Treatment of pancreatic pseudocysts, pancreatic necrosis, and pancreatic duct leaks

Severe, Complicated Pancreatitis With an Unclear Etiology

Acute pancreatitis is an inflammatory process. There can be many causes of pancreatitis, which include alcohol or gallstones but can also be due to hypercalcemia, infections, or hypertriglyceridemia. Most cases of pancreatitis are mild and without complications. Severe cases of pancreatitis can cause complications, including organ failure. Pseudocysts are a rare complication of pancreatitis and may require management. We present a patient with severe acute pancreatitis with organ failure admitted to the intensive care unit, stabilized, and required subsequent management of a pseudocyst with cystogastrostomy with a lumen-apposing metal stent. The patient subsequently improved and is doing well today. Herein, we present an acute severe pancreatitis case report with an extensive workup complicated by pseudocyst development. We review pancreatitis causes, including rare causes and management.

Rendezvous Technique for Advanced Pancreatic Duct Interventions

Interventional radiology can be used to perform complex pancreatic duct (PD) interventions in cases in which PD abnormalities limit the feasibility of an endoscopic approach. A multidisciplinary approach with gastroenterology using the rendezvous technique can improve procedural success. The establishment of through-and-through access to the PD via a combined percutaneous and endoscopic approach can be used when endoscopy alone fails. In this study, 3 cases are presented in which the rendezvous technique was successfully employed to access the PD for subsequent interventions.

A Case of Pancreatic Duct Leak Presenting as Lower Extremity Pain and Edema

Pancreatic pseudocyst from pancreatic duct leak is one of the common complications of both acute and chronic pancreatitis. The presentation of such leaks can range from patients being completely asymptomatic to septic shock. Extra-abdominal collections of fluid due to pancreatic duct leaks are very rare. We describe a diagnostically challenging patient with acute chronic pancreatitis presenting with lower extremity swelling and pain, who was found to have a pancreatic fluid leak into the right iliopsoas, right gluteal, and thigh muscle compartment. Despite endoscopic stenting of the pancreatic duct and multiple percutaneous drain placement and antibiotic treatment for abscess formation, the patient's condition deteriorated clinically. Surgical options could not be pursued due to poor functional status.

Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Endoscopic Management of Peripancreatic Fluid Collections

Endoscopic ultrasonography-guided intervention has gradually become a standard treatment for peripancreatic fluid collections (PFCs). However, it is difficult to popularize the procedure in Korea because of restrictions on insurance claims regarding the use of endoscopic accessories, as well as the lack of standardized Korean clinical practice guidelines. The Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (KSGE) appointed a Task Force to develope medical guidelines by referring to the manual for clinical practice guidelines development prepared by the National Evidence-Based Healthcare Collaborating Agency. Previous studies on PFCs were searched, and certain studies were selected with the help of experts. Then, a set of key questions was selected, and treatment guidelines were systematically reviewed. Answers to these questions and recommendations were selected via peer review. This guideline discusses endoscopic management of PFCs and makes recommendations on Indications for the procedure, pre-procedural preparations, optimal approach for drainage, procedural considerations (e.g., types of stent, advantages and disadvantages of plastic and metal stents, and accessories), adverse events of endoscopic intervention, and procedural quality issues. This guideline was reviewed by external experts and suggests best practices recommended based on the evidence available at the time of preparation. This will be revised as necessary to address advances and changes in technology and evidence obtained in clinical practice and future studies.

Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Endoscopic Management of Peripancreatic Fluid Collections

