What is the outcome for patients presenting with severe acute pancreatitis requiring a hospital stay of more than one month?

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to investigate the clinical progression of patients who had severe acute pancreatitis (AP) and a stay in hospital of more than a month. METHODS: A total of 24 patients (median age: 57 years) were included in this eight-year retrospective study. Cure was defined as the restoration of the pancreatic parenchyma, and the disappearance of all pseudocysts and pancreatic fistulae. Data including the duration of hospital stay, disease severity and pancreatic sequelae were also collected. RESULTS: The median total duration of the hospital stay was 67 days. The overall mortality rate was 20.8%, whereas the mortality rate due to AP was 12.5%. The average healing period was 7.7 months. On univariate analysis, patients who also had respiratory diseases, chronic alcoholism, necrotizing superinfection, pseudocyst, food intolerance and/or hospital-acquired infection took significantly longer to heal. After cure, we observed pancreatic and/or hepatic duct stenoses in 50% of cases, and the onset or aggravation of diabetes in 25%. CONCLUSION: In patients hospitalized for more than one month because of necrotizing AP, the rate of mortality is around 20%, with a final hospital stay of two months and a healing period of more than seven months. In addition, half of the patients presented with pancreatic or biliary sequelae.

[Endoscopic management of postoperative pancreatic collections]. / Prise en charge endoscopique des collections pancréatiques postopératoires.

INTRODUCTION: Treatment of pancreatic postoperative collections are usually managed with a multidisciplinary team. Different managements are possible: abstention, external drainage, endoscopic treatment or surgery. METHODS: We report on a case series of five patients with a postoperative pancreatic collection, endoscopically managed. Patients underwent all a CT scan associated or not with endoscopic ultrasonography. RESULTS: An endoscopic cystenterosotomy was performed in all the cases, with two double pig tail stents sometimes associated with nasocystic drainage for clearing the cyst lumen and with transpapillary drainage in one case. All the procedures were successful and patients healed in all the cases with the disappearance of the radiological image within a 33 days to three months range with one complication due to superinfection of the drained cyst, endoscopically managed with a nasocystic catheter. CONCLUSION: Therapeutic endoscopy, with a multidisciplinary approach, is a promising way to manage postoperative pancreatic collections.

Mucosal healing with methotrexate in Crohn's disease: a prospective comparative study with azathioprine and infliximab.

BACKGROUND: Mucosal healing has become a new therapeutic goal in Crohn's disease and can be achieved with azathioprine (AZA) or biologics. Methotrexate (MTX) is an effective drug for both the induction and maintenance of remission in Crohn's disease. However, mucosal healing with MTX has been poorly investigated. AIM: To assess the mucosal healing rate in patients with Crohn's disease with clinical response to MTX as compared with AZA or infliximab (IFX). METHODS: From October 2007 to May 2009, consecutive patients with Crohn's disease were prospectively enrolled into a single-centre study when they met the following criteria: previous identification of mucosal ulcerations with ileo-colonoscopy, clinical remission within at least 3 months with MTX, AZA or IFX monotherapy, usual indication for colonoscopy in Crohn's disease (dysplasia/cancer screening, suspected stenosis) excluding assessment for mucosal healing. Mucosal healing was defined as absence of mucosal ulceration in all segments. RESULTS: Fifty-one patients with Crohn's disease (38 female; median age: 42 years) were included: 18 receiving MTX, 18 AZA and 15 IFX. Mucosal healing was achieved in 2/18 (11%) with MTX, in 9/18 (50%) with AZA (P =0.011 vs. MTX) and in 9/15 (60%) with IFX (P=0.008 vs. MTX). CONCLUSION: In patients with Crohn's disease in sustained clinical remission, mucosal healing is less frequently achieved with MTX as compared with AZA or IFX.

Colon capsule endoscopy vs. colonoscopy in patients at average or increased risk of colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) is a new, non-invasive technology. AIM: To conduct a prospective, multicentre trial to compare CCE and colonoscopy in asymptomatic subjects enrolled in screening or surveillance programmes for the detection of colorectal neoplasia. METHODS: Patients underwent CCE on day one and colonoscopy (gold standard) on day two. CCE and colonoscopy were performed by independent endoscopists. RESULTS: A total of 545 patients were recruited. CCE was safe and well-tolerated. Colon cleanliness was excellent or good in 52% of cases at CCE. Five patients with cancer were detected by colonoscopy, of whom two were missed by CCE. CCE accuracy for the detection of polyps ≥ 6 mm was 39% (95% CI 30-48) for sensitivity, 88% (95% CI 85-91) for specificity, 47% (95% CI 37-57) for positive predictive value and 85% (95% CI 82-88) for negative predictive value. CCE accuracy was better for the detection of advanced adenoma, in patients with good or excellent cleanliness and after re-interpretation of the CCE videos by an independent expert panel. CONCLUSIONS: Although well-tolerated, CCE cannot replace colonoscopy as a first line investigation for screening and surveillance of patients at risk of cancer. Further studies should pay attention to colonic preparation (Clinicaltrial.gov number NCT00436514).

The tolerance and efficacy of a postponed retreatment with infliximab in Crohn's disease primary responders.

BACKGROUND: In Crohn's disease (CD) patients naïve to immunomodulators primary responding to infliximab (IFX) induction, maintenance with scheduled IFX or with immunomodulators is possible. The benefit of additional IFX infusions after failure of maintenance with immunomodulators is not known. AIM: To assess the efficacy and factors associated with efficacy of postponed IFX retreatment. METHODS: All CD primary responders to an IFX induction regimen in maintenance with immunomodulators were retrospectively included when they received at least one additional IFX infusion after week 14. Efficacy was defined as clinical response at week 4 and absence of intolerance leading to discontinuation. RESULTS: Sixty-one patients were retreated with IFX with a 38-week median time from induction. Efficacy was achieved in 80% patients. Twelve patients had no clinical benefit: seven acute hypersensitivity reactions and five loss of response. By multivariate analysis, the only factor associated with no efficacy was a median time >50 weeks from induction to retreatment (odds ratio = 7.38; 95%CI: 1.38-39.59; P = 0.02). CONCLUSION: Postponed retreatment with IFX in CD primary responders should be administered within 50 weeks after induction, for better efficacy and tolerance.