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

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.

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.

The optimal timing and intervention to reduce mortality for necrotizing pancreatitis: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

A series of randomized controlled trials have investigated the efficacy and safety of different timings of interventions and methods of intervention. However, the optimal treatment strategy is not yet clear.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, EMBASE, ClinicalTrials.gov and the Cochrane Library until November 30, 2022. A systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis were performed following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Trials comparing different treatment strategies for necrotizing pancreatitis were included. This study was registered in the Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42022364409) to ensure transparency.

RESULTS

We analyzed a total of 10 studies involving 570 patients and 8 treatment strategies. Although no statistically significant differences were identified comparing odds ratios, trends were confirmed by the surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) scores. The interventions with a low rate of mortality were delayed surgery (DS), delayed surgical step-up approach (DSU) and delayed endoscopic step-up approach (DEU), while the interventions with a low rate of major complications were DSU, DEU and DS. According to the clustered ranking plot, DSU performed the best overall in reducing mortality and major complications, while DD performed the worst. Analysis of the secondary endpoints confirmed the superiority of DEU and DSU in terms of individual components of major complications (organ failure, pancreatic fistula, bleeding, and visceral organ or enterocutaneous fistula), exocrine insufficiency, endocrine insufficiency and length of stay. Overall, DSU was superior to other interventions.

CONCLUSION

DSU was the optimal treatment strategy for necrotizing pancreatitis. Drainage alone should be avoided in clinical practice. Any interventions should be postponed for at least 4 weeks if possible. The step-up approach was preferred.

Ischemic Pancreatitis Is an Important Cause of Acute Pancreatitis in the Intensive Care Unit

BACKGROUND

Ischemic pancreatitis (IP) has mainly been described in case reports. The aims of the study were to assess the frequency, clinical characteristics and outcomes in patients with IP among patients hospitalized in the intensive care unit (ICU) for acute pancreatitis (AP).

METHODS

All patients with first time AP between 2011 and 2018 in the ICU of Landspitali Hospital, Iceland were retrospectively included. IP as an etiology required a clinical setting of circulatory shock, arterial hypotension, hypovolemia and/or arterial hypoxemia [PaO 2 of 60 mm Hg (8.0 kPa), or less] before the diagnosis of AP without prior history of abdominal pain to this episode. Other causes of AP were ruled out. IP patients were compared with patients with AP of other etiologies, also hospitalized in the ICU.

RESULTS

Overall 67 patients with AP were identified (median age 60 y, 37% females), 31% idiopathic, 24% alcoholic, 22% IP, 15% biliary, and 8% other causes. Overall, 15 (22%) fulfilled the predetermined criteria for IP, 9 males (64%), median age 62 years (interquartile range: 46 to 65). IP was preceded mainly by systemic shock (73%). Other causes included dehydration, hypoxia, or vessel occlusion to the pancreas. Necrosis of the pancreas was rare with one patient requiring pancreatic necrosectomy. Inpatient mortality was higher among patients with IP than in other patients with AP (33% vs. 14%, P =0.12).

CONCLUSIONS

IP was found in a significant proportion of AP patients hospitalized in the ICU. The main causes of IP were systemic shock and hypoxia. IP was associated with ∼30% mortality.

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.

Radiologic Predictors of Increased Number of Necrosectomies During Endoscopic Management of Walled-off Pancreatic Necrosis

GOALS

No established methods exist to predict who will require a higher number of endoscopic necrosectomy sessions for walled-off necrosis (WON). We aim to identify radiologic predictors for requiring a greater number of necrosectomy sessions. This may help to identify patients who benefit from aggressive endoscopic management.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This is a multicenter retrospective study of patients with WON at 3 tertiary care centers. WON characteristics on preintervention computed tomography imaging were evaluated to determine if they were predictive of requiring more endoscopic necrosectomy.

RESULTS

A total of 104 patients were included. Seventy patients (67.3%) underwent endoscopic necrosectomy, with median of 2 necrosectomies. WON largest transverse diameters (P=0.02), largest coronal diameters (P=0.01), necrosis pattern [likelihood ratio (LR)=17.85, P<0.001], spread (LR=11.02, P=0.01), hemorrhage (LR=8.64, P=0.003), and presence of disconnected pancreatic duct (LR=6.80, P=0.01) were associated with undergoing ≥2 necrosectomies. Patients with septations/loculations were significantly less likely to undergo ≥2 necrosectomies (LR=4.86, P=0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

Several computed tomography radiologic features were significantly associated with undergoing ≥2 necrosectomies. These could help identify patients who will undergo a higher number of endoscopic necrosectomy sessions.