Endoscopic ultrasonography-guided intervention has gradually become a standard treatment for peripancreatic fluid collections (PFCs). However, it is difficult to popularize the procedure in Korea because of restrictions on insurance claims regarding the use of endoscopic accessories, as well as the lack of standardized Korean clinical practice guidelines. The Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy appointed a Task Force to develop medical guidelines by referring to the manual for clinical practice guidelines development prepared by the National Evidence-Based Healthcare Collaborating Agency. Previous studies on PFCs were searched, and certain studies were selected with the help of experts. Then, a set of key questions was selected, and treatment guidelines were systematically reviewed. Answers to these questions and recommendations were selected via peer review. This guideline discusses endoscopic management of PFCs and makes recommendations on Indications for the procedure, pre-procedural preparations, optimal approach for drainage, procedural considerations (e.g., types of stent, advantages and disadvantages of plastic and metal stents, and accessories), adverse events of endoscopic intervention, and procedural quality issues. This guideline was reviewed by external experts and suggests best practices recommended based on the evidence available at the time of preparation. This will be revised as necessary to address advances and changes in technology and evidence obtained in clinical practice and future studies. (Gut Liver 2021;15:-693)

[Treatment of Pancreatic Fluid Collections]

Pancreatic Fluid Collection (PFC) develops as a result of acute pancreatitis, chronic pancreatitis, trauma, and postoperation. Although percutaneous drainage, surgery and Endoscopic Retrograde Panceatogram are used as conventional treatments in complicated PFC, the clinical course of PFC is unsatisfactory due to its clinical success rate and the risk of procedure-related complications. Endoscopic ultrasonography-guided transmural drainage of PFC is a safe and effective modality for the management of PFC, particularly in patients with pancreas necrosis. A range of techniques and stents have been introduced and a newly designed metal stent is now available.

The Early History of Interventional Endoscopic Ultrasound

Technological advances in the field of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) have emerged, especially in the past decade, that have rapidly expanded the therapeutic potential of EUS, largely through the innovations of accessory technology that could not have happened without innovative changes to echoendoscopes. As interventional EUS continues to evolve, further expansion into previously uncharted areas will most certainly happen.

Predictors of successful non-operative management of grade III & IV blunt pancreatic trauma

Introduction

Although surgery is the preferred treatment for grade III&IV pancreatic trauma, there is a growing movement for non-operative management. in blunt pancreatic trauma. Very few studies compare operative versus non-operative management in adult patients.

Methods

Retrospective analysis of a prospectively maintained database was performed from 2004 to 2013 in the department of gastrointestinal surgery, NIMS, Hyderabad. Comparative analysis was performed between patients who failed versus those who were successfully managed with non-operative management.

Results

34 patients had grade III/IV trauma out of which 8 were operated early with the remaining 26 initially under a NOM strategy, 10 of them could be successfully managed without any operation. Post-traumatic pancreatitis, Necrotizing pancreatitis, Ileus, contusion on CT, surrounding organ injuries are independently associated with failure of NOM on a univariate analysis. On multivariate logistic regression presence of necrosis& associated organ injury are factors that predict failure of NOM independently. Development of a pseudocyst is the only significant factor that is associated with a success of NOM.

Conclusions

Non-operative measures should be attempted in a select group of grade III&IV blunt pancreatic trauma. In hemodynamically stable patients with a controlled leak walled off as a pseudocyst without associated organ injuries and pancreatic necrosis, NOM has a higher success rate.

•

Non-operative measures should be attempted in a select group of high grade (grade III/IV) pancreatic trauma.

•

Controlled leak walled off as a pseudocyst, absent necrosis&organ injuries predict high success rate for NOM.

•

Dedicated nutritional, gastrointestinal and interventional radiological support are the key components of care.

Clinical practice guideline: management of acute pancreatitis

ABSTRACT

There has been an increase in the incidence of acute pancreatitis reported worldwide. Despite improvements in access to care, imaging and interventional techniques, acute pancreatitis continues to be associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Despite the availability of clinical practice guidelines for the management of acute pancreatitis, recent studies auditing the clinical management of the condition have shown important areas of noncompliance with evidence-based recommendations. This underscores the importance of creating understandable and implementable recommendations for the diagnosis and management of acute pancreatitis. The purpose of the present guideline is to provide evidence-based recommendations for the management of both mild and severe acute pancreatitis as well as the management of complications of acute pancreatitis and of gall stone-induced pancreatitis.

