Severe acute pancreatitis: nonsurgical treatment of infected necroses

Guidelines for Antibiotics Prescription in Critically Ill Patients

How to cite this article: Khilnani GC, Tiwari P, Mittal S, Kulkarni AP, Chaudhry D, Zirpe KG, et al. Guidelines for Antibiotics Prescription in Critically Ill Patients. Indian J Crit Care Med 2024;28(S2):S104-S216.

American College of Gastroenterology Guidelines: Management of Acute Pancreatitis

Acute pancreatitis (AP), defined as acute inflammation of the pancreas, is one of the most common diseases of the gastrointestinal tract leading to hospital admission in the United States. It is important for clinicians to appreciate that AP is heterogenous, progressing differently among patients and is often unpredictable. While most patients experience symptoms lasting a few days, almost one-fifth of patients will go on to experience complications, including pancreatic necrosis and/or organ failure, at times requiring prolonged hospitalization, intensive care, and radiologic, surgical, and/or endoscopic intervention. Early management is essential to identify and treat patients with AP to prevent complications. Patients with biliary pancreatitis typically will require surgery to prevent recurrent disease and may need early endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography if the disease is complicated by cholangitis. Nutrition plays an important role in treating patients with AP. The safety of early refeeding and importance in preventing complications from AP are addressed. This guideline will provide an evidence-based practical approach to the management of patients with AP.

Epidemiology and risk factors for mortality in critically ill patients with pancreatic infection

Background

The AbSeS-classification defines specific phenotypes of patients with intra-abdominal infection based on the (1) setting of infection onset (community-acquired, early onset, or late-onset hospital-acquired), (2) presence or absence of either localized or diffuse peritonitis, and (3) severity of disease expression (infection, sepsis, or septic shock). This classification system demonstrated reliable risk stratification in intensive care unit (ICU) patients with intra-abdominal infection. This study aimed to describe the epidemiology of ICU patients with pancreatic infection and assess the relationship between the components of the AbSeS-classification and mortality.

Methods

This was a secondary analysis of an international observational study ("AbSeS") investigating ICU patients with intra-abdominal infection. Only patients with pancreatic infection were included in this analysis (n=165). Mortality was defined as ICU mortality within 28 days of observation for patients discharged earlier from the ICU. Relationships with mortality were assessed using logistic regression analysis and reported as odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI).

Results

The overall mortality was 35.2% (n=58). The independent risk factors for mortality included older age (OR=1.03, 95% CI: 1.0 to 1.1 P=0.023), localized peritonitis (OR=4.4, 95% CI: 1.4 to 13.9 P=0.011), and persistent signs of inflammation at day 7 (OR=9.5, 95% CI: 3.8 to 23.9, P<0.001) or after the implementation of additional source control interventions within the first week (OR=4.0, 95% CI: 1.3 to 12.2, P=0.013). Gram-negative bacteria were most frequently isolated (n=58, 49.2%) without clinically relevant differences in microbial etiology between survivors and non-survivors.

Conclusions

In pancreatic infection, a challenging source/damage control and ongoing pancreatic inflammation appear to be the strongest contributors to an unfavorable short-term outcome. In this limited series, essentials of the AbSeS-classification, such as the setting of infection onset, diffuse peritonitis, and severity of disease expression, were not associated with an increased mortality risk.ClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT03270345.

Acute Pancreatitis: The Increasing Role of Medical Management of a Traditionally Surgically Managed Disease

Management of acute pancreatitis and its complications has rapidly evolved in recent years. The earlier pillars of management that included prolonged bowel rest, empiric intravenous antibiotics, and early surgical intervention for complications such as pancreatic necrosis have become much less common. The latest evidence-based approaches to acute pancreatitis are taking almost a diametrically different path to previous management. The current strategy focuses on early feeding, judicious use of antibiotics, and delayed use of invasive interventions. Even in complex cases, when surgical interventions may be indicated, there is an expressed preference for minimally invasive techniques. We review the changes that have evolved rapidly over the past decade in this common clinical problem.

A Multimodal Approach for the First-Line Treatment of Infected Pancreatic Necrosis

OBJECTIVES

Because infected pancreatic necrosis (IPN) has multiple presentations, not all patients are likely to benefit from the same first-line treatment. Our objective was to evaluate morbidity and mortality in a series of patients treated with a multimodal therapeutic approach.

METHODS

Between May 2012 and May 2019, 51 patients diagnosed with IPN were treated. The 5 initial treatment alternatives were as follows: percutaneous drainage, minimally invasive necrosectomy, antibiotics alone, transgastric necrosectomy, and temporizing percutaneous/endoscopic drainage. Initial treatment selection depended on evolution, clinical condition, and extension of pancreatic necrosis. Success, morbidity, and mortality rates were determined.

RESULTS

In terms of determinant-based classification, 37 were classified as severe, and 14 as critical. Percutaneous, temporizing drainage, minimally invasive necrosectomy, antibiotics alone and transgastric necrosectomy approaches were used in 21, 10, 11, 4, and 5 patients, respectively. Necrosectomy was not required in 18 patients (35%). There were no significant differences in mortality among the different treatment approaches (P < 0.45). Overall success, morbidity, and mortality rates were 68.6%, 52.9%, and 7.8%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The multimodal approach seems to be a rational and efficient strategy for the initial treatment of IPN.

Change in serum levels of inflammatory markers reflects response of percutaneous catheter drainage in symptomatic fluid collections in patients with acute pancreatitis

Background

Percutaneous catheter drainage (PCD) is used as the first step in the management of symptomatic fluid collections in patients with acute pancreatitis (AP). There are limited data on the effect of PCD on inflammatory markers.

Aim

To study the effects of PCD on serum levels of C‐reactive protein (CRP), IL‐6, and IL‐10 and its correlation with the outcome.

Methods

Consecutive patients of AP with symptomatic fluid collections undergoing PCD were evaluated for serum levels of CRP, IL‐6, and IL‐10 before PCD and at 3 and 7 days after PCD. Resolution of organ failure (OF), sepsis, and pressure symptoms was considered to demonstrate the success of PCD. Changes in levels following PCD were correlated with outcome.

Results

Indications of PCD in 59 patients (age 38.9 ± 13.17 years, 49 male) were suspected/documented infected pancreatic necrosis (n = 45), persistent OF (n = 40), and pressure symptoms (n = 7). A total of 49 (83.1%) patients improved with PCD, five patients required surgery, and six died. A significant difference was noted between baseline levels of CRP (P = 0.026) and IL‐6 (P = 0.013) among patients who improved compared to those who worsened following PCD. Significant decrease (P < 0.01) of all three markers on day 3 of PCD insertion, with further decrease (P < 0.01) on day 7, was noted. The percentage of the decrease of IL‐6 levels on day 3 and of CRP on day 7 correlated with the outcome.

