Proactive Versus Standard Percutaneous Catheter Drainage for Infected Necrotizing Pancreatitis

Early versus delayed EUS-guided drainage for postoperative pancreatic fluid collections: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Postoperative pancreatic fluid collections (POPFCs) are common adverse events (AEs) after pancreatic surgery and may need interventions. Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided drainage for POPFCs is increasingly reported, but its appropriate timing has not been fully elucidated. The aim of this meta-analysis was to evaluate treatment outcomes of POPFCs according to the timing of EUS-guided drainage.

METHODS

Using PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane database, we identified clinical studies published until December 2022 with data comparing outcomes of early and delayed EUS-guided drainage for POPFCs. We pooled data on AEs, mortality, and technical and clinical success rates, using the random-effects model.

RESULTS

From 1415 papers identified in the initial literature search, we identified 6 retrospective studies, including 128 and 107 patients undergoing early and delayed EUS-guided drainage for POPFCs. The threshold of early and delayed drainage ranged from 14 to 30 days. Distal pancreatectomy was the major cause of POPFCs, ranging from 44 to 100%. The pooled odds ratio (OR) for AEs was 0.81 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.40-1.64, P = 0.55) comparing early to delayed drainage. There was no procedure-related mortality. Technical success was achieved in all cases and a pooled OR of clinical success was 0.60 (95% CI 0.20-1.83, P = 0.37).

CONCLUSION

POPFCs can be managed by early EUS-guided drainage without an increase in AEs.

Time to think prime times for treatment of necrotizing pancreatitis: Pendulum conundrum

Pancreatic fluid collections (PFCs) typically develop as local complications of acute pancreatitis and complicate the clinical course of patients with acute pancreatitis and potentially fatal clinical outcomes. Interventions are required in cases of symptomatic walled-off necrosis (WON) (matured PFCs with necrosis) and pancreatic pseudocysts (matured PFCs without necrosis). In the management of necrotizing pancreatitis and WON, endoscopic ultrasound-guided transluminal drainage combined with on-demand endoscopic necrosectomy (i.e. the step-up approach) is increasingly used as a less invasive treatment modality compared with a surgical or percutaneous approach. Through the substantial research efforts and development of specific devices and stents (e.g. lumen-apposing metal stents), endoscopic techniques of PFC management have been standardized to some extent. However, there has been no consensus about timing of carrying out each treatment step; for instance, it is uncertain when direct endoscopic necrosectomy should be initiated and finished and when a plastic or metal stent should be removed following clinical treatment success. Despite emerging evidence for the effectiveness of noninterventional supportive treatment (e.g. antibiotics, nutritional support, irrigation of the cavity), there has been only limited data on the timing of starting and stopping the treatment. Large studies are required to optimize the timing of those treatment options and improve clinical outcomes of patients with PFCs. In this review, we summarize the current available evidence on the indications and timing of interventional and supportive treatment modalities for this patient population and discussed clinical unmet needs that should be addressed in future research.

Predicting the Success of Catheter Drainage in Infected Necrotising Pancreatitis: A Cross-Sectional Observational Study

Background Management of acute necrotising pancreatitis is often challenging for clinicians. Secondary infection of the necrotic collections leads to sepsis and warrants intervention. Minimally invasive techniques like catheter drainage have recently been proposed over more risky and morbid traditional open procedures. Factors that can predict successful catheter drainage of the necrotic pancreatic collection are still unclear and not well established. Materials and methods This study is designed as a retrospective cross-sectional observational study to investigate the association of 21 factors in predicting successful catheter drainage. Data from 30 patients admitted with acute necrotising pancreatitis treated with catheter drainage were collected and analysed. Twenty-one factors, including demographic variables, disease severity factors, drainage criteria, and morphological criteria on imaging, were studied for their predictive association with successful outcomes. Univariate analysis was done for each variable against the outcome. The study was conducted between December 2012 to March 2017. P-value <0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results Patients with no organ involvement responded better to primary catheter drainage. Patients with BMI>25 and multi-organ failure were poor candidates for primary catheter drainage. Clinically unwell patients with a Bedside Index for Severity in Acute Pancreatitis (BISAP) score of ≥4 had a negative outcome on catheter drainage and usually ended up in a surgical procedure or eventually succumbed to the disease. Other variables included in our study did not statistically associate with the success or failure of percutaneous catheter drainage. Conclusion BMI >25, multiple organ failure, and BISAP score ≥ 4 are independent negative predictors for the success of catheter drainage in infected necrotising pancreatitis. No organ failure showed a positive predictor for successful catheter drainage. Further studies are required to explore these predictive factors in a larger sample size to predict the success of catheter drainage in infected pancreatic necrosis.

Early versus delayed interventions for necrotizing pancreatitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Objectives

Interventions for necrotizing pancreatitis are generally postponed until 4 weeks after the onset of acute pancreatitis, but there remains controversy about whether we should always wait >4 weeks or can intervene early when necessary. This meta‐analysis was conducted to evaluate treatment outcomes of necrotizing pancreatitis according to the cut‐off defined in the revised Atlanta classification (≤4 vs. >4 weeks).