Risk factors for infection after endoscopic ultrasonography-guided drainage of specific types of pancreatic and peripancreatic fluid collections (with video)

Background

Endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS)-guided drainage is widely used for the treatment of specific types of peripancreatic fluid collections (PFCs). Infectious complications have been reported. It is recommended that the infection rate should be assessed by measuring risk factors. The objectives of this study were to measure whether the risk of infection after EUS-guided drainage was associated with patient- and procedure-related factors.

Methods

Eighty-three patients were eligible for inclusion from September 2008 to November 2012. EUS-guided drainage was performed in all patients. Infectious complications were observed, and data on patient- and procedure-related factors were collected. Patient-related factors mainly included age, sex, etiology of PFC, and cyst location and diameter. Procedure-related factors mainly included approach of EUS-guided drainage and stent diameter. Separate multivariate logistic regression models for all EUS-guided drainage were carried out.

Results

Complete EUS-guided drainage was achieved in all patients. A definitive diagnosis of infection after EUS-guided drainage was made in seven patients. All seven patients had a history of acute pancreatitis, and the cyst diameters were all >15 cm. Three patients had diabetes mellitus.

Conclusions

The cyst diameter was an independent risk factor for infection. Larger cysts with a diameter >15 cm should perhaps be drained initially with multiple pigtail or a larger diameter self-expandable metal stents to try to avoid infection.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s00464-015-4557-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Management of pancreatic ductal leaks and fistulae

Pancreatic duct leaks can occur as a result of both acute and chronic pancreatitis or in the setting of pancreatic trauma. Manifestations of leaks include pseudocysts, pancreatic ascites, high amylase pleural effusions, disconnected duct syndrome, and internal and external pancreatic fistulas. Patient presentations are highly variable and range from asymptomatic pancreatic cysts to patients with severe abdominal pain and sepsis from infected fluid collections. The diagnosis can often be made by high-quality cross-sectional imaging or during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). Because of their complexity, pancreatic leak patients are best managed by a multidisciplinary team comprised of therapeutic endoscopists, interventional radiologists, and surgeons in the field of pancreatic interventions. Minor leaks will often resolve with conservative management while severe leaks will frequently require interventions. Endoscopic treatments for pancreatic duct leaks have replaced surgical interventions in many situations. Interventional radiologists also have the ability to offer therapeutic interventions for many leak patients. The mainstay of endotherapy for pancreatic leaks is transpapillary pancreatic duct stenting with a stent that bridges the leak if possible, but varies based on the manifestation and clinical presentation. Fluid collections that result from leaks, such as pseudocysts, can often be treated by endoscopic transluminal drainage with or without endoscopic ultrasound or by percutaneous drainage. Endoscopic interventions have been shown to be effective and have an acceptable complication rate.

Outcomes of EUS-guided drainage of debris-containing pancreatic pseudocysts by using combined endoprosthesis and a nasocystic drain

BACKGROUND

The presence of debris within a pseudocyst may impair success of endoscopic drainage.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the clinical outcomes and adverse-event rates of EUS-guided pseudocyst drainage with and without a nasocystic drain for the management of pancreatic pseudocysts with viscous solid debris-laden fluid.

DESIGN

Retrospective study.

SETTING

Single, tertiary-care referral center.

PATIENTS

Consecutive patients with pancreatic pseudocysts managed by EUS-guided drainage: those with solid debris who underwent drainage via nasocystic drains alongside stents (n = 63) and those with solid debris who underwent drainage via transmural stents only (n = 24).

INTERVENTION

Drainage via nasocystic drains alongside stents or drainage via transmural stents only.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

The primary outcomes were short-term success and long-term success of the procedures. The secondary outcomes were procedure-related adverse events and reintervention.

RESULTS

The patients with viscous solid debris-laden fluid whose pseudocysts were drained by both stents and nasocystic tubes had a 3 times greater short-term success rate compared with those who had drainage by stents alone (P = .03). On 12-month follow-up, complete resolution of pseudocysts with debris drained via stents alone was less (58%) compared with those with debris who underwent drainage via nasocystic drains alongside stents (79%; P = .059). The rate of stent occlusion was higher in cysts with debris drained by stents alone (33%) compared with those drained via nasocystic drains alongside stents (13%; P = .03).