Conclusion

PCD is associated with a significant decrease in CRP, IL‐6, and IL‐10 levels. Percentage decrease in IL‐6 on day 3 and CRP on day 7 correlated with the outcome of patients managed with PCD.

Evaluation and management of acute pancreatitis

Acute pancreatitis (AP) is one of the most common gastrointestinal causes for hospi-talization in the United States. In 2015, AP accounted for approximately 390000 hospitalizations. The burden of AP is only expected to increase over time. Despite recent advances in medicine, pancreatitis continues to be associated with a substantial morbidity and mortality. The most common cause of AP is gallstones, followed closely by alcohol use. The diagnosis of pancreatitis is established with any two of three following criteria: (1) Abdominal pain consistent with that of AP; (2) Serum amylase and/or lipase greater than three times the upper limit of normal; and (3) Characteristics findings seen in cross-sectional abdominal imaging. Multiple criteria and scoring systems have been established for assessing severity of AP. The cornerstones of management include aggressive intravenous hydration, appropriate nutrition and pain management. Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography and surgery are important aspects in management of acute gallstone pancreatitis. We provide a comprehensive review of evaluation and management of AP.

Current Concepts in Severe Acute and Necrotizing Pancreatitis: An Evidence-Based Approach

The incidence of acute pancreatitis continues to rise, inducing substantial medical and social burden, with annual costs exceeding $2 billion in the United States alone. Although most patients develop mild pancreatitis, 20% develop severe and/or necrotizing pancreatitis, requiring advanced medical and interventional care. Morbidity resulting from local and systemic complications as well as invasive interventions result in mortality rates historically as high as 30%. There has been substantial evolution of strategies for interventions in recent years, from open surgery to minimally invasive surgical and endoscopic step-up approaches. In contrast to the advances in invasive procedures for complications, early management still lacks curative options and consists of adequate fluid resuscitation, analgesics, and monitoring. Many challenges remain, including comprehensive management of the entire spectrum of the disease, which requires close involvement of multiple disciplines at specialized centers.

Pancreatic necrosis: Complications and changing trend of treatment

Incidence of acute pancreatitis seems to be increasing in the Western countries and has been associated with significantly increased morbidity. Nearly 80% of the patients with acute pancreatitis undergo resolution; some develop complications including pancreatic necrosis. Infection of pancreatic necrosis is the leading cause of death in these patients. A significant portion of these patients needs surgical interventions. Traditionally, the “gold standard” procedure has been the open surgical necrosectomy, which is now being completed by the relatively lesser invasive interventions. Minimally invasive surgical (MIS) procedures include endoscopic drainage, percutaneous image-guided catheter drainage, and retroperitoneal drainage. This review article discusses the open and MIS interventions for pancreatic necrosis with each having its own respective benefits and disadvantages are covered.

Severe Acute Pancreatitis - How Conservative Can We Be?

Background

Acute pancreatitis still is a disease with overall high mortality. Continuously improved understanding of the pathophysiology, however, led to changes in treatment algorithms within the last decades, thus resulting in decreased mortality. This knowledge of acute pancreatitis enabled a new classification system introduced by an international expert panel. This classification system is helpful in initiating treatment strategies which are adapted to the course of acute pancreatitis. Especially the role of surgery experienced a paradigm shift towards a more conservative approach.

Methods

A specific literature search regarding the treatment of acute pancreatitis was performed in the PubMed database, and the results of key studies were compared. Results of these studies are discussed in the context of the most recent international classification system.

Results and Conclusion

Based upon the available data, we can summarize that conservative treatment of acute pancreatitis with pancreatic necrosis is a valid treatment option for selected cases and is associated with reduced mortality compared to more aggressive therapy. However, patients with acute pancreatitis should be treated in experienced centers.

Management of infected pancreatic necrosis: state of the art

Pancreatic necrosis occurs in 15% of acute pancreatitis. The presence of infection is the most important factor in the evolution of pancreatitis. The diagnosis of infection is still challenging. Mortality in infected necrosis is 20%; in the presence of organic dysfunction, mortality reaches 60%. In the last three decades, there has been a real revolution in the treatment of infected pancreatic necrosis. However, the challenges persist and there are many unsolved questions: antibiotic treatment alone, tomography-guided percutaneous drainage, endoscopic drainage, video-assisted extraperitoneal debridement, extraperitoneal access, open necrosectomy? A step up approach has been proposed, beginning with less invasive procedures and reserving the operative intervention for patients in which the previous procedure did not solve the problem definitively. Indication and timing of the intervention should be determined by the clinical course. Ideally, the intervention should be done only after the fourth week of evolution, when it is observed a better delimitation of necrosis. Treatment should be individualized. There is no procedure that should be the first and best option for all patients. The objective of this work is to critically review the current state of the art of the treatment of infected pancreatic necrosis.

Impact of Antibiotic-Resistant Bacterial and Fungal Infections in Outcome of Acute Pancreatitis

OBJECTIVES

The knowledge about pathogens and their antibiotic susceptibility patterns is essential to select an appropriate antibiotic.

METHODS

We investigated the microbiological profile in pancreatic and extrapancreatic infections, and antibiotic sensitivity pattern in patients with acute pancreatitis.

RESULTS

Of 556 patients with acute pancreatitis, only 189 developed bacterial infection; however, bacteremia was present in 42 patients (7.6%). Culture-proven infected pancreatic necrotic collection was present in 161 patients (29%). Escherichia coli and Klebsiella pneumoniae were the most common organisms. Among the bacterial infection cohort, 164 patients developed multidrug-resistant bacterial infection. Infection with multidrug-resistant bacteria, especially at multiple sites, increased mortality. Nearly 50% of patients (n = 94) acquired extremely drug-resistant bacterial infection at some time and emerged as key reason for prolonged hospital and intensive care unit stay. Colistin resistance and tigecycline resistance were documented in 2.1% and 17.2% of the specimens at admission and in 4.6% and 21% of specimens during the hospital stay. Of 556 patients, 102 patients developed fungal infection and 28 patients had only fungal infection without bacterial infection.

CONCLUSIONS

Colistin and tigecycline are best reserved as last-resort antibiotics. Fungal infection was found to be associated with increased mortality, median hospital stay, and intensive care unit stay.

