Long-Term Outcome of Immediate Versus Postponed Intervention in Patients With Infected Necrotizing Pancreatitis (POINTER): Multicenter Randomized Trial

Early versus delayed necrosectomy in pancreatic necrosis: A population-based cohort study on readmission, healthcare utilization, and in-hospital mortality

BACKGROUND

Acute necrotizing pancreatitis is a severe and life-threatening condition. It poses a considerable challenge for clinicians due to its complex nature and the high risk of complications. Several minimally invasive and open necrosectomy procedures have been developed. Despite advancements in treatment modalities, the optimal timing to perform necrosectomy lacks consensus.

AIM

To evaluate the impact of necrosectomy timing on patients with pancreatic necrosis in the United States.

METHODS

A national retrospective cohort study was conducted using the 2016-2019 Nationwide Readmissions Database. Patients with non-elective admissions for pancreatic necrosis were identified. The participants were divided into two groups based on the necrosectomy timing: The early group received intervention within 48 hours, whereas the delayed group underwent the procedure after 48 hours. The various intervention techniques included endoscopic, percutaneous, or surgical necrosectomy. The major outcomes of interest were 30-day readmission rates, healthcare utilization, and inpatient mortality.

RESULTS

A total of 1309 patients with pancreatic necrosis were included. After propensity score matching, 349 cases treated with early necrosectomy were matched to 375 controls who received delayed intervention. The early cohort had a 30-day readmission rate of 8.6% compared to 4.8% in the delayed cohort (P = 0.040). Early necrosectomy had lower rates of mechanical ventilation (2.9% vs 10.9%, P < 0.001), septic shock (8% vs 19.5%, P < 0.001), and in-hospital mortality (1.1% vs 4.3%, P = 0.01). Patients in the early intervention group incurred lower healthcare costs, with median total charges of $52202 compared to $147418 in the delayed group. Participants in the early cohort also had a relatively shorter median length of stay (6 vs 16 days, P < 0.001). The timing of necrosectomy did not significantly influence the risk of 30-day readmission, with a hazard ratio of 0.56 (95% confidence interval: 0.31-1.02, P = 0.06).

CONCLUSION

Our findings show that early necrosectomy is associated with better clinical outcomes and lower healthcare costs. Delayed intervention does not significantly alter the risk of 30-day readmission.

Controversies in endoscopic ultrasonography-guided management of walled-off necrosis

Walled-off necrosis (WON) develops as local complications after acute necrotizing pancreatitis. Although less invasive interventions such as endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS)-guided drainage and endoscopic necrosectomy are selected over surgical interventions, delayed and step-up interventions are still preferred to avoid procedure-related adverse events. However, there is a controversy about the appropriate timing of drainage and subsequent necrosectomy. The advent of large-caliber lumen-apposing metal stents has also brought about potential advantages of proactive interventions, which still needs investigation in future trials. When step-up interventions of necrosectomy and additional drainage are necessary, a structured or protocoled approach for WON has been reported to improve safety and effectiveness of endoscopic and/or percutaneous treatment, but has not been standardized yet. Finally, long-term outcomes such as recurrence of WON, pancreatic endocrine, and exocrine function are increasingly investigated in association with disconnected pancreatic duct syndrome. In this review we discuss current evidence and controversy on EUS-guided management of WON.

Practical approach to acute pancreatitis: from diagnosis to the management of complications

The purpose of this review is to provide a practical guide for the clinical care of patients with acute pancreatitis (AP) from the management of the early phases of disease to the treatment of local complications. AP is one of the most frequent causes of gastroenterological admission in emergency departments. It is characterized by a dynamic and unpredictable course and in its most severe forms, is associated with organ dysfunction and/or local complications, requiring intensive care with significant morbidity and mortality. Initial therapy includes adequate fluid resuscitation, nutrition, analgesia, and when necessary critical care support. In recent years, the development of minimally invasive tailored treatments for local complications, such as endoscopic drainage, has improved patients' acceptance and outcomes. Despite this, the management of AP remains a challenge for clinicians. The present review was conducted by the authors, who formulated specific questions addressing the most critical and current aspects of the clinical course of AP with the aim of providing key messages.

To Drain or Not: Drainage Procedures Remain a Central Tenet of Management of Infected Collections in Acute Pancreatitis

Recent literature advocates for delayed or avoidance of catheter drainage of infected peri-pancreatic collections (IPCs) in acute pancreatitis (AP). This may not be realistic for patients at academic centers, many of whom are critically ill. We retrospectively reviewed 72 patients admitted to our institution from 2016-2021 with AP and IPCs. 34.7% had a Bedside Index of Severity in Acute Pancreatitis (BISAP) score ≥3, and 56.9% had a Balthazar score of E. 65.3% were admitted to the ICU, 51.4% experienced respiratory failure, and 47.2% had acute renal failure. In-hospital mortality was 9.7%. Catheter-based drainage alone was the most frequent intervention. Only 8 individuals did not undergo any drainage. Individuals with severe AP complicated by IPCs are critically ill. Avoidance or delay of source control could lead to significant morbidity. Until further research is done on this population, drainage should remain a central tenet of management of IPCs.

Endoscopic management of pancreatic collections. Endoscopic Ultrasound Group from the Spanish Society of Digestive Endoscopy (GSEED-USE) Clinical Guidelines

Acute pancreatitis is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. It can develop complications such as fluid collections and necrosis. Infection of necrosis occurs in about 20-40% of patients with severe acute pancreatitis, and is associated with organ failure and worse prognosis. In the past years, the treatment of pancreatic collections has shifted from open surgery to minimally invasive techniques, such as endoscopic ultrasound guided drainage. These guidelines from a selection of experts among the Endoscopic Ultrasound Group from the Spanish Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (GSEED-USE) have the purpose to provide advice on the management of pancreatic collections based on a thorough review of the available scientific evidence. It also reflects the experience and clinical practice of the authors, who are advanced endoscopists or clinical pancreatologists with extensive experience in managing patients with acute pancreatitis.