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.).

Costs of complications following distal pancreatectomy: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative complications following distal pancreatectomy (DP) are common, especially postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF). In order to design adequate prophylactic strategies, it is of relevance to determine the costs of these complications. An overview of the literature on the costs of complications following DP is lacking. METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed in PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library (inception until 1 August 2022). The primary outcome was the costs (i.e. cost differential) of major morbidity, individual complications and prolonged hospital stay. Quality of non-RCTs were assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Costs were compared with the use of Purchasing Power parity. This systematic review was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42021223019). RESULTS: Overall, seven studies were included with 854 patients after DP. The rate POPF grade B/C varied between 13% and 27% (based on five studies) with a corresponding cost differential of EUR 18,389 (based on two studies). The rate of severe morbidity varied between 13% and 38% (based on five studies) with a corresponding cost differential of EUR 19,281 (based on five studies). CONCLUSION: This systematic review reported considerable costs for POPF grade B/C and severe morbidity after DP. Prospective databases and studies should report on all complications in a uniform matter to better display the economic burden of complications of DP.

Hospital costs of delayed gastric emptying following pancreatoduodenectomy and the financial headroom for novel prophylactic treatment strategies.

BACKGROUND: Delayed gastric emptying (DGE) is one of the most common complications following pancreatoduodenectomy (PD). In-hospital costs of DGE are unknown as well as the financial headroom for novel prophylactic treatments. This retrospective study aims to estimate the hospital costs of DGE and model the financial headroom per patient for new prophylactic treatment strategies within budget. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of a single-center prospective database including patients after PD (2010-2017). In-hospital costs for clinically relevant DGE (ISGPS grade B/C) were calculated by comparing patient groups with and without DGE or other complications. The financial headroom per patient was modelled for potential reductions (0-100%) of empirical DGE baseline risks (15-30%). RESULTS: Overall, DGE was present in 156 (26.9%) of 581 patients after PD. Costs for patients with isolated DGE (n = 90) were €10,295 higher than for patients without complications (n = 333). Costs for patients with other complications including DGE (n = 66) were €9008 higher than for patients with other complications without DGE (n = 92). The financial headroom for a novel prophylactic treatment per patient undergoing PD was €975 per 10% absolute decrease of DGE risk. CONCLUSION: Hospital costs of DGE after PD are substantial. The financial headroom per patient for new DGE prophylactic treatments can be easily calculated via www.pancreascalculator.com.