Pancreatic Necrosectomy through Sinus Tract Endoscopy

Background/Aims

Direct endoscopic pancreatic necrosectomy is increasingly being utilized to treat infected or symptomatic walled-off necrosis (WON) located close to the stomach or duodenum. Laterally-placed WON has traditionally been treated surgically. We evaluated a less utilized technique of sinus tract endoscopy (STE) for symptomatic laterally-placed WON.

Methods

Two hundred seventy-six patients with acute pancreatitis admitted in our hospital, 32 had symptomatic or infected WON requiring intervention. Of the 12 patients with laterally placed WON, 10 were treated by STE. STE was performed with a standard adult gastroscope passed through a percutaneous tract created by the placement of a 32-Fr drain.

Results

Ten patients (7 males; mean age, 43.8 years) underwent STE. Mean number of sessions was 2.3 (range, 1–4), with mean time of 70 minutes for each session (range, 15–70 minutes). While 9 patients had complete success, 1 patient had fever and chose to undergo surgery. Two patients developed pneumoperitoneum, which was treated conservatively. There was no mortality, cutaneous fistula, or recurrence during follow-up.

Conclusions

Laterally placed WON can be successfully managed by STE performed through a percutaneously placed drain. Details of the technique and end-points of STE require further evaluation.

Acute pancreatitis: recent advances through randomised trials

Acute pancreatitis is one of the most common GI conditions requiring acute hospitalisation and has a rising incidence. In recent years, important insights on the management of acute pancreatitis have been obtained through numerous randomised controlled trials. Based on this evidence, the treatment of acute pancreatitis has gradually developed towards a tailored, multidisciplinary effort, with distinctive roles for gastroenterologists, radiologists and surgeons. This review summarises how to diagnose, classify and manage patients with acute pancreatitis, emphasising the evidence obtained through randomised controlled trials.

The long-term quality of life in patients with persistent inflammation-immunosuppression and catabolism syndrome after severe acute pancreatitis: A retrospective cohort study

PURPOSE

To explore clinical characteristics and long-term quality of life (QOL) in severe acute pancreatitis (SAP) patients with persistent inflammation-immunosuppression and catabolism syndrome (PICS).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

SAP patients admitted to ICU were eligible for the retrospective cohort study if they needed prolonged intensive care (>14days). Post-ICU QOL was assessed by a questionnaire, including 36-item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) and record of re-work in a long-term follow-up.

RESULTS

214 SAP patients were enrolled, in which 149 (69.6%) patients met the criteria of PICS. PICS patients had more complications and ICU days compared to non-PICS patients (P<0.001), and their post-ICU mortality was higher (P=0.046). When adjusted for confounders, PICS was independently associated with higher post-ICU mortality (hazard ratio 4.5; 95% CI, 1.2 to 16.3; P=0.024). The 36-item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) score was lower for PICS group in six subscales (P<0.001). Only 28.8% patients in the PICS group returned to work compared to 60% patients in the non-PICS group (P=0.001) CONCLUSIONS: SAP patients with prolonged ICU stay had a high morbidity of PICS, which was a risk factor for the post-ICU mortality and poor long-term QOL.

Pancreatic Necrosis and Gas in the Retroperitoneum: Treatment with Antibiotics Alone

OBJECTIVE:

To present our experience in the management of patients with infected pancreatic necrosis without drainage.

METHODS:

The records of patients with pancreatic necrosis admitted to our facility from 2011 to 2015 were retrospectively reviewed.

RESULTS:

We identified 61 patients with pancreatic necrosis. Six patients with pancreatic necrosis and gas in the retroperitoneum were treated exclusively with clinical support without any type of drainage. Only 2 patients had an APACHE II score >8. The first computed tomography scan revealed the presence of gas in 5 patients. The Balthazar computed tomography severity index score was >9 in 5 of the 6 patients. All patients were treated with antibiotics for at least 3 weeks. Blood cultures were positive in only 2 patients. Parenteral nutrition was not used in these patients. The length of hospital stay exceeded three weeks for 5 patients; 3 patients had to be readmitted. A cholecystectomy was performed after necrosis was completely resolved; pancreatitis recurred in 2 patients before the operation. No patients died.

CONCLUSIONS:

In selected patients, infected pancreatic necrosis (gas in the retroperitoneum) can be treated without percutaneous drainage or any additional surgical intervention. Intervention procedures should be performed for patients who exhibit clinical and laboratory deterioration.

Infection increases mortality in necrotizing pancreatitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

To assess the influence of infection on mortality in necrotizing pancreatitis.

METHODS

Eligible prospective and retrospective studies were identified through manual and electronic searches (August 2015). The risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). Meta-analyses were performed with subgroup, sensitivity, and meta-regression analyses to evaluate sources of heterogeneity.

RESULTS

We included 71 studies (n = 6970 patients). Thirty-seven (52%) studies used a prospective design and 25 scored ≥5 points on the NOS suggesting a low risk of bias. Forty studies were descriptive and 31 studies evaluated invasive interventions. In total, 801 of 2842 patients (28%) with infected necroses and 537 of 4128 patients (13%) with sterile necroses died with an odds ratio [OR] of 2.57 (95% confidence interval [CI], 2.00-3.31) based on all studies and 2.02 (95%CI, 1.61-2.53) in the studies with the lowest bias risk. The OR for prospective studies was 2.96 (95%CI, 2.51-3.50). In sensitivity analyses excluding studies evaluating invasive interventions, the OR was 3.30 (95%CI, 2.81-3.88). Patients with infected necrosis and organ failure had a mortality of 35.2% while concomitant sterile necrosis and organ failure was associated with a mortality of 19.8%. If the patients had infected necrosis without organ failure the mortality was 1.4%.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with necrotizing pancreatitis are more than twice as likely to die if the necrosis becomes infected. Both organ failure and infected necrosis increase mortality in necrotizing pancreatitis.

Acute Pancreatitis: Landmark Studies, Management Decisions, and the Future

A great deal of progress has been made in the last 50 years in the diagnosis and treatment of acute pancreatitis. Many landmark studies have been published and have focused on the classification of acute pancreatitis, markers of severity, important roles of imaging and endoscopy, and improvements in our treatment. This report will review several landmark studies, describe ongoing controversies in management decisions including standards of early fluid resuscitation and appropriate use of enteral feeding, and outline what will be required in the future to improve the care of patients with acute pancreatitis.

Diagnostic strategy and timing of intervention in infected necrotizing pancreatitis: an international expert survey and case vignette study

BACKGROUND

The optimal diagnostic strategy and timing of intervention in infected necrotizing pancreatitis is subject to debate. We performed a survey on these topics amongst a group of international expert pancreatologists.

