The efficacy and efficiency of stent-assisted percutaneous endoscopic necrosectomy for infected pancreatic necrosis: a pilot clinical study using historical controls

Metal stent and percutaneous endoscopic necrosectomy as dual approach for the management of complex walled-off pancreatic necrosis

Pancreatic fluid collections (PFCs) are one of the local complications of acute pancreatitis and include walled-off pancreatic necrosis (WOPN), which are complex entities with challenging management. The infection of pancreatic necrosis leads to a poorer prognosis, with a growth of the mortality rate up to 30%. The primary strategy for managing PFCs is a minimally invasive step-up approach, with endosonography-guided transmural drainage and debridement as the preferred and less invasive method. Percutaneous drainage (PCD) can be the technique of choice when endoscopic drainage is not feasible, for example for early PFCs without a mature wall or for the anatomic location and extension to the paracolic gutter of the collection. As PCD alone may be ineffective, especially when a great amount of necrosis is present, a percutaneous endoscopic necrosectomy (PEN) has been proposed, showing interesting results. The technique consists of the placement of an esophageal fully or partially covered self-expandable metal stent (SEMS) percutaneously into the collection and a direct debridement can be performed using a flexible endoscope through the SEMS. In this review, we will discuss about the role of metal stent and PEN for the management of complex walled-off pancreatic necrosis.

Percutaneous Endoscopic Necrosectomy

Patients with acute pancreatitis might develop infected necrotic fluid collections which are associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Patients with infected necrotizing pancreatitis not responding to antibiotics require drainage and subsequent necrosectomy (Step-up approach). Percutaneous endoscopic necrosectomy (PEN) has evolved as a minimally invasive approach for necrosectomy through the percutaneous catheter route using a flexible endoscope and can be done under conscious sedation. It is best suited for predominantly laterally placed infected necrotic fluid collections and also can be performed at the bedside for sick patients admitted to an ICU. PEN has a clinical success rate of 80% with minimal adverse events.

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

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

Endoscopic Versus Surgical Step-Up Approach for Infected Necrotizing Pancreatitis (ExTENSION): Long-term Follow-up of a Randomized Trial

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Previous randomized trials, including the Transluminal Endoscopic Step-Up Approach Versus Minimally Invasive Surgical Step-Up Approach in Patients With Infected Pancreatic Necrosis (TENSION) trial, demonstrated that the endoscopic step-up approach might be preferred over the surgical step-up approach in patients with infected necrotizing pancreatitis based on favorable short-term outcomes. We compared long-term clinical outcomes of both step-up approaches after a period of at least 5 years.

METHODS

In this long-term follow-up study, we reevaluated all clinical data on 83 patients (of the originally 98 included patients) from the TENSION trial who were still alive after the initial 6-month follow-up. The primary end point, similar to the TENSION trial, was a composite of death and major complications. Secondary end points included individual major complications, pancreaticocutaneous fistula, reinterventions, pancreatic insufficiency, and quality of life.

RESULTS

After a mean follow-up period of 7 years, the primary end point occurred in 27 patients (53%) in the endoscopy group and in 27 patients (57%) in the surgery group (risk ratio [RR], 0.93; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.65-1.32; P = .688). Fewer pancreaticocutaneous fistulas were identified in the endoscopy group (8% vs 34%; RR, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.08-0.83). After the initial 6-month follow-up, the endoscopy group needed fewer reinterventions than the surgery group (7% vs 24%; RR, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.09-0.99). Pancreatic insufficiency and quality of life did not differ between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

At long-term follow-up, the endoscopic step-up approach was not superior to the surgical step-up approach in reducing death or major complications in patients with infected necrotizing pancreatitis. However, patients assigned to the endoscopic approach developed overall fewer pancreaticocutaneous fistulas and needed fewer reinterventions after the initial 6-month follow-up. Netherlands Trial Register no: NL8571.

Percutaneous direct endoscopic pancreatic necrosectomy

Approximately 10%-20% of the cases of acute pancreatitis have acute necrotizing pancreatitis. The infection of pancreatic necrosis is typically associated with a prolonged course and poor prognosis. The multidisciplinary, minimally invasive “step-up” approach is the cornerstone of the management of infected pancreatic necrosis (IPN). Endosonography-guided transmural drainage and debridement is the preferred and minimally invasive technique for those with IPN. However, it is technically not feasible in patients with early pancreatic/peripancreatic fluid collections (PFC) (< 2-4 wk) where the wall has not formed; in PFC in paracolic gutters/pelvis; or in walled off pancreatic necrosis (WOPN) distant from the stomach/duodenum. Percutaneous drainage of these infected PFC or WOPN provides rapid infection control and patient stabilization. In a subset of patients where sepsis persists and necrosectomy is needed, the sinus drain tract between WOPN and skin-established after percutaneous drainage or surgical necrosectomy drain, can be used for percutaneous direct endoscopic necrosectomy (PDEN). There have been technical advances in PDEN over the last two decades. An esophageal fully covered self-expandable metal stent, like the lumen-apposing metal stent used in transmural direct endoscopic necrosectomy, keeps the drainage tract patent and allows easy and multiple passes of the flexible endoscope while performing PDEN. There are several advantages to the PDEN procedure. In expert hands, PDEN appears to be an effective, safe, and minimally invasive adjunct to the management of IPN and may particularly be considered when a conventional drain is in situ by virtue of previous percutaneous or surgical intervention. In this current review, we summarize the indications, techniques, advantages, and disadvantages of PDEN. In addition, we describe two cases of PDEN in distinct clinical situations, followed by a review of the most recent literature.