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

OBJECTIVE: To compare the long-term outcomes of immediate drainage versus the postponed-drainage approach in patients with infected necrotizing pancreatitis. BACKGROUND: In the randomized POINTER trial, patients assigned to the postponed-drainage approach using antibiotic treatment required fewer interventions, as compared with immediate drainage, and over a third were treated without any intervention. METHODS: Clinical data of those patients alive after the initial 6-month follow-up were re-evaluated. The primary outcome was a composite of death and major complications. RESULTS: Out of 104 patients, 88 were re-evaluated with a median follow-up of 51 months. After the initial 6-month follow-up, the primary outcome occurred in 7 of 47 patients (15%) in the immediate-drainage group and 7 of 41 patients (17%) in the postponed-drainage group (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.33-2.28; P =0.78). Additional drainage procedures were performed in 7 patients (15%) versus 3 patients (7%) (RR 2.03; 95% CI 0.56-7.37; P =0.34). The median number of additional interventions was 0 (IQR 0-0) in both groups ( P =0.028). In the total follow-up, the median number of interventions was higher in the immediate-drainage group than in the postponed-drainage group (4 vs. 1, P =0.001). Eventually, 14 of 15 patients (93%) in the postponed-drainage group who were successfully treated in the initial 6-month follow-up with antibiotics and without any intervention remained without intervention. At the end of follow-up, pancreatic function and quality of life were similar. CONCLUSIONS: Also, during long-term follow-up, a postponed-drainage approach using antibiotics in patients with infected necrotizing pancreatitis results in fewer interventions as compared with immediate drainage and should therefore be the preferred approach. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN33682933.

Patient selection for urgent endoscopic retrograde cholangio-pancreatography by endoscopic ultrasound in predicted severe acute biliary pancreatitis (APEC-2): a multicentre prospective study.

OBJECTIVE: Routine urgent endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) with endoscopic biliary sphincterotomy (ES) does not improve outcome in patients with predicted severe acute biliary pancreatitis. Improved patient selection for ERCP by means of endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) for stone/sludge detection may challenge these findings. DESIGN: A multicentre, prospective cohort study included patients with predicted severe acute biliary pancreatitis without cholangitis. Patients underwent urgent EUS, followed by ERCP with ES in case of common bile duct stones/sludge, within 24 hours after hospital presentation and within 72 hours after symptom onset. The primary endpoint was a composite of major complications or mortality within 6 months after inclusion. The historical control group was the conservative treatment arm (n=113) of the randomised APEC trial (Acute biliary Pancreatitis: urgent ERCP with sphincterotomy versus conservative treatment, patient inclusion 2013-2017) applying the same study design. RESULTS: Overall, 83 patients underwent urgent EUS at a median of 21 hours (IQR 17-23) after hospital presentation and at a median of 29 hours (IQR 23-41) after start of symptoms. Gallstones/sludge in the bile ducts were detected by EUS in 48/83 patients (58%), all of whom underwent immediate ERCP with ES. The primary endpoint occurred in 34/83 patients (41%) in the urgent EUS-guided ERCP group. This was not different from the 44% rate (50/113 patients) in the historical conservative treatment group (risk ratio (RR) 0.93, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.29; p=0.65). Sensitivity analysis to correct for baseline differences using a logistic regression model also showed no significant beneficial effect of the intervention on the primary outcome (adjusted OR 1.03, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.90, p=0.92). CONCLUSION: In patients with predicted severe acute biliary pancreatitis without cholangitis, urgent EUS-guided ERCP with ES did not reduce the composite endpoint of major complications or mortality, as compared with conservative treatment in a historical control group. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN15545919.

Overuse and Misuse of Antibiotics and the Clinical Consequence in Necrotizing Pancreatitis: An Observational Multicenter Study.