METHODS

An online survey including case vignettes was sent to 118 international pancreatologists. We evaluated the use and timing of fine needle aspiration (FNA), antibiotics, catheter drainage and (minimally invasive) necrosectomy.

RESULTS

The response rate was 74% (N = 87). None of the respondents use FNA routinely, 85% selectively and 15% never. Most respondents (87%) use a step-up approach in patients with infected necrosis. Walled-off necrosis (WON) is considered a prerequisite for endoscopic drainage and percutaneous drainage by 66% and 12%, respectively. After diagnosing infected necrosis, 55% routinely postpone invasive interventions, whereas 45% proceed immediately to intervention. Lack of consensus about timing of intervention was apparent on day 14 with proven infected necrosis (58% intervention vs. 42% non-invasive) as well as on day 20 with only clinically suspected infected necrosis (59% intervention vs. 41% non-invasive).

DISCUSSION

The step-up approach is the preferred treatment strategy in infected necrotizing pancreatitis amongst expert pancreatologists. There is no uniformity regarding the use of FNA and timing of intervention in the first 2-3 weeks of infected necrotizing pancreatitis.

Necrotizing pancreatitis: A review of the interventions

Acute pancreatitis may have a wide range of severity, from a clinically self-limiting to a quickly fatal course. Necrotizing pancreatitis (NP) is the most dreadful evolution associated to a poor prognosis: mortality is approximately 15% and up to 30-39% in case of infected necrosis, which is the major cause of death. Intervention is generally required for infected pancreatic necrosis and less commonly in patients with sterile necrosis who are symptomatic (gastric or duodenal outlet or biliary obstruction). Traditionally the most widely used approach to infected necrosis has been open surgical necrosectomy, but it is burdened by high morbidity (34-95%) and mortality (11-39%) rates. In the last two decades the treatment of NP has significantly evolved from open surgery towards minimally invasive techniques (percutaneous catheter drainage, per-oral endoscopic, laparoscopy and rigid retroperitoneal videoscopy). The objective of this review is to summarize the current state of the art of the management of NP and to clarify some aspects about its diagnosis and treatment.

Diagnostic strategy and timing of intervention in infected necrotizing pancreatitis: an international expert survey and case vignette study

BACKGROUND

The optimal diagnostic strategy and timing of intervention in infected necrotizing pancreatitis are subject to debate. A survey was performed on these topics amongst a group of international expert pancreatologists.

METHODS

An online survey including case vignettes was sent to 118 international pancreatologists. The use and timing of fine-needle aspiration (FNA), antibiotics, catheter drainage and (minimally invasive) necrosectomy were evaluated.

RESULTS

The response rate was 74% (N = 87). None of the respondents use FNA routinely, 85% selectively and 15% never. Most respondents (87%) use a step-up approach in patients with infected necrosis. Walled-off necrosis (WON) is considered a prerequisite for endoscopic drainage and percutaneous drainage by 66% and 12%, respectively. After diagnosing infected necrosis, 55% routinely postpone invasive interventions, whereas 45% proceed immediately to intervention. A lack of consensus about timing of intervention was apparent on day 14 with proven infected necrosis (58% intervention versus 42% non-invasive) as well as on day 20 with only clinically suspected infected necrosis (59% intervention versus 41% non-invasive).

DISCUSSION

The step-up approach is the preferred treatment strategy in infected necrotizing pancreatitis amongst expert pancreatologists. There is no uniformity regarding the use of FNA and timing of intervention in the first 2-3 weeks of infected necrotizing pancreatitis.

Acute pancreatitis

Acute pancreatitis, an inflammatory disorder of the pancreas, is the leading cause of admission to hospital for gastrointestinal disorders in the USA and many other countries. Gallstones and alcohol misuse are long-established risk factors, but several new causes have emerged that, together with new aspects of pathophysiology, improve understanding of the disorder. As incidence (and admission rates) of acute pancreatitis increase, so does the demand for effective management. We review how to manage patients with acute pancreatitis, paying attention to diagnosis, differential diagnosis, complications, prognostic factors, treatment, and prevention of second attacks, and the possible transition from acute to chronic pancreatitis.

Consensus guidelines on severe acute pancreatitis

This Position Paper contains clinically oriented guidelines by the Italian Association for the Study of the Pancreas (AISP) for the diagnosis and treatment of severe acute pancreatitis. The statements were formulated by three working groups of experts who searched and analysed the most recent literature; a consensus process was then performed using a modified Delphi procedure. The statements provide recommendations on the most appropriate definition of the complications of severe acute pancreatitis, the diagnostic approach and the timing of conservative as well as interventional endoscopic, radiological and surgical treatments.

Early-phase peritoneal drainage and lavage in a rat model of severe acute pancreatitis

PURPOSE

To evaluate the effects of early-phase drainage on the survival rates and pancreatic pathological changes associated with severe acute pancreatitis (SAP) in a rat model.

METHODS

Sprague-Dawley rats were divided into the following groups: SAP model (control), early drainage and delayed drainage. The 24-h survival rates were compared among the groups. In addition, the serum and ascites concentrations of interleukin (IL)-1β, IL-6, IL-8, IL-10 and tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α were measured, and pancreatic pathological changes were observed.

RESULTS

The survival rate significantly improved in the early drainage group. Compared with that observed in the control group, the serum TNF-α and IL-8 concentrations in the early drainage group decreased, while the serum IL-10 levels increased, and the ascites concentrations of IL-1β, IL-6, IL-8 and TNF-α decreased, while that of IL-10 increased significantly. In the delayed drainage group, only the ascites concentrations of TNF-α decreased. Meanwhile, the pancreatic pathological changes at 3, 6 and 24 h worsened in the early drainage group; however, the pancreatic lesions in the early drainage group were less mild than those seen in the control group.

CONCLUSIONS

Rebalancing the cytokine levels in ascites after early drainage may be a key factor for enhancing the survival rate in rats.

Is necrosectomy obsolete for infected necrotizing pancreatitis? Is a paradigm shift needed?

