Endoscopic transmural drainage tailored to quantity of necrotic debris versus laparoscopic transmural internal drainage for walled-off necrosis in acute pancreatitis: A randomized controlled trial

Clinical course for pancreatic necrosis and pancreatic pseudocysts due to severe acute or chronic pancreatitis

Background

The acute and chronic pancreatitis (CP) can lead to severe complications like walled-off necrosis, large symptomatic pseudocyst or multiorgan failure. The treatment of these complications is multivariate and can differ from conservative, symptomatic treatment or minimal-invasive, endoscopic transgastral stenting to transgastral necrosectomy.

Objectives

This study aims to analyse the clinical course for patients that develop local complications of severe pancreatitis.

Design

This is a retrospective observational single-centre study on 46 patients with severe pancreatitis.

Methods

In this retrospective single-centre study, 46 out of 474 inpatients from January 2014 to December 2020, who were treated because of an acute or CP, developed acute pancreatitis complications and could be included. We analysed and compared the clinical course of different treatments (lumen apposing metal stents, transgastral double pigtail stent, endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, operation, conservative treatment) and different complications (walled-off necrosis (WON), pancreatic pseudocyst (PPC)).

Results

Forty-six patients developed an acute complication due to severe pancreatitis. Twenty-seven patients developed a WON, while 19 patients suffered from PPC. 48% of the whole cohort had an alcoholic aetiology of pancreatitis. 78% were treated with antibiotics, 48% suffered from infected pancreatitis and 22% needed intensive care treatment. WON patients more often had a longer hospitalization of more than 21 days. PPC patients were correlated with an alcoholic aetiology, whereas WON patients were inversely correlated with an alcoholic aetiology. Increased lactate dehydrogenase, lipase, and C-reactive protein levels as well as leucocyte count could be associated with a higher probability to exhibit a WON instead of another local complication. The mortality rate was low with 7% in our study.

Conclusion

WON and PPC differ in certain patients and laboratory characteristics such as aetiology, elevated laboratory values, antibiotic treatment or the duration of hospitalization. Invasive treatment is not required in all severe pancreatitis cases.

The composition of the stent microbiome is associated with morbidity and adverse events during endoscopic drainage therapy of pancreatic necroses and pseudocysts

Background

Development of pancreatic necroses or pseudocysts are typical complications of pancreatitis and may require endoscopic drainage therapy using metal or plastic stents. Microbial infection of these lesions poses a major challenge. So far, the composition and significance of the microbial colonization on drainage stents are largely unknown although it may impact outcomes during endoscopic drainage therapy.

Methods

A total of 26 stents used for drainage of pancreatic lesions were retrieved and the stent microbiome was determined by 16S rRNA gene sequencing. Additional analysis included comparison of the stent microbiome to the intracavitary necrosis microbiome as well as scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and micro-computed tomography (μCT) imaging of selected metal or plastic stents.

Results

The stent microbiome comprises a large proportion of opportunistic enteric pathogens such as Enterococcus (14.4%) or Escherichia (6.1%) as well as oral bacteria like Streptococcus (13.1%). Increased levels of opportunistic enteric pathogens were associated with a prolonged hospital stay (r = 0.77, p = 3e-06) and the occurrence of adverse events during drainage therapy (p = 0.011). Higher levels of oral bacteria were associated (r = -0.62, p = 8e-04) with shorter durations of inpatient treatment. SEM and μCT investigations revealed complex biofilm networks on the stent surface.

Conclusion

The composition of the stent microbiome is associated with prolonged hospital stays and adverse events during endoscopic drainage therapy, highlighting the need for effective infection control to improve patient outcomes. In addition to systemic antibiotic therapy, antimicrobial stent coatings could be a conceivable option to influence the stent microbiome and possibly enhance control of the necrotic microflora.