Methods

Using PubMed, Web of Science, and the Cochrane database, we identified clinical studies published until March 2022 with data comparing outcomes of early and delayed interventions of necrotizing pancreatitis. We pooled data on adverse events, mortality, technical and clinical success rates, and needs for necrosectomy and open surgery, using the random‐effects model.

Results

We identified 11 retrospective studies, including 775 patients with early interventions and 725 patients with delayed interventions. Patients with early interventions tended to be complicated by organ failure. The rate of adverse events was comparable (OR 1.41, 95% CI 0.66–3.01; p = 0.38) but the rate of mortality was significantly higher (OR 1.70, 95% CI 1.21–2.40; p < 0.01) in early interventions. Technical success rates were similarly high but clinical success rates tended to be low (OR 0.39, 95% CI 0.15–1.00; p = 0.05) in early interventions, though not statistically significant. Pooled ORs for necrosectomy and open surgery were 2.14 and 1.23, respectively.

Conclusions

Early interventions for necrotizing pancreatitis were associated with higher mortality rates and did not reduce adverse events or improve clinical success. However, our results should be confirmed in prospective studies.

Management of Necrotizing Pancreatitis

Necrotizing pancreatitis affects 10% to 15% of all patients with acute pancreatitis. Despite improved understanding of this complex disease, it is still attended by up to 15% mortality. Necrotizing pancreatitis provides the clinical challenges of working in a multi-disciplinary group, determining proper timing for intervention, and identifying appropriate intervention approaches. The step-up approach consists of supportive care initially. When there is documented infected necrosis, treatment begins with antibiotics, progressing to minimally invasive mechanical necrosis intervention, and reserving surgery as the final treatment modality. However, treatment must be tailored to the individual patient. This article provides an overview of necrotizing pancreatitis.

Infected pancreatic necrosis complicating severe acute pancreatitis in critically ill patients: predicting catheter drainage failure and need for necrosectomy

Background

Recent guidelines advocate a step-up approach for managing suspected infected pancreatic necrosis (IPN) during acute pancreatitis. Nearly half the patients require secondary necrosectomy after catheter drainage. Our primary objective was to assess the external validity of a previously reported nomogram for catheter drainage, based on four predictors of failure. Our secondary objectives were to identify other potential predictors of catheter-drainage failure. We retrospectively studied consecutive patients admitted to the intensive care units (ICUs) of three university hospitals in France between 2012 and 2016, for severe acute pancreatitis with suspected IPN requiring catheter drainage. We assessed drainage success and failure rates in 72 patients, with success defined as survival without subsequent necrosectomy and failure as death and/or subsequent necrosectomy required by inadequate improvement. We plotted the receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curve for the nomogram and computed the area under the curve (AUROC).

Results

Catheter drainage alone was successful in 32 (44.4%) patients. The nomogram predicted catheter-drainage failure with an AUROC of 0.71. By multivariate analysis, catheter-drainage failure was independently associated with a higher body mass index [odds ratio (OR), 1.12; 95% confidence interval (95% CI), 1.00–1.24; P = 0.048], heterogeneous collection (OR, 16.7; 95% CI, 1.83–152.46; P = 0.01), and respiratory failure onset within 24 h before catheter drainage (OR, 18.34; 95% CI, 2.18–154.3; P = 0.007).

Conclusion

Over half the patients required necrosectomy after failed catheter drainage. Newly identified predictors of catheter-drainage failure were heterogeneous collection and respiratory failure. Adding these predictors to the nomogram might help to identify patients at high risk of catheter-drainage failure.

ClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT03234166.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13613-022-01039-z.

Indian College of Radiology and Imaging Consensus Guidelines on Interventions in Pancreatitis

Acute pancreatitis (AP) is one of the common gastrointestinal conditions presenting as medical emergency. Clinically, the severity of AP ranges from mild to severe. Mild AP has a favorable outcome. Patients with moderately severe and severe AP, on the other hand, require hospitalization and considerable utilization of health care resources. These patients require a multidisciplinary management. Pancreatic fluid collections (PFCs) and arterial bleeding are the most important local complications of pancreatitis. PFCs may require drainage when infected or symptomatic. PFCs are drained endoscopically or percutaneously, based on the timing and the location of collection. Both the techniques are complementary, and many patients may undergo dual modality treatment. Percutaneous catheter drainage (PCD) remains the most extensively utilized method for drainage in patients with AP and necrotic PFCs. Besides being effective as a standalone treatment in a significant proportion of these patients, PCD also provides an access for percutaneous endoscopic necrosectomy and minimally invasive necrosectomy. Endovascular embolization is the mainstay of management of arterial complications in patients with AP and chronic pancreatitis. The purpose of the present guideline is to provide evidence-based recommendations for the percutaneous management of complications of pancreatitis.