RWON Study: The Real-World Walled-off Necrosis Study

Background/Aims

The management of walled-off necrosis (WON) has undergone a paradigm shift from surgical to nonsurgical modalities. Real-world data on the management of symptomatic WON are scarce.

Methods

Prospectively collected data of symptomatic WON cases were retrospectively evaluated. The treatment modalities used were medical management alone, percutaneous catheter drainage (PCD) or endoscopic drainage (ED), or a combination of PCD and ED. We compared clinical outcome among these modalities.

Results

A total of 264 patients were evaluated. The most common indications for drainage were pain and fever. Of the patients, 28% was treated with medical therapy alone, 31% with ED, 37% with PCD, and 4% with a combined approach. Technical success and clinical success were achieved in 93% and 91% of patients in the endoscopic arm and in 90% and 81% patients in the PCD arm, respectively (p=0.0004 for clinical success). Lower rates of complications (7% vs. 22%, p=0.005), readmission (20% vs. 34%, p=0.04), and mortality (4% vs. 19%, p=0.0012), and shorter hospital stay (13 days vs. 19 days, p=0.0018) were observed in the endoscopic group than in the PCD group.

Conclusions

ED of WON is better than PCD and is associated with lower mortality, fewer complications, and shorter hospitalization.

Outcomes of Endoscopic and Surgical Pancreatic Necrosectomy: A Single Institution Experience

Pancreatic necrosis can be managed conservatively; however, infection of pancreatic necrosis usually dictates more aggressive management. Our study aimed to assess the outcomes of open pancreatic necrosectomy (OPN) and endoscopic pancreatic necrosectomy (EPN) in a single center. Data from patients undergoing pancreatic necrosectomy at the Geisinger Medical Center from January 1, 2007, to April 25, 2016, were collected and retrospectively analyzed. Cohorts were composed of EPN (n = 22) and OPN (n = 34) groups. The prevalence of preoperative respiratory failure, septic shock, and multiorgan dysfunction syndrome was higher in the OPN group. The OPN group presented with a higher Bedside Index Severity in Acute Pancreatitis score. Postoperative abscess, persistent kidney dysfunction, and death were more frequent in the OPN group. The EPN group had a higher read-mission rate. The results of the univariate analysis for complication and mortality demonstrated that higher mortality and persistent kidney dysfunction were associated with the procedure type, specifically OPN and with a higher Bedside Index Severity in Acute Pancreatitis score. Patients who presented with higher severity of disease underwent an OPN, whereas EPN often was performed successfully in a more benign clinical setting. However, patients with infected necrosis are served best in a tertiary medical facility where multiple treatment modalities are available.

Acute Pancreatitis and Fluid-Filled Collections: Etiology and Endoscopic Management

Acute pancreatitis is an inflammatory process of the pancreas, which can range from a localized inflammatory process to a systemic response, resulting in sepsis and multisystem failure. Pancreatic fluid collections are a complication of pancreatitis. Treatment of these fluid collections is dependent on correct classification. The 2012 Atlanta Criteria divides fluid collections into four categories: acute peripancreatic fluid collections, pancreatic pseudocysts, acute necrotic collections, and walled-off necrosis. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided management of chronic fluid collections is currently the preferred treatment modality. Endoscopy nurses need to be aware of their role in this treatment approach. Continued research in this area will lead to both advancements in equipment and treatment options.

Comparison of endoscopic versus percutaneous drainage of symptomatic pancreatic necrosis in the early (< 4 weeks) phase of illness

Background and Objective

Pancreatic fluid collections in early phase of illness <4 weeks after onset of acute pancreatitis (AP) are usually treated with percutaneous drainage (PCD). There is a paucity of data comparing early (<4 weeks) endoscopic transluminal drainage (ETD) with PCD in patients with symptomatic pancreatic necrosis (PN). The objective of this study is to compare the safety and efficacy of early ETD with PCD in patients with symptomatic PN.

Patients and Methods

Retrospective analysis of database of patients with symptomatic PN treated early (<4 weeks of onset of AP) with either ETD (encapsulated wall on EUS) or PCD.

Results

Twenty-three patients (19 M; mean age: 36.1 years) were treated with ETD and 41 patients (29 M; mean age: 39.6 years) were treated with PCD, respectively. ETD and PCD were done 24.2 ± 2.3 and 24.2 ± 2.0 days after onset of AP, respectively (P = 0.84). In the ETD group, 35% of patients were treated with self-expanding metallic stents and 48% of patients required direct endoscopic necrosectomy. In the PCD group, 74% of patients were treated with multiple catheters and 91% of patients with either saline or streptokinase irrigation. As compared to the ETD group, patients in the PCD group took longer time for resolution (61.9 ± 22.9 days vs. 30.9 ± 5.6 days; P < 0.00001), increased need for surgery (30% vs. 4%; P = 0.01), and frequency of formation of external pancreatic fistula (EPF) (22% vs. nil; P = 0.02).