OBJECTIVE: The use and impact of antibiotics and the impact of causative pathogens on clinical outcomes in a large real-world cohort covering the entire clinical spectrum of necrotizing pancreatitis remain unknown. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: International guidelines recommend broad-spectrum antibiotics in patients with suspected infected necrotizing pancreatitis. This recommendation is not based on high-level evidence and clinical effects are unknown. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study is a post-hoc analysis of a nationwide prospective cohort of 401 patients with necrotizing pancreatitis in 15 Dutch centers (2010-2019). Across the patient population from the time of admission to 6 months postadmission, multivariable regression analyses were used to analyze (1) microbiological cultures and (2) antibiotic use. RESULTS: Antibiotics were started in 321/401 patients (80%) administered at a median of 5 days (P25-P75: 1-13) after admission. The median duration of antibiotics was 27 days (P25-P75: 15-48). In 221/321 patients (69%) infection was not proven by cultures at the time of initiation of antibiotics. Empirical antibiotics for infected necrosis provided insufficient coverage in 64/128 patients (50%) with a pancreatic culture. Prolonged antibiotic therapy was associated with Enterococcus infection (OR 1.08 [95% CI 1.03-1.16], P =0.01). Enterococcus infection was associated with new/persistent organ failure (OR 3.08 [95% CI 1.35-7.29], P <0.01) and mortality (OR 5.78 [95% CI 1.46-38.73], P =0.03). Yeast was found in 30/147 cultures (20%). DISCUSSION: In this nationwide study of patients with necrotizing pancreatitis, the vast majority received antibiotics, typically administered early in the disease course and without a proven infection. Empirical antibiotics were inappropriate based on pancreatic cultures in half the patients. Future clinical research and practice must consider antibiotic selective pressure due to prolonged therapy and coverage of Enterococcus and yeast. Improved guidelines on antimicrobial diagnostics and therapy could reduce inappropriate antibiotic use and improve clinical outcomes.

Endoscopic Versus Surgical Step-Up Approach for Infected Necrotizing Pancreatitis (ExTENSION): Long-term Follow-up of a Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Previous randomized trials, including the Transluminal Endoscopic Step-Up Approach Versus Minimally Invasive Surgical Step-Up Approach in Patients With Infected Pancreatic Necrosis (TENSION) trial, demonstrated that the endoscopic step-up approach might be preferred over the surgical step-up approach in patients with infected necrotizing pancreatitis based on favorable short-term outcomes. We compared long-term clinical outcomes of both step-up approaches after a period of at least 5 years. METHODS: In this long-term follow-up study, we reevaluated all clinical data on 83 patients (of the originally 98 included patients) from the TENSION trial who were still alive after the initial 6-month follow-up. The primary end point, similar to the TENSION trial, was a composite of death and major complications. Secondary end points included individual major complications, pancreaticocutaneous fistula, reinterventions, pancreatic insufficiency, and quality of life. RESULTS: After a mean follow-up period of 7 years, the primary end point occurred in 27 patients (53%) in the endoscopy group and in 27 patients (57%) in the surgery group (risk ratio [RR], 0.93; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.65-1.32; P = .688). Fewer pancreaticocutaneous fistulas were identified in the endoscopy group (8% vs 34%; RR, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.08-0.83). After the initial 6-month follow-up, the endoscopy group needed fewer reinterventions than the surgery group (7% vs 24%; RR, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.09-0.99). Pancreatic insufficiency and quality of life did not differ between groups. CONCLUSIONS: At long-term follow-up, the endoscopic step-up approach was not superior to the surgical step-up approach in reducing death or major complications in patients with infected necrotizing pancreatitis. However, patients assigned to the endoscopic approach developed overall fewer pancreaticocutaneous fistulas and needed fewer reinterventions after the initial 6-month follow-up. Netherlands Trial Register no: NL8571.

Optimal timing of cholecystectomy after necrotising biliary pancreatitis.

OBJECTIVE: Following an episode of acute biliary pancreatitis, cholecystectomy is advised to prevent recurrent biliary events. There is limited evidence regarding the optimal timing and safety of cholecystectomy in patients with necrotising biliary pancreatitis. DESIGN: A post hoc analysis of a multicentre prospective cohort. Patients with biliary pancreatitis and a CT severity score of three or more were included in 27 Dutch hospitals between 2005 and 2014. Primary outcome was the optimal timing of cholecystectomy in patients with necrotising biliary pancreatitis, defined as: the optimal point in time with the lowest risk of recurrent biliary events and the lowest risk of complications of cholecystectomy. Secondary outcomes were the number of recurrent biliary events, periprocedural complications of cholecystectomy and the protective value of endoscopic sphincterotomy for the recurrence of biliary events. RESULTS: Overall, 248 patients were included in the analysis. Cholecystectomy was performed in 191 patients (77%) at a median of 103 days (P25-P75: 46-222) after discharge. Infected necrosis after cholecystectomy occurred in four (2%) patients with persistent peripancreatic collections. Before cholecystectomy, 66 patients (27%) developed biliary events. The risk of overall recurrent biliary events prior to cholecystectomy was significantly lower before 10 weeks after discharge (risk ratio 0.49 (95% CI 0.27 to 0.90); p=0.02). The risk of recurrent pancreatitis before cholecystectomy was significantly lower before 8 weeks after discharge (risk ratio 0.14 (95% CI 0.02 to 1.0); p=0.02). The complication rate of cholecystectomy did not decrease over time. Endoscopic sphincterotomy did not reduce the risk of recurrent biliary events (OR 1.40 (95% CI 0.74 to 2.83)). CONCLUSION: The optimal timing of cholecystectomy after necrotising biliary pancreatitis, in the absence of peripancreatic collections, is within 8 weeks after discharge.