Contemporary Intervention in Necrotizing Pancreatitis: Improved Understanding Changing Practice

BACKGROUND

Treatment of necrotizing pancreatitis (NP) has shifted in favor of a minimally invasive step-up approach rather than early open pancreatic debridement. We hypothesized that this paradigm shift would be reflected in the intervention, morbidity, and mortality profile of NP patients.

STUDY DESIGN

Single-institution retrospective review of 767 NP patients treated between 2005 and 2019. Two eras of NP intervention were identified relative to the introduction of a minimally invasive approach to NP. Patients treated between 2005 and 2010 were classified as the "early" group and compared with patients treated between 2011 and 2019, classified as the "late" group.

RESULTS

In total, 299 NP patients comprised the early group and 468 patients comprised the late group. No differences were seen in patient demographics, comorbidity profile, or NP etiology between groups. Necrosis volume, necrosis location, CT severity index (CTSI), and rates of infected necrosis were similar between groups. No difference was seen in mortality. Mechanical intervention for NP was more common in the early than the late group (86% vs. 73%, p < 0.001). Time to first intervention was similar between groups (79 ± 7d vs. 75 ± 6d). The early group had higher rates of open pancreatic debridement (72% vs. 55%, p < 0.001). Endoscopic intervention was less common in the early than the late group (7% vs. 16%, p < 0.001). NP disease duration was longer in the early than the late group (223 ± 12d vs. 179 ± 7d, p = 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Contemporary management of necrotizing pancreatitis is marked by less frequent operative debridement and shorter disease duration.

Guidelines for the management of patients with severe acute pancreatitis, 2021

OBJECTIVE

To provide guidelines for the management of the intensive care patient with severe acute pancreatitis.

DESIGN

A consensus committee of 22 experts was convened. A formal conflict-of-interest (COI) policy was developed at the beginning of the process and enforced throughout. The entire guideline construction process was conducted independently of any industrial funding (i.e. pharmaceutical, medical devices). The authors were required to follow the rules of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE®) system to guide assessment of quality of evidence. The potential drawbacks of making strong recommendations in the presence of low-quality evidence were emphasised.

METHODS

The most recent SFAR and SNFGE guidelines on the management of the patient with severe pancreatitis were published in 2001. The literature now is sufficient for an update. The committee studied 14 questions within 3 fields. Each question was formulated in a PICO (Patients Intervention Comparison Outcome) format and the relevant evidence profiles were produced. The literature review and recommendations were made according to the GRADE® methodology.

RESULTS

The experts' synthesis work and their application of the GRADE® method resulted in 24 recommendations. Among the formalised recommendations, 8 have high levels of evidence (GRADE 1+/-) and 12 have moderate levels of evidence (GRADE 2+/-). For 4 recommendations, the GRADE method could not be applied, resulting in expert opinions. Four questions did not find any response in the literature. After one round of scoring, strong agreement was reached for all the recommendations.

CONCLUSIONS

There was strong agreement among experts for 24 recommendations to improve practices for the management of intensive care patients with severe acute pancreatitis.

Endoscopic drainage versus percutaneous drainage for the management of infected walled-off necrosis: a comparative analysis

BACKGROUND

Comparative data on percutaneous catheter drainage (PCD) vs EUS-guided drainage (EUS-D) for management of symptomatic walled-off-necrosis (WON), specially infected WON with/without organ failure(OF) is limited.

METHODS

Patients with symptomatic WON were divided into two groups of PCD and EUS-D, depending on the modality of drainage. Resolution of OF, adverse events, and other outcome measures were recorded. The two modalities were compared among infected WON sub-cohort and also degree of solid component (SC).

RESULTS

218 patients (175 males; 80.3%) were included who underwent either PCD (n = 102) or EUS-D (n = 116). Clinical success was significantly higher in the EUS-D group (92.1% vs 64.6%; p < 0.0001) and even for infected WON (n = 128) (p = 0.004), with higher (p = 0.007) and faster (p < 0.0001) OF resolution. Other outcome measures including mortality were significantly higher in the PCD group. Among subgroups, PCD with >40% SC had the worst clinical success/OF resolution rates, while EUS-D with <40% SC had the best outcomes.

CONCLUSION

EUS-D should be preferred over PCD in the management of WON, infected or otherwise, for higher clinical success, and higher/faster resolution of OF. PCD should be avoided in WON with>40% SC.

Immediate versus Postponed Intervention for Infected Necrotizing Pancreatitis

BACKGROUND

Infected necrotizing pancreatitis is a potentially lethal disease that is treated with the use of a step-up approach, with catheter drainage often delayed until the infected necrosis is encapsulated. Whether outcomes could be improved by earlier catheter drainage is unknown.

METHODS

We conducted a multicenter, randomized superiority trial involving patients with infected necrotizing pancreatitis, in which we compared immediate drainage within 24 hours after randomization once infected necrosis was diagnosed with drainage that was postponed until the stage of walled-off necrosis was reached. The primary end point was the score on the Comprehensive Complication Index, which incorporates all complications over the course of 6 months of follow-up.