In 1886, Senn stated that removing necrotic pancreatic and peripancreatic tissue would benefit patients with severe acute pancreatitis. Since then, necrosectomy has been a mainstay of surgical procedures for infected necrotizing pancreatitis (NP). No published report has successfully questioned the role of necrosectomy. Recently, however, increasing evidence shows good outcomes when treating walled-off necrotizing pancreatitis without a necrosectomy. The literature concerning NP published primarily after 2000 was reviewed; it demonstrates the feasibility of a paradigm shift. The majority (75%) of minimally invasive necrosectomies show higher completion rates: between 80% and 100%. Transluminal endoscopic necrosectomy has shown remarkable results when combined with percutaneous drainage or a metallic stent. Related morbidities range from 40% to 92%. Single-digit mortality rates have been achieved with transluminal endoscopic necrosectomy, but not with video-assisted retroperitoneal necrosectomy series. Drainage procedures without necrosectomy have evolved from percutaneous drainage to transluminal endoscopic drainage with or without percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy access for laparoscopic instruments. Most series have reached higher success rates of 79%-93%, and even 100%, using transcystic multiple drainage methods. It is becoming evident that transluminal endoscopic drainage treatment of walled-off NP without a necrosectomy is feasible. With further refinement of the drainage procedures, a paradigm shift from necrosectomy to drainage is inevitable.

Timing of intervention in necrotizing pancreatitis

BACKGROUND

The best available evidence suggests that surgical intervention should be delayed where possible until four weeks after the onset of pancreatitis. Subgroups that may benefit from early or delayed intervention have not been identified.

METHODS

This study reviewed a prospective database with 223 patients of necrotizing pancreatitis who received intervention. A subgroup analysis was performed to compare the results of different surgical timing.

RESULTS

The median timing of intervention was 32 days. The mortality rates in the early (≤30 days) intervention and delayed intervention (>30 days) groups were 21% (28/136) and 10% (9/87), respectively (P = 0.04). In patients with persistent early organ failure, mortality and re-intervention rates were higher in the early group compared with the delayed group (23/61 vs. 3/21, P = 0.04; 17/61 vs. 2/21, P = 0.01). In patients without persistent early organ failure who underwent treatment, mortality rates, and re-intervention rates were similar between the early group and delayed group (5/75 vs. 6/66, P = 0.59; 7/75 vs. 3/66, P = 0.27). In patients with infected necrosis, mortality rate was similar with the early group and delayed group (17/77 vs. 7/57, P = 0.14).

CONCLUSION

Early intervention in patients without persistent organ failure showed similar outcomes with patients who received delayed intervention.

Endoscopic interventions for necrotizing pancreatitis

Interventions for necrotizing pancreatitis have undergone a paradigm shift away from open surgical necrosectomy and toward minimally invasive techniques, with endoscopic transmural drainage (ETD) and necrosectomy emerging as principle forms of treatment. Recent multicenter studies, randomized trials, evidence-based guidelines, and consensus statements have endorsed the safety and efficacy of endoscopic and other minimally invasive techniques for the treatment of walled-off necrosis. A comprehensive review of indications, standard and novel approaches, outcomes, complications, and controversies regarding ETD and necrosectomy is presented. Given the inherent challenges and associated risks, endoscopic techniques for the management of necrotizing pancreatitis should be performed at specialized multidisciplinary centers by expert endoscopists well versed in the management of necrotizing pancreatitis.

Dual-modality drainage of infected and symptomatic walled-off pancreatic necrosis: long-term clinical outcomes

BACKGROUND

Management options for symptomatic and infected walled-off pancreatic necrosis (WOPN) have evolved over the past decade from open surgical necrosectomy to more minimally invasive approaches. We reported the use of a combined percutaneous and endoscopic approach (dual modality drainage [DMD]) for the treatment of symptomatic and infected WOPN, with good short-term outcomes in a small cohort of patients.

OBJECTIVE

To describe the long-term outcomes of 117 patients with symptomatic and infected WOPN treated by DMD.

DESIGN

Review of a prospective, internal review board-approved database.

SETTING

Single, North American, tertiary-care center.

PATIENTS

All patients with symptomatic and infected WOPN treated by DMD at our institution between 2007 and 2012.

INTERVENTION

DMD of symptomatic and infected WOPN.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Disease-related mortality, pancreaticocutaneous fistula formation, need for early and late surgical intervention, procedure-related adverse events.

RESULTS

A total of 117 patients underwent DMD for symptomatic and infected WOPN. A total of 103 have completed treatment, with all percutaneous drains removed. Ten patients are still undergoing treatment, and 4 patients died with percutaneous drains in place (3.4% disease-related mortality). For the patients completing therapy, the median duration of follow-up was 749.5 days. No patients required surgical necrosectomy or surgical treatment of DMD-related adverse events; 3 patients required late surgery for pain (n = 2) and gastric outlet obstruction (n = 1). There were no procedure-related deaths. In patients who have completed treatment, percutaneous drains have been removed in 100%; no patients have developed pancreaticocutaneous fistulas.

LIMITATIONS

Single-center design, lack of a comparison group.

CONCLUSION

DMD for symptomatic and infected WOPN results in favorable clinical outcomes; complete avoidance of pancreaticocutaneous fistulae, surgical necrosectomy, and major procedure-related adverse events, while maintaining single-digit disease-related mortality.

Combined minimally invasive management of infected pancreatic necrosis: a case report

Infected necrosis is a potentially fatal complication of necrotizing pancreatitis. Open surgical debridement is the mainstay management of infected pancreatic necrosis. Over the last decade minimally invasive techniques have been increasingly used for the treatment of infected pancreatic necrosis and their results are encouraging. However, the optimal technique of minimal access necrosectomy and the timing of intervention have not been established yet. Patients with septic complications of acute pancreatitis represent a challenging group which requires individualized management often involving numerous techniques. We report a case of a 52-year-old patient in whom 3 minimally invasive techniques were needed for complete recovery.

Surgical versus nonsurgical treatment of infected pancreatic necrosis: more arguments to change the paradigm

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to compare primary surgical versus nonsurgical treatment in a series of patients with infected pancreatic necrosis (IPN) and to investigate whether the success of nonsurgical approach is related to a less severe disease.

METHODS

Thirty-nine consecutive patients with IPN have been included and further subdivided into two groups: primary surgical (n = 21) versus nonsurgical (n = 18). Outcome measures were the differences in mortality, morbidity, and pancreatic function. Comorbidity, organ failure, and other severity indexes were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

Mortality occurred in 16.7% of cases in the nonsurgical group versus 42.9% in the surgical group. In the primary nonsurgical group, seven were operated on due to failure of initial conservative treatment. In this latter group, mortality was 28.6% and was performed significantly later than in the primary surgical group. The group of primary surgical treatment was associated with a significant higher rate of multiple organ failure (MOF) at IPN diagnosis, new onset or worsening of organ failure, and MOF and nosocomial infection after surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

Initial nonsurgical approach in IPN is associated with better results both in cases which respond to this treatment as well as in those who, failing this conservative approach, have to be operated on after a delayed period. Primary surgically treated patients had a more severe disease at the time of IPN.