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.).

Urgent endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography with sphincterotomy versus conservative treatment in predicted severe acute gallstone pancreatitis (APEC): a multicentre randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: It remains unclear whether urgent endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) with biliary sphincterotomy improves the outcome of patients with gallstone pancreatitis without concomitant cholangitis. We did a randomised trial to compare urgent ERCP with sphincterotomy versus conservative treatment in patients with predicted severe acute gallstone pancreatitis. METHODS: In this multicentre, parallel-group, assessor-masked, randomised controlled superiority trial, patients with predicted severe (Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score ≥8, Imrie score ≥3, or C-reactive protein concentration >150 mg/L) gallstone pancreatitis without cholangitis were assessed for eligibility in 26 hospitals in the Netherlands. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) by a web-based randomisation module with randomly varying block sizes to urgent ERCP with sphincterotomy (within 24 h after hospital presentation) or conservative treatment. The primary endpoint was a composite of mortality or major complications (new-onset persistent organ failure, cholangitis, bacteraemia, pneumonia, pancreatic necrosis, or pancreatic insufficiency) within 6 months of randomisation. Analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN97372133. FINDINGS: Between Feb 28, 2013, and March 1, 2017, 232 patients were randomly assigned to urgent ERCP with sphincterotomy (n=118) or conservative treatment (n=114). One patient from each group was excluded from the final analysis because of cholangitis (urgent ERCP group) and chronic pancreatitis (conservative treatment group) at admission. The primary endpoint occurred in 45 (38%) of 117 patients in the urgent ERCP group and in 50 (44%) of 113 patients in the conservative treatment group (risk ratio [RR] 0·87, 95% CI 0·64-1·18; p=0·37). No relevant differences in the individual components of the primary endpoint were recorded between groups, apart from the occurrence of cholangitis (two [2%] of 117 in the urgent ERCP group vs 11 [10%] of 113 in the conservative treatment group; RR 0·18, 95% CI 0·04-0·78; p=0·010). Adverse events were reported in 87 (74%) of 118 patients in the urgent ERCP group versus 91 (80%) of 114 patients in the conservative treatment group. INTERPRETATION: In patients with predicted severe gallstone pancreatitis but without cholangitis, urgent ERCP with sphincterotomy did not reduce the composite endpoint of major complications or mortality, compared with conservative treatment. Our findings support a conservative strategy in patients with predicted severe acute gallstone pancreatitis with an ERCP indicated only in patients with cholangitis or persistent cholestasis. FUNDING: The Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development, Fonds NutsOhra, and the Dutch Patient Organization for Pancreatic Diseases.

Postponed or immediate drainage of infected necrotizing pancreatitis (POINTER trial): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Infected necrosis complicates 10% of all acute pancreatitis episodes and is associated with 15-20% mortality. The current standard treatment for infected necrotizing pancreatitis is the step-up approach (catheter drainage, followed, if necessary, by minimally invasive necrosectomy). Catheter drainage is preferably postponed until the stage of walled-off necrosis, which usually takes 4 weeks. This delay stems from the time when open necrosectomy was the standard. It is unclear whether such delay is needed for catheter drainage or whether earlier intervention could actually be beneficial in the current step-up approach. The POINTER trial investigates if immediate catheter drainage in patients with infected necrotizing pancreatitis is superior to the current practice of postponed intervention. METHODS: POINTER is a randomized controlled multicenter superiority trial. All patients with necrotizing pancreatitis are screened for eligibility. In total, 104 adult patients with (suspected) infected necrotizing pancreatitis will be randomized to immediate (within 24 h) catheter drainage or current standard care involving postponed catheter drainage. Necrosectomy, if necessary, is preferably postponed until the stage of walled-off necrosis, in both treatment arms. The primary outcome is the Comprehensive Complication Index (CCI), which covers all complications between randomization and 6-month follow up. Secondary outcomes include mortality, complications, number of (repeat) interventions, hospital and intensive care unit (ICU) lengths of stay, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and direct and indirect costs. Standard follow-up is at 3 and 6 months after randomization. DISCUSSION: The POINTER trial investigates if immediate catheter drainage in infected necrotizing pancreatitis reduces the composite endpoint of complications, as compared with the current standard treatment strategy involving delay of intervention until the stage of walled-off necrosis. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN, 33682933 . Registered on 6 August 2015. Retrospectively registered.

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.