RESULTS

A total of 104 patients were randomly assigned to immediate drainage (55 patients) or postponed drainage (49 patients). The mean score on the Comprehensive Complication Index (scores range from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating more severe complications) was 57 in the immediate-drainage group and 58 in the postponed-drainage group (mean difference, -1; 95% confidence interval [CI], -12 to 10; P = 0.90). Mortality was 13% in the immediate-drainage group and 10% in the postponed-drainage group (relative risk, 1.25; 95% CI, 0.42 to 3.68). The mean number of interventions (catheter drainage and necrosectomy) was 4.4 in the immediate-drainage group and 2.6 in the postponed-drainage group (mean difference, 1.8; 95% CI, 0.6 to 3.0). In the postponed-drainage group, 19 patients (39%) were treated conservatively with antibiotics and did not require drainage; 17 of these patients survived. The incidence of adverse events was similar in the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

This trial did not show the superiority of immediate drainage over postponed drainage with regard to complications in patients with infected necrotizing pancreatitis. Patients randomly assigned to the postponed-drainage strategy received fewer invasive interventions. (Funded by Fonds NutsOhra and Amsterdam UMC; POINTER ISRCTN Registry number, ISRCTN33682933.).

Multidisciplinary Management of Complicated Pancreatitis: What Every Interventional Radiologist Should Know

Management of acute pancreatitis is challenging in the presence of local complications that include pancreatic and peripancreatic collections and vascular complications. This review, targeted for interventional radiologists, describes minimally invasive endoscopic, image-guided percutaneous, and surgical procedures for management of complicated pancreatitis and provides insight into the procedures' algorithmic application. Local complications are optimally managed in a multidisciplinary team setting that includes advanced endoscopists; pancreatic surgeons; diagnostic and interventional radiologists; and specialists in infectious disease, nutrition, and critical care medicine. Large symptomatic or complicated sterile collections and secondary infected collections warrant drainage or débridement. The drainage is usually delayed for 4-6 weeks unless clinical deterioration warrants early intervention. If collections are accessible by endoscopy, endoscopic procedures are preferred to avoid pancreaticocutaneous fistulas. Image-guided percutaneous drainage is indicated for symptomatic collections that are not accessible for endoscopic drainage or that present in the acute setting before developing a mature wall. Peripancreatic arterial pseudoaneurysms should be embolized before necrosectomy procedures to prevent potentially life-threatening hemorrhage. Surgical procedures are reserved for symptomatic collections that persist despite endoscopic or interventional drainage attempts. Understanding these procedures facilitates their integration by interventional radiologists into the complex longitudinal care of patients with complicated pancreatitis.

[Interventions for pancreatitis]

Approximately 20% of patients with acute pancreatitis develop complications that require surgical or radiological intervention. Radiology plays a central role, not only for imaging (course of the disease, detection of superinfection and their related complications, and development of necrosis) but also for the treatment of vascular and nonvascular complications. In the treatment of severe or necrotizing pancreatitis, a multidisciplinary staged approach with minimally invasive therapies such as endoscopic or percutaneous drainage should be used. Applying a sufficient number of drains of sufficient size, strict irrigation therapy under computed tomographic (CT) control and repositioning of the drains can successfully treat pancreatic and peripancreatic necrosis often without the need for subsequent surgical debridement. Arterial complications affect 1-10% of all patients with pancreatitis, most of which are ruptured pseudoaneurysms, which represent the most dangerous bleeding complication of pancreatitis and can be treated with a high technical success rate through embolization and/or use of an endovascular stent-graft.

Novel Dual-Lumen Drainage Catheter to Enhance the Active Evacuation of Complex Fluid Collections

PURPOSE

To compare the performance of a dual-lumen flushable drainage catheter to a conventional catheter for complex fluid collection drainage.

METHODS

Two prototype catheters (20- and 28-F) were created by incorporating a customized infusion lumen within the wall of a large-bore conventional drainage catheter, which facilitated simultaneous irrigation of the drainage lumen and the targeted collection via inward- and outward-facing infusion side holes. These were tested against unaltered 20- and 28-F conventional catheters to determine if the injection of a dedicated flush lumen improved rapidity and completeness of gravity drainage. In vitro models were created to simulate serous fluid, purulent/exudative fluid, particulate debris, and acute hematoma.

RESULTS

In the purulent model, mean drainage rate was 19.9 ± 8.0 and 9.5±1.4 mL/min for the 20-F prototype and control (P < .001) and 63.9 ± 4.3 and 35.4 ± 3.4 mL/min for the 28-F prototype and control (P = .006), respectively, with complete drainage achieved in all trials. In the particulate model, mean drainage rate was 24.5 ± 9.7 and 12.0 ± 12.5 mL/min for the 28-F prototype and control (P = .003), respectively, with 69.0% versus 41.1% total drainage achieved over 24 minutes (P = .029). In the hematoma model, mean drainage rate was 22.7 ± 4.6 and 4.8 ± 4.3 mL/min for the 28-F prototype and control (P = .022), respectively, with 80.3% versus 20.1% drainage achieved over 15 minutes (P = .003). Particulate and hematoma 20-F prototypes and conventional trials failed due to immediate occlusion.