American College of Gastroenterology guideline: management of acute pancreatitis

This guideline presents recommendations for the management of patients with acute pancreatitis (AP). During the past decade, there have been new understandings and developments in the diagnosis, etiology, and early and late management of the disease. As the diagnosis of AP is most often established by clinical symptoms and laboratory testing, contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CECT) and/or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the pancreas should be reserved for patients in whom the diagnosis is unclear or who fail to improve clinically. Hemodynamic status should be assessed immediately upon presentation and resuscitative measures begun as needed. Patients with organ failure and/or the systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) should be admitted to an intensive care unit or intermediary care setting whenever possible. Aggressive hydration should be provided to all patients, unless cardiovascular and/or renal comorbidites preclude it. Early aggressive intravenous hydration is most beneficial within the first 12-24 h, and may have little benefit beyond. Patients with AP and concurrent acute cholangitis should undergo endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) within 24 h of admission. Pancreatic duct stents and/or postprocedure rectal nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) suppositories should be utilized to lower the risk of severe post-ERCP pancreatitis in high-risk patients. Routine use of prophylactic antibiotics in patients with severe AP and/or sterile necrosis is not recommended. In patients with infected necrosis, antibiotics known to penetrate pancreatic necrosis may be useful in delaying intervention, thus decreasing morbidity and mortality. In mild AP, oral feedings can be started immediately if there is no nausea and vomiting. In severe AP, enteral nutrition is recommended to prevent infectious complications, whereas parenteral nutrition should be avoided. Asymptomatic pancreatic and/or extrapancreatic necrosis and/or pseudocysts do not warrant intervention regardless of size, location, and/or extension. In stable patients with infected necrosis, surgical, radiologic, and/or endoscopic drainage should be delayed, preferably for 4 weeks, to allow the development of a wall around the necrosis.

IAP/APA evidence-based guidelines for the management of acute pancreatitis

BACKGROUND

There have been substantial improvements in the management of acute pancreatitis since the publication of the International Association of Pancreatology (IAP) treatment guidelines in 2002. A collaboration of the IAP and the American Pancreatic Association (APA) was undertaken to revise these guidelines using an evidence-based approach.

METHODS

Twelve multidisciplinary review groups performed systematic literature reviews to answer 38 predefined clinical questions. Recommendations were graded using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system. The review groups presented their recommendations during the 2012 joint IAP/APA meeting. At this one-day, interactive conference, relevant remarks were voiced and overall agreement on each recommendation was quantified using plenary voting.

RESULTS

The 38 recommendations covered 12 topics related to the clinical management of acute pancreatitis: A) diagnosis of acute pancreatitis and etiology, B) prognostication/predicting severity, C) imaging, D) fluid therapy, E) intensive care management, F) preventing infectious complications, G) nutritional support, H) biliary tract management, I) indications for intervention in necrotizing pancreatitis, J) timing of intervention in necrotizing pancreatitis, K) intervention strategies in necrotizing pancreatitis, and L) timing of cholecystectomy. Using the GRADE system, 21 of the 38 (55%) recommendations, were rated as 'strong' and plenary voting revealed 'strong agreement' for 34 (89%) recommendations.

CONCLUSIONS

The 2012 IAP/APA guidelines provide recommendations concerning key aspects of medical and surgical management of acute pancreatitis based on the currently available evidence. These recommendations should serve as a reference standard for current management and guide future clinical research on acute pancreatitis.

Interventions for necrotizing pancreatitis: an overview of current approaches

The management of necrotizing pancreatitis has undergone a paradigm shift toward minimally invasive techniques for necrosectomy, obviating the need for open necrosectomy in most cases. There is increasing evidence that minimally invasive approaches including a step-up approach that incorporates percutaneous catheter or endoscopic transluminal drainage, followed by video-assisted retroperitoneal or endoscopic debridement are associated with improved outcomes over traditional open necrosectomy for patients with infected necrosis. A recent international multidisciplinary consensus conference emphasized the superiority of minimally invasive approaches over standard surgical approaches. The success of these techniques depends on concerted efforts of a multidisciplinary team of interventional endoscopists, radiologists, intensivists and surgeons dedicated to the management of severe acute pancreatitis and its complications. This review provides an overview of minimally invasive techniques for management of necrotizing pancreatitis, including indications, timing, advantages and disadvantages.

[International multidisciplinary classification of acute pancreatitis severity: the 2013 Spanish edition]

OBJECTIVE

To develop a new classification of acute pancreatitis severity on the basis of a sound conceptual framework, comprehensive review of the published evidence, and worldwide consultation.

BACKGROUNDS

The Atlanta definitions of acute pancreatitis severity are ingrained in the lexicon of specialist in pancreatic diseases, but are suboptimal because these definitions are based on the empiric description of events not associated with severity.

METHODS

A personal invitation to contribute to the development of a new classification of acute pancreatitis severity was sent to all surgeons, gastroenterologists, internists, intensivists and radiologists currently active in the field of clinical acute pancreatitis. The invitation was not limited to members of certain associations or residents of certain countries. A global web-based survey was conducted, and a dedicated international symposium was organized to bring contributors from different disciplines together and discuss the concept and definitions.

RESULTS

The new classification of severity is based on the actual local and systemic determinants of severity, rather than on the description of events that are non-causally associated with severity. The local determinant relates to whether there is (peri) pancreatic necrosis or not, and if present, whether it is sterile or infected. The systemic determinant relates to whether there is organ failure or not, and if present, whether it is transient or persistent. The presence of one determinant can modify the effect of another, whereby the presence of both infected (peri) pancreatic necrosis and persistent organ failure has a greater impact upon severity than either determinant alone. The derivation of a classification based on the above principles results in four categories of severity: mild, moderate, severe, and critical.

CONCLUSIONS

This classification is the result of a consultative process among specialists in pancreatic diseases from 49 countries spanning North America, South America, Europe, Asia, Oceania and Africa. It provides a set of concise up to date definitions of all the main entities pertinent to classifying the severity of acute pancreatitis in clinical practice and research. This ensures that the determinant-based classification can be used in a uniform manner throughout the world.

Predictors of surgery in patients with severe acute pancreatitis managed by the step-up approach

BACKGROUND

Initial management of severe acute pancreatitis (SAP) is conservative. As a step-up approach, percutaneous catheter drainage (PCD) with saline irrigation is reported to be effective. Factors leading to surgery are unclear.