Infected pancreatic necrosis-Current trends in management

Acute necrotizing pancreatitis is a common gastrointestinal disease requiring hospitalization and multiple interventions resulting in higher morbidity and mortality. Development of infection in such necrotic tissue is one of the sentinel events in natural history of necrotizing pancreatitis. Infected necrosis develops in around 1/3rd of patients with necrotizing pancreatitis resulting in higher mortality. So, timely diagnosis of infected necrosis using clinical, laboratory and radiological parameters is of utmost importance. Though initial conservative management with antibiotics and organ support system is effective in some patients, a majority of patients still requires drainage of the collection by various modalities. Mode of drainage of infected pancreatic necrosis depends on various factors such as the clinical status of the patient, location and characteristics of collection and availability of the expertise and includes endoscopic, percutaneous and minimally invasive or open surgical approaches. Endoscopic drainage has proved to be a game changer in the management of infected pancreatic necrosis in the last decade with rapid evolution in procedure techniques, development of novel metal stent and dedicated necrosectomy devices for better clinical outcome. Despite widespread adoption of endoscopic transluminal drainage of pancreatic necrosis with excellent clinical outcomes, peripheral collections are still not amenable for endoscopic drainage and in such scenario, the role of percutaneous catheter drainage or minimally invasive surgical necrosectomy cannot be understated. In a nutshell, the management of patients with infected pancreatic necrosis involves a multi-disciplinary team including a gastroenterologist, an intensivist, an interventional radiologist and a surgeon for optimum clinical outcomes.

Role of advanced endoscopy in the management of inflammatory digestive diseases (pancreas and biliary tract)

The progress of endoscopic diagnosis and treatment for inflammatory diseases of the biliary tract and pancreas have been remarkable. Endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) and EUS-elastography are used for the diagnosis of early chronic pancreatitis and evaluation of endocrine and exocrine function in chronic pancreatitis. Notably, extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy and electrohydraulic shock wave lithotripsy have improved the endoscopic stone removal rate in patients for whom pancreatic stone removal is difficult. Studies have reported the use of self-expanding metal stents for stent placement for pancreatic duct stenosis and EUS-guided pancreatic drainage for refractory pancreatic duct strictures. Furthermore, EUS-guided drainage using a double-pigtailed plastic stent has been performed for the management of symptomatic pancreatic fluid collection after acute pancreatitis. Recently, lumen-apposing metal stents have led to advances in the treatment of walled-off necrosis after acute pancreatitis. EUS-guided biliary drainage is an alternative to refractory endoscopic biliary drainage and percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage for the treatment of acute cholangitis. The placement of an inside stent followed by switching to uncovered self-expanding metal stents in difficult-to-treat cases has been proposed for acute cholangitis by malignant biliary obstruction. Endoscopic transpapillary gallbladder drainage is an alternative to percutaneous transhepatic gallbladder drainage for severe and some cases of moderate acute cholecystitis. EUS-guided gallbladder drainage has been reported as an alternative to percutaneous transhepatic gallbladder drainage and endoscopic transpapillary gallbladder drainage. However, it is important to understand the advantages and disadvantages of each drainage method and select the optimal drainage method for each case.

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.

Different timing for abdominal paracentesis catheter placement and drainage in severe acute pancreatitis complicated by intra-abdominal fluid accumulation

BACKGROUND

Non-surgical methods such as percutaneous drainage are crucial for the treatment of patients with severe acute pancreatitis (SAP). However, there is still an ongoing debate regarding the optimal timing for abdominal paracentesis catheter placement and drainage.

AIM

To explore the influence of different timing for abdominal paracentesis catheter placement and drainage in SAP complicated by intra-abdominal fluid accumulation.

METHODS

Using a retrospective approach, 184 cases of SAP complicated by intra-abdominal fluid accumulation were enrolled and categorized into three groups based on the timing of catheter placement: group A (catheter placement within 2 d of symptom onset, n = 89), group B (catheter placement between days 3 and 5 after symptom onset, n = 55), and group C (catheter placement between days 6 and 7 after symptom onset, n = 40). The differences in progression rate, mortality rate, and the number of cases with organ dysfunction were compared among the three groups.