Conclusions

ETD of PN in early phase of illness is associated with a shorter duration for resolution and infrequent need of salvage surgery compared to PCD. EPF formation is a significant adverse event with PCD.

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.

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.

Comparing efficacy of lumen-apposing stents to plastic stents in the endoscopic management of mature peripancreatic fluid collections: a single-center experience

Introduction

Mature peripancreatic fluid collection (MPFC) is a known and often challenging consequence of acute pancreatitis and often requires intervention. The most common method accepted is the “step-up approach,” which consists of percutaneous drainage followed, if necessary, by minimally invasive retroperitoneal necrosectomy. Our paper aims to distinguish between plastic stents and lumen-apposing stents in the endoscopic management of MPFC in terms of morbidity, mortality, and haste of fluid collection resolution.

Methods

A retrospective analysis was performed at UMass Memorial Medical Center in patients with a diagnosis of MPFC. Utilizing medical records, clinical data, radiology, as well as endoscopic evidence, patients were differentiated by stent type used (plastic versus lumen-apposing) for the management of the MPFC. The primary outcome of the study was to assess the time to MPFC resolution following the placement of either plastic or lumen-apposing stents (on endoscopic ultrasound or computerized tomography scan) using a multivariate analysis with a logistic regression model.

Results

A total of 54 patients were included in this study from UMass Memorial Medical Center between 2012 and 2015. Twelve (22%) of these patients received lumen-apposing stents and 42 (78%) of these patients received plastic pigtail stents. For the lumen-apposing stent group, the mean interval between stent placement and resolution of MPFC was 57 days as compared to 102 days for plastic pigtail stents (p=0.02). The mean interval for placement/removal of lumen-apposing stents was 48 days as compared to 81 days for plastic pigtail stents (p=0.01). Stent migration was seen in 5 patients (11%) who received a plastic pigtail stent compared to 0 (0%) patients who received a lumen-apposing stent.

Discussion

Our study demonstrates that lumen-apposing stents result in a significant reduction in the interval between stent placement and MPFC resolution as well as the time from stent placement to removal, when compared to plastic pigtail stents, the prior standard-of-care. Our study reached similar conclusions regarding the number of stents placed. However, we did not find a significant difference between the complication rates, specifically peri- and postprocedural bleeding or perforation, between the 2 study groups, as demonstrated in prior papers.

Risk Factors for the Need of Surgical Necrosectomy After Percutaneous Catheter Drainage in the Management of Infection Secondary to Necrotizing Pancreatitis

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to assess the need of surgical necrosectomy after percutaneous catheter drainage (PCD) for infected necrotizing pancreatitis.

METHODS

The clinical data of documented/suspected patients who were treated with a step-up approach were extracted and analyzed.

RESULTS

Of the 329 patients enrolled, the initial PCD was performed at 12 (interquartile range, 9-15) days since onset and 35.3% were cured by PCD alone. In the pre-PCD model, mean computed tomographic (CT) density of necrotic fluid collection (NFC; P < 0.001), and multiple-organ failure (MOF; P < 0.001) within 24 hours before the initial PCD were independent risk factors, and a combination of the previously mentioned 2 factors produced an area under the curve of 0.775. In the post-PCD model, mean CT density of NFC (P = 0.041), MOF (P = 0.002), and serum procalcitonin level (P = 0.035) 3 days after the initial PCD were independent risk factors, and a combination of these previously mentioned factors produced an area under the curve of 0.642.

CONCLUSIONS

Both mean CT density of NFC and MOF are independent pre- and post-PCD risk factors for the need of necrosectomy after PCD. Post-PCD serum procalcitonin level might be a respondent factor that is correlated with the necessity of necrosectomy.

Large-caliber metal stents versus plastic stents for the management of pancreatic walled-off necrosis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Symptomatic pancreatic walled-off necrosis (WON) may be managed by endoscopic transmural drainage and endoscopic transmural necrosectomy, with stent placement at endoscopic drainage sites. The optimal stent choice is yet to be determined. We compared outcomes after endoscopic management of WON using either large-caliber fully covered self-expandable metal stents (LC-SEMSs) or double-pigtail plastic stents (DPPSs).

METHODS

We performed a retrospective comparison of outcomes among patients who received LC-SEMSs or DPPSs before endoscopic transmural necrosectomy for WON.