Endoscopic or surgical step-up approach for infected necrotising pancreatitis: a multicentre randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Infected necrotising pancreatitis is a potentially lethal disease and an indication for invasive intervention. The surgical step-up approach is the standard treatment. A promising alternative is the endoscopic step-up approach. We compared both approaches to see whether the endoscopic step-up approach was superior to the surgical step-up approach in terms of clinical and economic outcomes. METHODS: In this multicentre, randomised, superiority trial, we recruited adult patients with infected necrotising pancreatitis and an indication for invasive intervention from 19 hospitals in the Netherlands. Patients were randomly assigned to either the endoscopic or the surgical step-up approach. The endoscopic approach consisted of endoscopic ultrasound-guided transluminal drainage followed, if necessary, by endoscopic necrosectomy. The surgical approach consisted of percutaneous catheter drainage followed, if necessary, by video-assisted retroperitoneal debridement. The primary endpoint was a composite of major complications or death during 6-month follow-up. Analyses were by intention to treat. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN09186711. FINDINGS: Between Sept 20, 2011, and Jan 29, 2015, we screened 418 patients with pancreatic or extrapancreatic necrosis, of which 98 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to the endoscopic step-up approach (n=51) or the surgical step-up approach (n=47). The primary endpoint occurred in 22 (43%) of 51 patients in the endoscopy group and in 21 (45%) of 47 patients in the surgery group (risk ratio [RR] 0·97, 95% CI 0·62-1·51; p=0·88). Mortality did not differ between groups (nine [18%] patients in the endoscopy group vs six [13%] patients in the surgery group; RR 1·38, 95% CI 0·53-3·59, p=0·50), nor did any of the major complications included in the primary endpoint. INTERPRETATION: In patients with infected necrotising pancreatitis, the endoscopic step-up approach was not superior to the surgical step-up approach in reducing major complications or death. The rate of pancreatic fistulas and length of hospital stay were lower in the endoscopy group. The outcome of this trial will probably result in a shift to the endoscopic step-up approach as treatment preference. FUNDING: The Dutch Digestive Disease Foundation, Fonds NutsOhra, and the Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development.

The Association of Computed Tomography-Assessed Body Composition with Mortality in Patients with Necrotizing Pancreatitis.

BACKGROUND: Identification of patients with necrotizing pancreatitis at high risk for a complicated course could facilitate clinical decision-making. In multiple diseases, several parameters of body composition are associated with impaired outcome, but studies in necrotizing pancreatitis are lacking. METHODS: A post hoc analysis was performed in a national prospective cohort of 639 patients with necrotizing pancreatitis. Skeletal muscle mass, skeletal muscle density, and visceral adipose tissue were measured at the third lumbar vertebra level (L3) on contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT) within 10 days after initial admission and 1 month thereafter. RESULTS: In total, 496 of 639 patients (78%) were included. Overall mortality rate was 14.5%. Skeletal muscle mass and density and visceral adipose tissue on first CT were not independently associated with in-hospital mortality. However, low skeletal muscle density was independently associated with increased mortality in patients ≥65 years (OR 2.54 (95%CI 1.12-5.84, P = 0.028). Skeletal muscle mass and density significantly decreased within 1 month, for both males and females, with a median relative loss of muscle mass of 12.9 and 10.2% (both P < 0.001), respectively. Skeletal muscle density decreased with 7.2 and 7.5% (both P < 0.001) for males and females, respectively. A skeletal muscle density decrease of ≥10% in 1 month was independently associated with in-hospital mortality: OR 5.87 (95%CI 2.09-16.50, P = 0.001). CONCLUSION: First CT-assessed body composition parameters do not correlate with in-hospital mortality in patients with necrotizing pancreatitis. Loss of skeletal muscle density ≥10% within the first month after initial admission, however, is significantly associated with increased mortality in these patients.

Proactive Versus Standard Percutaneous Catheter Drainage for Infected Necrotizing Pancreatitis.