CONCLUSIONS

The proposed dual-lumen drainage catheter with irrigation of a dedicated flush lumen improved evacuation of complex fluid collections in vitro.

Aggressive Percutaneous Catheter Drainage Protocol for Necrotic Pancreatic Collections

BACKGROUND

Percutaneous catheter drainage (PCD) performed pro-actively for collections in acute pancreatitis (AP) is associated with better outcomes. However, there are only a few studies describing this protocol.

AIM

We aimed to evaluate an aggressive PCD protocol.

METHODS

Consecutive patients with AP who underwent PCD with an aggressive protocol between January 2018 and January 2019 were included. This protocol involved catheter upsizing at a pre-specified interval (every 4-6 days) as well as drainage of all the new collections. The indications and technical details of PCD and clinical outcomes were compared with patients who underwent standard PCD.

RESULTS

Out of the 185 patients with AP evaluated during the study period, 110 (59.4%) underwent PCD, all with the aggressive protocol. The historical cohort of standard PCD comprised of 113 patients. There was no significant difference in the indication of PCD and interval from pain onset to PCD between the two groups. The mean number of catheters was significantly higher in the aggressive PCD group (1.86 ± 0.962 vs. 1.44 ± 0.667, p = 0.002). Additional catheters were inserted in 54.2% of patients in aggressive group vs. 36.2% in the standard group (p = 0.006). Length of hospital stay and intensive care unit (ICU) stay were significantly longer in the standard PCD group (34.3 ± 20.14 vs. 27.45 ± 14.2 days, p < 0.001 and 10.46 ± 12.29 vs. 4.12 ± 8.5, p = 0.009, respectively). There was no significant difference in mortality and surgery between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

Aggressive PCD protocol results in reduced length of hospital stay and ICU stay and can reduce hospitalization costs.

Prospective Analysis of the Mechanisms Underlying Ineffective Deep Vein Thrombosis Prophylaxis in Necrotizing Pancreatitis

BACKGROUND

Patients with necrotizing pancreatitis (NP) have the highest rate of venous thromboembolism (VTE) of any hospitalized patient (57%). We hypothesized that VTE prophylaxis might be inadequate in the setting of this profound inflammatory disease and that early detection of deep vein thrombosis would limit pulmonary embolism.

STUDY DESIGN

All patients with NP treated at a single center between August 2018 and December 2019 were enrolled in prospective, weekly VTE screening, including 4-extremity duplex ultrasound. Routine chemoprophylaxis included low-molecular-weight or unfractionated heparin. Peak serum anti-factor Xa concentration was measured during weekly screening (goal prophylaxis 0.2 to 0.4 IU/mL).

RESULTS

Eighty-five patients with NP underwent a total of 201 screening events (mean 2.4 per patient). VTE developed in 55 patients (65%), including splanchnic vein thrombosis in 41 patients (48%) and extremity deep vein thrombosis (eDVT) in 32 patients (38%). Extremity DVT was diagnosed a mean ± SD of 44 ± 30 days after NP onset. Symptomatic pulmonary embolism was prevented in all patients diagnosed with eDVT and no contraindication to anticoagulation (0 of 29). Prophylactic anti-factor Xa concentration was only achieved in 21% (12 of 57 screening events); no eDVTs developed in patients achieving prophylactic anti-factor Xa concentration.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with NP, identification of eDVT by screening ultrasound permits early treatment and prevents symptomatic pulmonary embolism. Fixed dosing of chemical prophylaxis is inadequate in most patients with NP and likely contributes to the mechanism of increased VTE in NP.

Early on-demand drainage versus standard management among acute necrotizing pancreatitis patients complicated by persistent organ failure: The protocol for an open-label multi-center randomized controlled trial

INTRODUCTION/AIM

Pancreatic necrosis occurs in a quarter of patients with acute pancreatitis, many of whom form an acute necrotic collection (ANC). The current standard treatment is to defer percutaneous catheter drainage (PCD) until the latter becomes "walled off," which takes approximately four weeks. The majority of patients that develop persistent organ failure (POF), the primary determinant of mortality, do so within four weeks. To defer PCD until after four weeks may result in a worse outcome because of a missed opportunity to treat early infection and thereby reduce the severity and/or duration of POF. This study is aimed to compare the clinical outcome of the current standard approach with early on-demand PCD in acute necrotizing pancreatitis (ANP) patients with ANC and POF.

METHODS/DESIGN

This is an open-label, multi-center, parallel, randomized, controlled trial. All patients with ANP who develop POF during the first week of onset will be screened for eligibility. In total, 120 study subjects will be randomized to either early on-demand PCD or standard care. Patients assigned to the former will receive PCD when they show signs of decompensation like new-onset OF, aggravation of pre-existent OF, and persistent OF for more than a week. The primary composite endpoint is major complication and/or death. Patients will be followed until discharge or death with an additional follow-up 90 days after randomization.