LIMITATIONS

Retrospective design; limited sample size.

CONCLUSION

In patients with pseudocysts with viscous debris-laden fluid, EUS-guided drainage by using a combination of a nasocystic drain and transmural stents improves clinical outcomes and lowers the stent occlusion rate compared with those who underwent drainage via stents alone.

Fluid collections in and around the pancreas in acute pancreatitis

The advent of computed tomographic scan with its wide use in the evaluation of acute pancreatitis has opened up a new topic in pancreatology i.e. fluid collections. Fluid collections in and around the pancreas occur often in acute pancreatitis and were defined by the Atlanta Symposium on Acute Pancreatitis in 1992. Two decades since the Atlanta Conference additional experience has brought to light the inadequacy and poor understanding of the terms used by different specialists involved in the care of patients with acute pancreatitis when interpreting imaging modalities and the need for a uniformly used classification system. The deficiencies of the Atlanta definitions and advances in medicine have led to a proposed revision of the Atlanta classification promulgated by the Acute Pancreatitis Classification Working Group. The newly used terms "acute peripancreatic fluid collections," "pancreatic pseudocyst," "postnecrotic pancreatic/peripancreatic fluid collections," and "walled-off pancreatic necrosis" are to be clearly understood in the interpretation of imaging studies. The current treatment methods for fluid collections are diverse and depend on accurate interpretations of radiologic tests. Management options include conservative treatment, percutaneous catheter drainage, open and laparoscopic surgery, and endoscopic drainage. The choice of treatment depends on a correct diagnosis of the type of fluid collection. In this study we have attempted to clarify the management and clinical features of different types of fluid collections as they have been initially defined under the 1992 Atlanta Classification and revised by the Working Group's proposed categorization.

Acute pancreatitis

Acute pancreatitis (AP) is an important cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide and the annual incidence appears to be increasing. It presents as a mild self-limiting illness in 80% of patients. However, one-fifth of these develop a severe complicated life-threatening disease requiring intensive and prolonged therapeutic intervention. Alcohol and gallstone disease remain the commonest causes of AP but metabolic abnormalities, obesity and genetic susceptibility are thought be increasingly important aetiological factors. The prompt diagnosis of AP and stratification of disease severity is essential in directing rapid delivery of appropriate therapeutic measures. In this review, the range of diagnostic and prognostic assays, severity scoring systems and radiological investigations used in current clinical practice are described, highlighting their strengths and weaknesses. Increased understanding of the complex pathophysiology of AP has generated an array of new potential diagnostic assays and these are discussed. The multidisciplinary approach to management of severe pancreatitis is outlined, including areas of controversy and novel treatments.

Pseudocyst management: endoscopic drainage and other emerging techniques

Pseudocyst formation is a well known complication of pancreatitis. Not all pancreatic pseudocysts require intervention. Selected patients who are asymptomatic can be subject to expectant management. Spontaneous resolution has been shown to occur in 40% to 50% of patients with no serious complications occurring during the observation period. Intervention is warranted if the patient is symptomatic, there is a progressive increase in size or if the pseudocyst is infected. Surgery was the only available treatment for pseudocysts for a long time. Of late other modalities like percutaneous, endoscopic, and laparoscopic drainage have come to be seen as viable alternatives.

Acute pancreatitis

Acute pancreatitis is a common disease most frequently caused by gallstone disease or excess alcohol ingestion. Diagnosis is usually based on characteristic symptoms, often in conjunction with elevated serum pancreatic enzymes. Imaging is not always necessary, but may be performed for many reasons, such as to confirm a diagnosis of pancreatitis, rule out other causes of abdominal pain, elucidate the cause of pancreatitis, or to evaluate for complications such as necrosis or pseudocysts. Though the majority of patients will have mild, self-limiting disease, some will develop severe disease associated with organ failure. These patients are at risk to develop complications from ongoing pancreatic inflammation such as pancreatic necrosis, fluid collections, pseudocysts, and pancreatic duct disruption. Validated scoring systems can help predict the severity of pancreatitis, and thus, guide monitoring and intervention.Treatment of acute pancreatitis involves supportive care with fluid replacement, pain control, and controlled initiation of regular food intake. Prophylactic antibiotics are not recommended in acute pancreatitis if there is no evidence of pancreatic infection. In patients who fail to improve, further evaluation is necessary to assess for complications that require intervention such as pseudocysts or pancreatic necrosis. Endoscopy, including ERCP and EUS, and/or cholecystectomy may be indicated in the appropriate clinical setting. Ultimately, the management of the patient with severe acute pancreatitis will require a multidisciplinary approach.