METHODS

In this ongoing prospective study, 70 consecutive patients with SAP were recruited. As a step-up approach, all patients initially received medical management and later underwent PCD and surgery as per the indication.

RESULTS

Of the 70 consecutive patients with SAP, 14 were managed medically, 29 managed with PCD alone, whereas 27 required surgery after initial PCD. Sepsis reversal was achieved with PCD alone in 62.5%. The curative efficacy of PCD alone was in 27 patients (48%). Overall mortality in the whole group was 24%. On univariate analysis, factors significantly affecting surgical intervention included initial acute physiology and chronic health evaluation (APACHE) II score, APACHE II score at first intervention, sepsis reversal by PCD within a week, number of organs failed, organ failure within a week of the onset of disease, number of bacteria isolated per patient, renal failure, respiratory failure, Escherichia coli, computerized tomography severity index score at admission, parenteral nutrition requirement before or after radiological intervention, maximum extent of necrosis of more than 50% of the pancreas, and extrapancreatic necrosis. On multivariate analysis, renal failure (P = -0.03), APACHE II score at first intervention (P = -0.006), and the number of bacteria isolated per patient (P = -0.01) remained independent predictors of surgery. An APACHE II score of more than 7.5 at first intervention (PCD) had the ability to predict surgery with a sensitivity of 88.9% and a specificity of 69%.

CONCLUSIONS

PCD reversed sepsis in 62% and avoided surgery in 48% of the patients. Reversal of sepsis within a week of PCD, APACHE II score at first intervention (PCD), and organ failure within a week of the onset of disease could predict the need for surgery in the early course of disease.

Efficacy of conservative treatment, without necrosectomy, for infected pancreatic necrosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Conservative treatment (intensive care, a combination of antimicrobial agents, and nutritional support, with or without drainage of the infected fluid) has recently been shown to be effective for patients with infected pancreatic necrosis (IPN), but the data from individual studies are not robust enough to recommend it as the standard of care. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies related to primary conservative management for IPN.

METHODS

We performed a literature search of MEDLINE/PubMed from January 1990 to March 2012 for studies of a priori protocols for primary conservative treatment, without necrosectomy, for consecutive patients with IPN. We analyzed data from 8 studies, comprising 324 patients with IPN who received primary conservative management. We then analyzed an additional 4 studies (comprising 157 patients) that reported the efficacy of percutaneous drainage in nonconsecutive patients with IPN. Outcome measures were the success of conservative management strategy, need for necrosectomy, and mortality.

RESULTS

There was significant heterogeneity in results among the studies. Based on a random effects model, conservative management was successful for 64% of patients (95% confidence interval [CI], 51%-78%); mortality was 12% (95% CI, 6%-18%), and 26% of patients required necrosectomy or additional surgery for complications (95% CI, 15%-37%). A separate analysis of 4 studies that reported outcomes of nonconsecutive patients with IPN following percutaneous drainage had comparable results; 50% had successful outcomes (95% CI, 43%-58%), mortality was 18% (95% CI, 6%-30%), and 38% of patients required surgery (95% CI, 20%-56%).

CONCLUSIONS

Conservative management without necrosectomy is a successful approach for 64% of patients with IPN. This approach has low mortality and prevents surgical necrosectomy.

The role of open necrosectomy in the current management of acute necrotizing pancreatitis: a review article

The optimal management of necrotizing pancreatitis continues to evolve. Currently, conservative intensive care treatment represents the primary therapy of acute severe necrotizing pancreatitis, aiming at prevention of organ failure. Following this mode of treatment most patients with sterile necroses can be managed successfully. Surgery might be considered as an option in the late phase of the disease for patients with proven infected pancreatic necroses and organ failure. For these patients surgical debridement is still considered the treatment of choice. However, even for this subgroup of patients, the concept of operative strategy has been recently challenged. Nowadays, it is generally accepted that necrotizing pancreatitis with proven infected necroses as well as septic complications directly caused by pancreatic infection are strong indications for surgical management. However, the question of the most appropriate surgical technique for the treatment of pancreatic necroses remains unsettled. At the same time, recent advances in radiological imaging, new developments in interventional radiology, and other minimal access interventions have revolutionised the management of necrotizing pancreatitis. In light of these controversies, the present paper will focus on the current role of surgery in terms of open necrosectomy in the management of severe acute necrotizing pancreatitis.

Determinant-based classification of acute pancreatitis severity: an international multidisciplinary consultation

OBJECTIVE

To develop a new international classification of acute pancreatitis severity on the basis of a sound conceptual framework, comprehensive review of published evidence, and worldwide consultation.

BACKGROUND

The Atlanta definitions of acute pancreatitis severity are ingrained in the lexicon of pancreatologists but suboptimal because these definitions are based on empiric description of occurrences that are merely associated with severity.

METHODS

A personal invitation to contribute to the development of a new international classification of acute pancreatitis severity was sent to all surgeons, gastroenterologists, internists, intensivists, and radiologists who are currently active in clinical research on acute pancreatitis. The invitation was not limited to members of certain associations or residents of certain countries. A global Web-based survey was conducted and a dedicated international symposium was organized to bring contributors from different disciplines together and discuss the concept and definitions.

RESULT

The new international classification is based on the actual local and systemic determinants of severity, rather than description of events that are correlated with severity. The local determinant relates to whether there is (peri)pancreatic necrosis or not, and if present, whether it is sterile or infected. The systemic determinant relates to whether there is organ failure or not, and if present, whether it is transient or persistent. The presence of one determinant can modify the effect of another such that the presence of both infected (peri)pancreatic necrosis and persistent organ failure have a greater effect on severity than either determinant alone. The derivation of a classification based on the above principles results in 4 categories of severity-mild, moderate, severe, and critical.

CONCLUSIONS

This classification is the result of a consultative process amongst pancreatologists from 49 countries spanning North America, South America, Europe, Asia, Oceania, and Africa. It provides a set of concise up-to-date definitions of all the main entities pertinent to classifying the severity of acute pancreatitis in clinical practice and research. This ensures that the determinant-based classification can be used in a uniform manner throughout the world.

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.

Endoscopic ultrasound criteria to predict the need for intervention in pancreatic necrosis

Background

The natural course and treatment strategies for asymptomatic or oligosymptomatic pancreatic necrosis are still poorly defined. The aim of this retrospective study was to establish criteria for the need of intervention in patients with pancreatic necrosis.

Methods

A total of 31 consecutive patients (18 male, median age 58 yrs.) diagnosed with pancreatic necrosis by endoscopic ultrasound, in whom a decision for initial conservative treatment was made, were followed for the need of interventions such as endoscopic or surgical intervention, or death.