RESULTS

The progression rate of group A was significantly lower than those in groups B and groups C (2.25% vs 21.82% and 32.50%, P < 0.05). Further, the proportion of patients with at least one organ dysfunction in group A was significantly lower than those in groups B and groups C (41.57% vs 70.91% and 75.00%, P < 0.05). The mortality rates in group A, group B, and group C were similar (P > 0.05). At postoperative day 3, the levels of C-reactive protein (55.41 ± 19.32 mg/L vs 82.25 ± 20.41 mg/L and 88.65 ± 19.14 mg/L, P < 0.05), procalcitonin (1.36 ± 0.51 ng/mL vs 3.20 ± 0.97 ng/mL and 3.41 ± 0.98 ng/mL, P < 0.05), tumor necrosis factor-alpha (15.12 ± 6.63 pg/L vs 22.26 ± 9.96 pg/L and 23.39 ± 9.12 pg/L, P < 0.05), interleukin-6 (332.14 ± 90.16 ng/L vs 412.20 ± 88.50 ng/L and 420.08 ± 87.65ng/L, P < 0.05), interleukin-8 (415.54 ± 68.43 ng/L vs 505.80 ± 66.90 ng/L and 510.43 ± 68.23ng/L, P < 0.05) and serum amyloid A (270.06 ± 78.49 mg/L vs 344.41 ± 81.96 mg/L and 350.60 ± 80.42 mg/L, P < 0.05) were significantly lower in group A compared to those in groups B and group C. The length of hospital stay in group A was significantly lower than those in groups B and group C (24.50 ± 4.16 d vs 35.54 ± 6.62 d and 38.89 ± 7.10 d, P < 0.05). The hospitalization expenses in group A were also significantly lower than those in groups B and groups C [2.70 (1.20, 3.55) ten-thousand-yuan vs 5.50 (2.98, 7.12) ten-thousand-yuan and 6.00 (3.10, 8.05) ten-thousand-yuan, P < 0.05). The incidence of complications in group A was markedly lower than that in group C (5.62% vs 25.00%, P < 0.05), and similar to group B (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Percutaneous catheter drainage for the treatment of SAP complicated by intra-abdominal fluid accumulation is most effective when performed within 2 d of onset.

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.

Endoscopic versus minimally invasive surgical approach for infected necrotizing pancreatitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Acute pancreatitis is a common condition of the digestive system, but sometimes it develops into severe cases. In about 10-20% of patients, necrosis of the pancreas or its periphery occurs. Although most have aseptic necrosis, 30% of cases will develop infectious necrotizing pancreatitis. Infected necrotizing pancreatitis (INP) requires a critical treatment approach. Minimally invasive surgical approach (MIS) and endoscopy are the management methods. This meta-analysis compares the outcomes of MIS and endoscopic treatments.

METHODS

We searched a medical database until December 2022 to compare the results of endoscopic and MIS procedures for INP. We selected eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that reported treatment complications for the meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Five RCTs comparing a total of 284 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Among them, 139 patients underwent MIS, while 145 underwent endoscopic procedures. The results showed significant differences (p < 0.05) in the risk ratios (RRs) for major complications (RR: 0.69, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.49-0.97), new onset of organ failure (RR: 0.29, 95% CI: 0.11-0.82), surgical site infection (RR: 0.26, 95% CI: 0.07-0.92), fistula or perforation (RR: 0.27, 95% CI: 0.12-0.64), and pancreatic fistula (RR: 0.14, 95% CI: 0.05-0.45). The hospital stay was significantly shorter for the endoscopic group compared to the MIS group, with a mean difference of 6.74 days (95% CI: -12.94 to -0.54). There were no significant differences (p > 0.05) in the RR for death, bleeding, incisional hernia, percutaneous drainage, pancreatic endocrine deficiency, pancreatic exocrine deficiency, or the need for enzyme use.

CONCLUSIONS

Endoscopic management of INP performs better compared to surgical treatment due to its lower complication rate and higher patient life quality.

Endoscopic ultrasound drainage of pancreatic fluid collections: do we know enough about the best approach?

Pancreatic fluid collection often occurs as a local complication of acute pancreatitis, and drainage is indicated in symptomatic patients. The drainage may be surgical, percutaneous, or endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) guided. In symptomatic collections older than 4 weeks and localized in the upper abdomen, EUS-guided drainage is the first choice of treatment. Lumen-apposing metal stents are useful in cases of walled-off necrosis, facilitating access to the cavity; however, they do not reduce the number of necrosectomy sessions required. In most pancreatic pseudocysts requiring drainage, plastic stents remain the first choice of treatment. This review aimed to summarize the principles and techniques of step-up therapy of pancreatic fluid collections, including preprocedural and postprocedural assessment and practical approaches of drainage and necrosectomy, making available evidence more accessible to endoscopists aiming to train for this procedure. Successful and safe EUS drainage connotes early recognition and treatment of complications and the presence of a multidisciplinary team for optimal patient management. However, the best time for necrosectomy, modality of drainage method (lumen-apposing metal stents or plastic stents), and duration of antibiotherapy are still under evaluation.