Intervention of pyrrolidine dithiocarbamate and tetrandrine on cellular calcium overload of pancreatic acinar cells induced by serum and ascitic fluid from rats with acute pancreatitis

BACKGROUND AND AIM

To investigate the effects of serum and ascitic fluid from rats with acute pancreatitis (AP) on cellular free calcium concentration ([Ca(2+)]i) of isolated rat pancreatic acinar cells, and the intervention of pyrrolidine dithiocarbamate (PDTC) and tetrandrine (Tet) to cellular calcium overload in AP.

METHODS

AP was induced in Sprague-Dawley rats with a retrograde pancreatic duct injection of 3% sodium deoxycholate, and confirmed by histopathological examination and amylase activity assay. The rat serum and ascitic fluid were collected at 1, 5 and 10 h after AP induction, and used as irritants on isolated rat pancreatic acinar cells. The effects on intracellular [Ca(2+)]i, and cell viability were examined. Then, the antagonistic effects of different concentrations of PDTC and Tet were assessed.

RESULTS

The irritation with AP serum and ascitic fluid reduced the survival rate of the isolated rat pancreatic acinar cells and increased the cellular [Ca(2+)]i significantly (P < 0.05). As AP induction course prolonged, the stimulation effect of the AP serum and ascitic fluid intensified. In the pretreated acinar cells with PDTC or Tet, the decreased cell vitality reverted. The elevation of [Ca(2+)]i in the acinar cells significantly ameliorated (significant, P < 0.05; very significant, P < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

The serum and ascitic fluid from AP rats drastically elevate the [Ca(2+)]i in isolated pancreatic acinar cells and decrease cell vitality, while the pretreatment of cells with PDTC and Tet offsets the calcium overload irritated by the AP serum and ascitic fluid and protects these isolated acinar cells.

[Invasive endoscopy or surgery for pancreatic disorders?]

Endoscopic double papillotomy occupied the place of surgical transduodenal double sphincteroplasty for disorders of papilla of Vater or chronic pancreatitis several years ago. Endoscopic cystoenterostomy and cystogastrostomy can also replace surgery in the treatment of pseudocysts and walled-of necrosis even in cases of severe acute pancreatitis with/or without sepsis. In chronic pancreatitis endotherapy may be the treatment of choice at first, although surgical techniques give somewhat better long-term results for pain relief. Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy, stone resolution or extraction and multiple pancreatic stents without aggressive balloon dilatation can progressively calibrate dominant stricture of the main pancreatic duct without further damage, ischemia or obstruction of side branches. Relapse-free period becomes longer (also after stents removal) if alcohol consumption and smoking are stopped definitively. Well-controlled, randomised studies are still needed to demonstrate clinical advantage of multiple endoscopic stent placement in comparison to surgery.

Surgical management of failed endoscopic treatment of pancreatic disease

INTRODUCTION

Endoscopic therapy of acute and chronic pancreatitis has decreased the need for operative intervention. However, a significant proportion of patients treated endoscopically require definitive surgical management for persistent symptoms.

OBJECTIVE

Our aim was to determine which patients are likely to fail with endoscopic therapy, and to assess the clinical outcome of surgical management. Patients were identified using ICD-9 codes for pancreatic disease as well as CPT codes for endoscopic therapy followed by surgery.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Patients with documented acute or chronic pancreatitis treated endoscopically prior to surgical therapy were included (N = 88). The majority of patients (65%) exhibited chronic pancreatitis due to alcohol abuse. Common indicators for surgery were: persistent symptoms, anatomy not amenable to endoscopic treatment and unresolved common bile duct or pancreatic duct strictures. Surgical salvage procedures included internal drainage of a pseudocyst or an obstructed pancreatic duct (46%), debridement of peripancreatic fluid collections (25%), and pancreatic resection (31%).