DISCUSSION

This study challenges the standard 4-week delay before PCD and will answer the question whether early on-demand PCD is associated with a lower incidence of major complications and/or death.

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.

Operative pancreatic debridement: Contemporary outcomes in changing times

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES

Operative pancreatic debridement (OPD) is the historic gold standard for treating necrotizing pancreatitis (NP). Recent success with minimally invasive NP treatment approaches have raised the question of which NP patients require OPD. We therefore sought to define contemporary outcomes of NP patients undergoing OPD.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was performed of 116 consecutive NP patients undergoing OPD using a prospectively maintained institutional NP database between 2006 and 2018.

RESULTS

86 (74%) patients underwent open pancreatic debridement (OD) and 30 (26%) underwent open transgastric debridement (TGD). Median follow-up was 16 months (interquartile range [IQR], 8-45 months). Median age was 51 years (IQR, 43-65 years); 73 (63%) were male. Pancreatitis etiology included biliary (53%), alcohol (22%), and idiopathic/other (25%). Median time from diagnosis to OPD was 64.5 days (IQR, 32-114.5 days). Mean APACHE-II score was: admission 8.5 (standard deviation [SD], 5.9); worst 12.6 (SD, 7.9); preoperatively 7.2 (SD, 4.6). 40 patients (34%) were initially managed with minimally invasive techniques (percutaneous drain only in 24, endoscopic only in 6, combination in 10). Median postoperative length of stay was 11 days (IQR, 7-19 days). 90-day morbidity and mortality were 70% and 2%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

NP patients who require OPD are critically and chronically ill. OPD is associated with substantial morbidity, but acceptable mortality in an experienced center with multidisciplinary support. This large contemporary series demonstrates that in properly selected patients, OPD remains an important treatment for NP.

Kissing catheter technique for percutaneous catheter drainage of necrotic pancreatic collections in acute pancreatitis

One of the critical factors for predicting the success of percutaneous catheter drainage (PCD) is the mean CT density of collection. A higher CT density suggests more necrotic solid tissue within the collection. In the present study, a novel technique for PCD of the necrotic pancreatic collection with a higher mean CT density was evaluated. It was a retrospective study of patients with acute pancreatitis (AP) who underwent PCD of pancreatic collections between May 2018 and December 2018. Patients with pancreatic collections having a CT density of >30 Hounsfield Units (HU) were considered for PCD using the kissing catheter technique. This technique involved placing two catheters side-by-side through a single cutaneous entry site, as the conventional technique of PCD may not be effective. The technical details, outcomes and complications of this technique were recorded. A total of 10 patients with a mean age of 30 years underwent PCD using this technique. All patients had severe pancreatitis with a mean CT severity index of 9 (range, 8-10). The mean CT density was 37 HU (range, 32-56). Successful management with PCD alone was achieved in 8 patients. The other 2 patients underwent surgical necrosectomy. One patient who underwent surgical necrosectomy died. Minor complications occurred in 3 patients. The kissing catheter technique allows for a higher success rate of PCD compared with that of the conventional method of PCD, in collections with a higher mean CT density.

Minimal-access retroperitoneal pancreatic necrosectomy for infected necrotizing pancreatitis: a multicentre study of a step-up approach

BACKGROUND

Various minimally invasive approaches have been described for infected necrotizing pancreatitis. This article describes a modified minimal-access retroperitoneal pancreatic necrosectomy (MARPN) procedure assisted by gas insufflation.

METHODS

This retrospective, observational study documented patients who had undergone a step-up MARPN between 1 January 2010 and 31 December 2016. A minimum follow-up of 1 year was required for inclusion. The step-up approach involved percutaneous catheter drainage followed by the modified MARPN and necrosectomy. If more than one access site was needed it was categorized as complex MARPN.

RESULTS

Of 212 patients with infected necrotizing pancreatitis, 164 (77·4 per cent) underwent a step-up approach. The median number of percutaneous catheter drains and MARPN procedures was 3 (range 1-7) and 1 (1-6) respectively. Ninety patients (54·9 per cent) underwent complex MARPN. For residual necrosis after MARPN, three patients (1·8 per cent) underwent sinus tract gastroscopy, and 11 (6·7 per cent) had sinography combined with a tube change. However, operations in 13 patients (7·9 per cent) required conversion to open surgery. Postoperative complications developed in 103 patients (62·8 per cent). The mortality rate was 6·1 per cent (10 deaths).

CONCLUSION

A step-up approach using a modified MARPN for infected necrotizing pancreatitis is a reasonable option.

Surgical Transgastric Necrosectomy for Necrotizing Pancreatitis: A Single-stage Procedure for Walled-off Pancreatic Necrosis

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the role of surgical transgastric necrosectomy (TGN) for walled-off pancreatic necrosis (WON) in selected patients.