RESULTS

Among 94 patients included, WON resolution rates did not differ between the DPPS (36 patients) and LC-SEMS (58 patients) groups, whether concomitant percutaneous drainage was considered a failure (75% vs 82.8%; P = .36) or not (91.7% vs 94.8%; P = .55). Of 75 patients (80%) successfully treated without percutaneous drainage, 37 (49%) underwent endoscopic transmural drainage without subsequent endoscopic transmural necrosectomy. WON was more likely to resolve without subsequent endoscopic transmural necrosectomy in the LC-SEMS group than the DPPS group (60.4% vs 30.8%; P = .01). WON resolution without subsequent endoscopic transmural necrosectomy remained more likely with LC-SEMSs (odds ratio, 4.5 [95% confidence interval, 1.5-15.5]) after adjusting for patient age and size and location of WON. Rates of adverse events were similar except for clinically significant bleeding requiring endoscopic intervention, which was higher with DPPSs than LC-SEMSs (14% vs 2%; P = .02).

CONCLUSION

Management of pancreatic WON with LC-SEMSs appears to decrease both the need for repeated necrosectomy procedures and the risk of intervention-related hemorrhage.

Theoretical approach to local infusion of antibiotics for infected pancreatic necrosis

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES

Infected pancreatic necrosis is a major complications of acute pancreatitis. If drainage is required, local administration of antibiotics through transmural nasocystic or percutaneous catheter may allow increasing local antibiotic concentrations. Drug diffusion becomes the main factor influencing local drug tissue penetration. The present study aims at providing the rationale for the design of new research protocols evaluating the efficacy of local antibiotics for infected pancreatic necrosis.

METHODS

A review of microbiological data was performed for the most common organisms causing the infection, antibiotics spectrum and minimum inhibitory concentrations (MIC). A search of the physico-chemical properties of antibiotics was performed to calculate the diffusion coefficients. An estimation of the antibiotic concentrations in pancreatic tissue was obtained using a mathematical model. Efficacy factors (EF) were calculated and the stability of the antibiotic solutions were evaluated to optimize the dosing regimen.

RESULTS

Piperacillin, vancomycin and metronidazole achieve high concentrations in the surrounding tissue very fast. Imipenem, ceftriaxone, ciprofloxacin, gentamicin, linezolid and cloxacillin achieve intermediate concentration values. Tigecycline, showed the lowest concentration values (<2 mg/L). Calculated EF is highest for piperacillin and imipenem short after administration and near to surface diffusion area (0.5 cm), but EF of imipenem is higher at deeper areas and longer time after administration.

CONCLUSIONS

Considering obtained results, some solutions are proposed using saline as diluent and 25 °C of temperature during administration. Imipenem has the best theoretical results in empiric local treatment. Linezolid and tigecycline solutions are not recommended.

Laparoscopic approach in gastrointestinal emergencies

This review focuses on the laparoscopic approach to gastrointestinal emergencies and its more recent indications. Laparoscopic surgery has a specific place in elective procedures, but that does not apply in emergency situations. In specific emergencies, there is a huge range of indications and different techniques to apply, and not all of them are equally settle. We consider that the most controversial points in minimally invasive procedures are indications in emergency situations due to technical difficulties. Some pathologies, such as oesophageal emergencies, obstruction due to colon cancer, abdominal hernias or incarcerated postsurgical hernias, are nearly always resolved by conventional surgery, that is, an open approach due to limited intraabdominal cavity space or due to the vulnerability of the bowel. These technical problems have been solved in many diseases, such as for perforated peptic ulcer or acute appendectomy for which a laparoscopic approach has become a well-known and globally supported procedure. On the other hand, endoscopic procedures have acquired further indications, relegating surgical solutions to a second place; this happens in cholangitis or pancreatic abscess drainage. This endoluminal approach avoids the need for laparoscopic development in these diseases. Nevertheless, new instruments and new technologies could extend the laparoscopic approach to a broader array of potentials procedures. There remains, however, a long way to go.

Severe Acute Pancreatitis and Necrotizing Pancreatitis

Acute pancreatitis results in nearly 250,000 admissions annually. Acute pancreatitis varies widely in its clinical presentation. Pancreatic necrosis accounts for substantial additional morbidity, with mortality rates remaining as high as 10% to 20% despite advances in critical care. The extent of necrosis correlates well with the incidence of infected necrosis, multiorgan failure, need for pancreatic debridement, and morbidity and mortality. Having established the diagnosis of pancreatic necrosis, goals of appropriately aggressive resuscitation should be established and adhered to in a multidisciplinary approach involving both medical and surgical critical care.

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.