RESULTS

Death occurred in 3% of patients. The most common complications were hemorrhage (16%), wound infection (13%), and pulmonary complications (11%). Chronic pancreatitis with persistent symptoms is the most common reason for pancreatic surgery following endoscopic therapy. Surgical salvage therapy can largely be accomplished by drainage procedures, but pancreatic resection is common.

CONCLUSION

These complex procedures can be performed with acceptable mortality but also with significant risk for morbidity.

Endoscopic biliopancreatic investigations and therapy

The management of most biliopancreatic diseases benefits from endoscopic treatment. Forty years after the first endoscopic cannulation of the ampulla of Vater, the overall effectiveness and safety of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) can be evaluated using the quality assurance programs that have recently been developed for gastrointestinal endoscopy, including ERCP. Such evaluation does not mean simply reporting therapeutic success and complication rates; rather, it involves a complex analysis of the entire gastrointestinal unit, of the medical practises, and of patient satisfaction. The overall quality of ERCP has been analysed and many quality deficits identified, even in referral centres. Training for such a specialised procedure is difficult and expensive. Competence in ERCP requires as many as 200 ERCP procedures. Quality assurance programs can help to improve the overall quality of endoscopic practise, including training of young endoscopists.

EUS versus surgical cyst-gastrostomy for management of pancreatic pseudocysts

BACKGROUND

Although EUS-guided cyst-gastrostomy is increasingly being performed, there are no studies that compare the clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness with surgical cyst-gastrostomy.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the clinical outcomes of EUS-guided cyst-gastrostomy with surgical cyst-gastrostomy for the management of patients with uncomplicated pancreatic pseudocysts and to perform a cost analysis of each treatment modality.

DESIGN

A retrospective case-controlled study.

SETTING

A tertiary-referral center.

PATIENTS

Consecutive patients with uncomplicated pancreatic pseudocysts managed by surgical and EUS-guided cyst-gastrostomy.

METHODS

An independent observer blinded to all clinic outcomes matched each patient who underwent a surgical cyst-gastrostomy with 2 patients who underwent an EUS-guided cyst-gastrostomy for age, etiology of pancreatitis, and the size of the pseudocyst.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Rates of treatment success, complications, and reinterventions; length of postprocedure hospital stay; and cost associated with each treatment modality.

RESULTS

Ten patients (6 men; mean age 42.3 years, range 22-65 years) who underwent surgical cyst-gastrostomy were matched with 20 patients who underwent an EUS-guided cyst-gastrostomy. There were no significant differences in demographics, major comorbidities, and clinical characteristics between both cohorts. Although there were no significant differences in rates of treatment success (100% vs 95%, P = .36), procedural complications (none in either cohort), or reinterventions (10% vs 0%, P = .13) between surgery versus an EUS-guided cyst-gastrostomy, the mean length of a postprocedure hospital stay for an EUS-guided cyst-gastrostomy was significantly shorter than for surgical cyst-gastrostomy (2.65 vs 6.5 days, P = .008). The average direct cost per case for EUS-guided cyst-gastrostomy was significantly less when compared with surgical cyst-gastrostomy ($9077 vs $14,815, P = .01), which corresponded to a cost savings of $5738 per patient.

LIMITATIONS

Retrospective, nonrandomized design; patients with pancreatic abscess or necrosis were not evaluated; a limited sample size and a short duration of follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

EUS-guided cyst-gastrostomy should be considered as a first-line treatment approach for patients with uncomplicated pancreatic pseudocysts, because the procedure is cost saving and is associated with a shorter length of a postprocedure hospital stay when compared with surgical cyst-gastrostomy. There was no significant difference in clinical outcomes between both treatment modalities.