BACKGROUND

WON is a common consequence of severe pancreatitis and typically occurs 3 to 5 weeks after the onset of acute pancreatitis. When symptomatic, it can require intervention.

METHODS

A retrospective review of patients with WON undergoing surgical management at 3 high-volume pancreatic institutions was performed. Surgical indications, intervention timing, technical methodology, and patient outcomes were evaluated. Patients undergoing intervention <30 days were excluded. Differences across centers were evaluated using a P value of <0.05 as significant.

RESULTS

One hundred seventy-eight total patients were analyzed (mean WON diameter = 14 cm, 64% male, mean age = 51 years) across 3 centers. The majority required inpatient admission with a median preoperative length of hospital stay of 29 days (25% required preoperative critical care support). Most (96%) patients underwent a TGN. The median duration of time between the onset of pancreatitis symptoms and operative intervention was 60 days. Thirty-nine percent of the necrosum was infected. Postoperative morbidity and mortality were 38% and 2%, respectively. The median postoperative length of hospital length of stay was 8 days, with the majority of patients discharged home. The median length of follow-up was 21 months, with 91% of patients having complete clinical resolution of symptoms at a median of 6 weeks. Readmission to hospital and/or a repeat intervention was also not infrequent (20%).

CONCLUSION

Surgical TGN is an excellent 1-stage surgical option for symptomatic WON in a highly selected group of patients. Precise surgical technique and long-term outpatient follow-up are mandatory for optimal patient outcomes.

Disconnected pancreatic duct syndrome predicts failure of percutaneous therapy in necrotizing pancreatitis

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES

Minimally invasive approaches, such as percutaneous drainage (PD), are increasingly utilized as initial treatment in necrotizing pancreatitis (NP) requiring intervention. Predictors of success of PD as definitive treatment are lacking. Our aim was to assess the application, predictors of success, and natural history of PD in NP. We hypothesized that necrosis morphology patterns and disconnected pancreatic duct syndrome (DPDS) may predict the ability of PD to provide definitive therapy.

METHODS

714 NP patients were treated from 2005 to 2018. Patients achieving disease resolution with PD alone (PD) were compared to those requiring an escalation in intervention (Step). Outcomes were compared between groups using independent samples t-test, Fisher's exact test, and Pearson's correlation, as appropriate. P < 0.05 was accepted as statistically significant.

RESULTS

115 patients were initially managed with PD (42 PD, 73 Step). No difference in necrosis morphology was seen between the two groups. The PD group underwent significantly more repeat percutaneous interventions (PD, 3.2; Step, 2.0; P = 0.0006) including additional drain placement and drain upsize/reposition procedures. Patients with DPDS were more likely to require an escalation in intervention (odds ratio, 3.4; 95% confidence interval, 1.5-7.6; P = 0.003). The mean number of months to NP resolution was similar (PD, 5.7; Step, 5.8; P = 0.9). Mortality was similar (PD, 7%; Step 14%, P = 0.3).

CONCLUSIONS

Necrosis morphology in and of itself does not reliably predict successful definitive treatment by percutaneous drainage. However, patients with disconnected pancreatic duct syndrome were less likely to have definitive resolution with PD alone.

Lavage through percutaneous catheter drains in severe acute pancreatitis: Does it help?A randomized control trial

AIMS

There is no study comparing large volume lavage through image guided percutaneously placed drains in severe acute pancreatitis.

METHODS

Of the 114 randomized patients, 60 eligible candidates were randomly allocated to - Lavage Treatment (LT) group (28 patients) and Dependent Drainage (DD) group (32 patients). Primary end point was reversal of pre-existing organ failure, development of new onset organ failure, need for surgery, mortality and hospital stay.

RESULTS

Both the groups were comparable in terms of demographic data, onset and severity of pancreatitis. LT group had higher infected pancreatic necrosis (75% vs 50%,p = 0.047). On intention to treat analysis, lavage treatment group showed a significant reversal of persistent organ failure (84% vs 50%, p = 0.23), reduction in APACHEII scores (3.5 ± 3.405 vs 1.16 ± 3.811 p = 0.012), as measured at the time of placement of PCD to cessation of intervention. There was no difference in development of new onset organ failure in the two groups (25% vs37.5% p=.290). 75% in LT group and 69% in DD group improved with PCD alone. There was no difference in the catheter related complications and number of catheters used. The need for surgical intervention was comparable in two groups (18.8% vs 14.3% p=.737). There was a trend toward decreased mortality in group A (18.8% vs 28.8% p=.370).

CONCLUSION

Large volume lavage trough PCD improves organ failure and this translates into trend towards reduced mortality.

Predrainage and Postdrainage Prognostic Nomograms to Predict Outcome of Percutaneous Drainage for Infected Pancreatic and Peripancreatic Necrotic Collections

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to identify factors affecting outcome of percutaneous catheter drainage (PCD) in management of infected pancreatic necrosis treated with step-up approach.