Pancreatitis sepsis: Evolution and principles in the management of necrotizing pancreatitis

Outcomes from some recent clinical trials have helped to improve the management of necrotizing pancreatitis over the last 2 decades. The location of the retroperitoneal collection, previous gastric surgery, patient preference, and medical expertise dictates a minimally invasive surgical step-up versus endoscopic approach. Endoscopic drainage is facilitated by either a plastic or metallic stent. Direct endoscopic necrosectomy is performed for lack of improvement after endoscopic drainage. The surgical approach is accomplished by minimally invasive surgery with either video-assisted retroperitoneal debridement or laparoscopic drainage. A multidisciplinary team with appropriate expertise should care for patients with necrotizing pancreatitis. This brief review summarizes the landmark clinical trials, compares the benefits and roles of endoscopic, surgical, and percutaneous interventions, and discusses treatment algorithms for necrotizing pancreatitis in the modern era.

Infected pancreatic necrosis: outcomes and clinical predictors of mortality. A post hoc analysis of the MANCTRA-1 international study

The identification of high-risk patients in the early stages of infected pancreatic necrosis (IPN) is critical, because it could help the clinicians to adopt more effective management strategies. We conducted a post hoc analysis of the MANCTRA-1 international study to assess the association between clinical risk factors and mortality among adult patients with IPN. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression models were used to identify prognostic factors of mortality. We identified 247 consecutive patients with IPN hospitalised between January 2019 and December 2020. History of uncontrolled arterial hypertension (p = 0.032; 95% CI 1.135-15.882; aOR 4.245), qSOFA (p = 0.005; 95% CI 1.359-5.879; aOR 2.828), renal failure (p = 0.022; 95% CI 1.138-5.442; aOR 2.489), and haemodynamic failure (p = 0.018; 95% CI 1.184-5.978; aOR 2.661), were identified as independent predictors of mortality in IPN patients. Cholangitis (p = 0.003; 95% CI 1.598-9.930; aOR 3.983), abdominal compartment syndrome (p = 0.032; 95% CI 1.090-6.967; aOR 2.735), and gastrointestinal/intra-abdominal bleeding (p = 0.009; 95% CI 1.286-5.712; aOR 2.710) were independently associated with the risk of mortality. Upfront open surgical necrosectomy was strongly associated with the risk of mortality (p < 0.001; 95% CI 1.912-7.442; aOR 3.772), whereas endoscopic drainage of pancreatic necrosis (p = 0.018; 95% CI 0.138-0.834; aOR 0.339) and enteral nutrition (p = 0.003; 95% CI 0.143-0.716; aOR 0.320) were found as protective factors. Organ failure, acute cholangitis, and upfront open surgical necrosectomy were the most significant predictors of mortality. Our study confirmed that, even in a subgroup of particularly ill patients such as those with IPN, upfront open surgery should be avoided as much as possible. Study protocol registered in ClinicalTrials.Gov (I.D. Number NCT04747990).

Infection of (Peri-)Pancreatic Necrosis Is Associated with Increased Rates of Adverse Events during Endoscopic Drainage: A Retrospective Study

Pancreatic necroses are a major challenge in the treatment of patients with pancreatitis, causing high morbidity. When indicated, these lesions are usually drained endoscopically using plastic or metal stents. However, data on factors associated with the occurrence of failure or adverse events during stent therapy are scarce. We retrospectively analyzed all adverse events and their associated features which occurred in patients who underwent a first-time endoscopic drainage of pancreatic necrosis from 2009 to 2019. During the observation period, a total of 89 eligible cases were identified. Adverse events occurred in 58.4% of the cases, of which 76.9% were minor (e.g., stent dislocation, residual lesions, or stent obstruction). However, these events triggered repeated interventions (63.5% vs. 0%, p < 0.001) and prolonged hospital stays (21.0 [11.8−63.0] vs. 14.0 [7.0−31.0], p = 0.003) compared to controls without any adverse event. Important factors associated with the occurrence of adverse events during endoscopic drainage therapy were positive necrosis cultures (6.1 [2.3−16.1], OR [95% CI], p < 0.001) and a larger diameter of the treated lesion (1.3 [1.1−1.5], p < 0.001). Superinfection of pancreatic necrosis is the most significant factor increasing the likelihood of adverse events during endoscopic drainage. Therefore, control of infection is crucial for successful drainage therapy, and future studies need to consider superinfection of pancreatic necrosis as a possible confounding factor when comparing different therapeutic modalities.