Results

After a median follow-up of 243 days, 21 patients remained well without intervention and in 10 patients an endpoint event occurred. In a multivariate logistic regression analysis of the clinical and endosonographic parameters, liquid content was the single independent predictor for intervention (p = 0.0006). The presence of high liquid content in the pancreatic necrosis resulted in a 64% predicted endpoint risk as compared to 2% for solid necrosis.

Conclusions

Pancreatic necrotic cavities with high liquid content are associated with a high risk of complications. Therefore, close clinical monitoring is needed and early elective intervention might be considered in these patients.

Treatment of necrotizing pancreatitis: redefining the role of surgery

BACKGROUND

Early surgical intervention in necrotizing pancreatitis (NP) is associated with high mortality. Guidelines recommend fine needle aspiration (FNA) in patients with NP and signs of sepsis. Because infection of necrosis is considered an indication for surgery, operations are often performed early. We changed treatment toward a conservative approach with FNA in selected cases only, thereby reducing the rate of necrosectomy.

METHODS

Retrospectively analyzed patients, all operated on for FNA-proven infection of pancreatic necrosis (n = 20, group 1) were compared to patients subjected to conservative treatment (n = 24, group 2) who were followed prospectively.

RESULTS

Prognostic scores did not differ between the two groups, indicating comparable severity: the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE II) score was 19.8 ± 1.7 versus 16 ± 2.2; the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score was 8.7 ± 1.4 versus 6.9 ± 1.0, the C-reactive protein (CRP) level on day 3 was 243 ± 21 versus 291 ± 21, and the CTSI (CT severity index) was 7.8 ± 0.5 versus 7.9 ± 0.4 (p = ns). Ten patients in group 2 underwent operation because of severe extrapancreatic complications. Mortality differed significantly (45% in group 1 vs. 8.3% in group 2; p = 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

A highly conservative approach avoiding open necrosectomy in NP results in significantly lower mortality than previous serial FNA and consecutive indication for surgery in case of proven infection. Open surgery in NP should be reserved for concomitant intra-abdominal complications.

A conservative and minimally invasive approach to necrotizing pancreatitis improves outcome

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Treatment of patients with necrotizing pancreatitis has become more conservative and less invasive, but there are few data from prospective studies to support the efficacy of this change. We performed a prospective multicenter study of treatment outcomes among patients with necrotizing pancreatitis.

METHODS

We collected data from 639 consecutive patients with necrotizing pancreatitis, from 2004 to 2008, treated at 21 Dutch hospitals. Data were analyzed for disease severity, interventions (radiologic, endoscopic, surgical), and outcome.

RESULTS

Overall mortality was 15% (n=93). Organ failure occurred in 240 patients (38%), with 35% mortality. Treatment was conservative in 397 patients (62%), with 7% mortality. An intervention was performed in 242 patients (38%), with 27% mortality; this included early emergency laparotomy in 32 patients (5%), with 78% mortality. Patients with longer times between admission and intervention had lower mortality: 0 to 14 days, 56%; 14 to 29 days, 26%; and >29 days, 15% (P<.001). A total of 208 patients (33%) received interventions for infected necrosis, with 19% mortality. Catheter drainage was most often performed as the first intervention (63% of cases), without additional necrosectomy in 35% of patients. Primary catheter drainage had fewer complications than primary necrosectomy (42% vs 64%, P=.003). Patients with pancreatic parenchymal necrosis (n=324), compared with patients with only peripancreatic necrosis (n=315), had a higher risk of organ failure (50% vs 24%, P<.001) and mortality (20% vs 9%, P<.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Approximately 62% of patients with necrotizing pancreatitis can be treated without an intervention and with low mortality. In patients with infected necrosis, delayed intervention and catheter drainage as first treatment improves outcome.

Percutaneous management of pancreatic abscesses: long term results in a single center

BACKGROUND

Several authors consider that surgical intervention is the gold standard for treatment of pancreatic abscesses. Recently, considerable interest has been generated in the minimally invasive management of pancreatic abscess with mixed results reported in the literature.

AIM

To evaluate the efficacy of percutaneous aspiration and/or drainage for patients with pancreatic abscesses.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective analysis of 62 patients with 87 pancreatic abscesses treated by percutaneous management from 1989 to 2009. All patients received appropriate antibiotic therapy. Patients with pancreatic abscess <50mm in diameter were initially treated by ultrasound-guided percutaneous needle aspiration (PNA) and those with abscess ≥50mm were initially treated by ultrasound-guided percutaneous catheter drainage (PCD). Surgery was planned only when there was no clinical improvement after the initial percutaneous treatment. Primary outcome was conversion rate to surgery.

RESULTS

Two patients (3.2%) received supportive treatment only and one of them died. PNA was performed in 16 patients (25.8%), and 8 of them required PCD because of recurrence of abscess. In 44 patients (70.1%), PCD was performed initially. PCD was performed twice in 6 patients and 3 times in 2 patients. There were 5 patients converted to surgery (8.1%) and one of them died. Medians (interquartile ranges) of hospital stay and catheter dwell-time were 17 (12-26) and 12 (9-21) days, respectively. There were no complications related to the procedure.

CONCLUSIONS

Percutaneous aspiration and/or drainage are effective and safe for the treatment of pancreatic abscesses.

The role of antibiotics in the management of patients with acute necrotizing pancreatitis

Our understanding of the role of antibiotics in the management of patients with pancreatic necrosis has changed over the past 5 years. Initial studies suggested that antibiotics were useful in preventing infection of necrosis, septic complications, and mortality in patients with acute pancreatitis; however, more recent, better-designed studies established that prophylactic antibiotics are not helpful. In the absence of infection, sterile necrosis is treated conservatively. With insufficient evidence to recommend antibiotics, these agents should be reserved to treat established infection of pancreatic necrosis. Infected necrosis is treated by targeting microbes with pancreatic-penetrating antibiotics (eg, carbapenems, quinolones in combination with metronidazole, or high-dose cephalosporins). If the patient with infected necrosis remains septic or deteriorates, surgical intervention should be performed urgently. Stable patients with infected necrosis can be managed more conservatively in a closely monitored environment. Recent studies suggest that many patients can clear the infection with antibiotics, but even if they do not clear the infection, delay in surgery decreases the mortality rate. Delaying surgery by using antibiotics may allow use of less invasive procedures if drainage is needed. The timing and method of interventions must be individualized based on the patient's condition, anatomic complications, patient's preference after informed consent, and expertise available at the institution.