of AP has evolved over the years. Drainage was the first surgical procedure performed for AP; however, later, surgical approaches were replaced by more conservative approaches due to the availability of advanced medical care and improved understanding of the course of AP. Currently, surgery is used to manage several complications of AP, such as pseudocysts, pancreatic fistulas, and biliary tract obstruction. Patients who are unresponsive to conservative treatment or have complications are typically considered for surgical intervention. This review focuses on the surgical approaches (endoscopic, percutaneous, and open) that have been established in recent studies to treat this acute condition and summarizes the common management guidelines for AP, discussing the relevant indications, significance, and complications. It is evident that despite their reduced involvement, surgeons lead the multidisciplinary care of patients with AP; however, given the gaps in existing knowledge, more research is required to standardize surgical protocols for AP.

Endoscopic transluminal drainage and necrosectomy for infected necrotizing pancreatitis: Progress and challenges

Infected necrotizing pancreatitis (INP) represents a severe condition in patients with acute pancreatitis. Invasive interventions are recommended in symptomatic INP. Growing evidence has suggested interventional strategies of INP evolving from traditional surgery to minimally invasive step-up endoscopic procedures. However, there is still no standardized protocol for endoscopic interventions. Recently, various studies have been published about the endoscopic management of INP. This article reviews published articles and guidelines to present the progress and challenges of endoscopic transluminal drainage and necrosectomy in INP.