METHODS

This was a single-center retrospective cohort study that included patients with infected necrosis undergoing PCD as initial intervention. Patients who did not respond underwent necrosectomy. Predictors of PCD failure (ie, mortality or need for necrosectomy) were analyzed. Models were constructed for predrainage and postdrainage use and were internally validated.

RESULTS

Of 304 patients included, catheter drainage was successful in 59.8%, with overall mortality of 22%. Predrainage model consisted of Acute Physiologic and Chronic Health Evaluation II score at admission, early organ failure, and pancreatic necrosis of greater than 50%. Postdrainage model consisted of Acute Physiologic and Chronic Health Evaluation II at first PCD, early organ failure, pancreatic necrosis of greater than 50%, sepsis reversal within 1 week of PCD and Escherichia coli in PCD culture. Both models were internally validated with area under receiver operating characteristics curve of 71.2% for pre-PCD and 81.2% for post-PCD model. Prognostic nomograms were constructed using the models.

CONCLUSIONS

Percutaneous catheter drainage alone was successful in 59.8% with mortality of 22%. The nomograms can help in guiding treatment strategy and referral of high-risk cases.

Step-up approach for the management of pancreatic necrosis: a review of the literature

Infected necrotizing pancreatitis is a challenging condition to treat because of the profound inflammatory response these patients undergo which can then be exacerbated by interventions. Treatment of this condition has evolved in timing of intervention as well as method of intervention and includes less invasive options for treatment such as percutaneous drainage and endoscopic drainage, in addition to less invasive endoscopic and video-assisted or laparoscopic debridements. The precise optimal treatment strategy for these patients is an ongoing topic of discussion and may be different for each patient as this is a heterogenous condition.

Management of (Peri)Pancreatic Collections in Acute Pancreatitis

The development of (peri)pancreatic fluid collections are frequent local complications in acute pancreatitis. These collections are classified as early (acute peripancreatic fluid collection or acute necrotic collection) or late (walled-off necrosis or pseudocyst). The majority of pancreatic fluid collections resolve spontaneously and do not require intervention. However, infection may require intervention. Interventions may include endoscopic or percutaneous catheter drainage, or in a next step endoscopic or surgical necrosectomy, minimally invasive or open. The best timing for the first intervention is still under investigation. Whereas some use antibiotics to postpone intervention until the stage of walled-off necrosis, others drain earlier. Endoscopic drainage of (peri)pancreatic fluid collections is now the preferred approach of drainage due to reduced morbidity as compared to surgical or percutaneous drainage. However, each collection must be treated according to a tailored approach. The final treatment should take into consideration anatomic characteristics, patient preference, comorbidity profile of the patient, and physician discretion. This review summarizes the current evidence on the treatment of (peri)pancreatic fluid collections.

Natural History of Gas Configurations and Encapsulation in Necrotic Collections During Necrotizing Pancreatitis

BACKGROUND

Decision-making on invasive intervention in patients with clinical signs of infected necrotizing pancreatitis is often related to the presence of gas configurations and the degree of encapsulation in necrotic collections on imaging. Data on the natural history of gas configurations and encapsulation in necrotizing pancreatitis are, however, lacking.

METHODS

A post hoc analysis was performed of a previously described prospective cohort in 21 Dutch hospitals (2004-2008). All computed tomography scans (CTs) performed during hospitalization for necrotizing pancreatitis were categorized per week (1 to 8, and thereafter) and re-assessed by an abdominal radiologist.

RESULTS

A total of 639 patients with necrotizing pancreatitis were included, with median four (IQR 2-7) CTs per patient. The incidence of first onset of gas configurations varied per week without a linear correlation: 2-3-13-11-10-19-12-21-12%, respectively. Overall, gas configurations were found in 113/639 (18%) patients and in 113/202 (56%) patients with infected necrosis. The incidence of walled-off necrosis increased per week: 0-3-12-39-62-76-93-97-100% for weeks 1-8 and thereafter respectively. Clinically relevant walled-off necrosis (largely or fully encapsulated necrotic collections) was seen in 162/379 (43%) patients within the first 3 weeks.

CONCLUSIONS

Gas configurations occur in every phase of the disease and develop in half of the patients with infected necrotizing pancreatitis. Opposed to traditional views, clinically relevant walled-off necrosis occurs frequently within the first 3 weeks.

[Diagnosis and stage-adapted treatment of acute pancreatitis]

Acute pancreatitis is a potentially life-threatening disease, which is morphologically classified into interstitial edematous or necrotizing pancreatitis. According to the revised Atlanta classification, mild, moderate and severe clinical courses are differentiated regarding local and systemic complications as well as concomitant organ failure. In the initial disease phase, the therapeutic measures are focused on (aggressive) volume replacement, early enteral nutrition and adequate analgesia. Characteristic in the course of severe acute pancreatitis are abdominal necroses, which require individualized and interdisciplinary treatment with antibiotic therapy, drainage and definitive necrosectomy. Necrosectomy should be planned as a "step-up approach" using interventional-radiological, endoscopic and minimally invasive surgical procedures.