OBJECTIVES: Percutaneous catheter drainage (PCD) is often the first invasive treatment step for infected necrotizing pancreatitis. A proactive PCD strategy, including frequent and early drain revising and upsizing, may reduce the need for surgical necrosectomy and could improve outcomes, but data are lacking. METHODS: Necrotizing pancreatitis patients were identified from in-hospital databases (2004-2014). Patients with primary PCD for infected necrotizing pancreatitis were included. Outcomes of patients from 1 center using a proactive PCD strategy were compared with 3 standard strategy centers. RESULTS: In total, 369 (25.9%) of 1427 patients received a diagnosis of necrotizing pancreatitis, and 117 (31.7%) of 369 patients underwent primary PCD for infected necrosis: 42 in the proactive group versus 75 in the standard group. Patients in the proactive group had more drain-related procedures (median, 3; interquartile range [IQR], 2-4; versus 2; IQR, 1-2; P < 0.001) and larger final drain sizes (median, 16F; IQR, 14F-20F; versus 14F; IQR, 12F-14F; P < 0.001). Fewer patients underwent additional necrosectomy in the proactive group, 12 (28.6%) versus 39 (52.0%) (adjusted odds ratio, 0.349; 95% confidence interval, 0.137-0.889; P = 0.027), with similar hospital stay and mortality. CONCLUSIONS: A proactive PCD strategy is associated with reduced need for necrosectomy in infected necrotizing pancreatitis, compared with standard PCD, with similar clinical outcomes.

Timing of catheter drainage in infected necrotizing pancreatitis.

Acute pancreatitis is the most common gastrointestinal indication for hospital admission, and infected pancreatic and/or extrapancreatic necrosis is a potentially lethal complication. Current standard treatment of infected necrosis is a step-up approach, consisting of catheter drainage followed, if necessary, by minimally invasive necrosectomy. International guidelines recommend postponing catheter drainage until the stage of 'walled-off necrosis' has been reached, a process that typically takes 4 weeks after onset of acute pancreatitis. This recommendation stems from the era of primary surgical necrosectomy. However, postponement of catheter drainage might not be necessary, and earlier detection and subsequent earlier drainage of infected necrosis could improve outcome. Strong data and consensus among international expert pancreatologists are lacking. Future clinical, preferably randomized, studies should focus on timing of catheter drainage in patients with infected necrotizing pancreatitis. In this Perspectives, we discuss challenges in the invasive treatment of patients with infected necrotizing pancreatitis, focusing on timing of catheter drainage.

Diagnostic strategy and timing of intervention in infected necrotizing pancreatitis: an international expert survey and case vignette study.

BACKGROUND: The optimal diagnostic strategy and timing of intervention in infected necrotizing pancreatitis is subject to debate. We performed a survey on these topics amongst a group of international expert pancreatologists. METHODS: An online survey including case vignettes was sent to 118 international pancreatologists. We evaluated the use and timing of fine needle aspiration (FNA), antibiotics, catheter drainage and (minimally invasive) necrosectomy. RESULTS: The response rate was 74% (N = 87). None of the respondents use FNA routinely, 85% selectively and 15% never. Most respondents (87%) use a step-up approach in patients with infected necrosis. Walled-off necrosis (WON) is considered a prerequisite for endoscopic drainage and percutaneous drainage by 66% and 12%, respectively. After diagnosing infected necrosis, 55% routinely postpone invasive interventions, whereas 45% proceed immediately to intervention. Lack of consensus about timing of intervention was apparent on day 14 with proven infected necrosis (58% intervention vs. 42% non-invasive) as well as on day 20 with only clinically suspected infected necrosis (59% intervention vs. 41% non-invasive). DISCUSSION: The step-up approach is the preferred treatment strategy in infected necrotizing pancreatitis amongst expert pancreatologists. There is no uniformity regarding the use of FNA and timing of intervention in the first 2-3 weeks of infected necrotizing pancreatitis.

Early biliary decompression versus conservative treatment in acute biliary pancreatitis (APEC trial): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Acute pancreatitis is mostly caused by gallstones or sludge. Early decompression of the biliary tree by endoscopic retrograde cholangiography (ERC) with sphincterotomy may improve outcome in these patients. Whereas current guidelines recommend early ERC in patients with concomitant cholangitis, early ERC is not recommended in patients with mild biliary pancreatitis. Evidence on the role of routine early ERC with endoscopic sphincterotomy in patients without cholangitis but with biliary pancreatitis at high risk for complications is lacking. We hypothesize that early ERC with sphincterotomy improves outcome in these patients. METHODS/DESIGN: The APEC trial is a randomized controlled, parallel group, superiority multicenter trial. Within 24 hours after presentation to the emergency department, patients with biliary pancreatitis without cholangitis and at high risk for complications, based on an Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE-II) score of 8 or greater, Modified Glasgow score of 3 or greater, or serum C-reactive protein above 150 mg/L, will be randomized. In 27 hospitals of the Dutch Pancreatitis Study Group, 232 patients will be allocated to early ERC with sphincterotomy or to conservative treatment. The primary endpoint is a composite of major complications (that is, organ failure, pancreatic necrosis, pneumonia, bacteremia, cholangitis, pancreatic endocrine, or exocrine insufficiency) or death within 180 days after randomization. Secondary endpoints include ERC-related complications, infected necrotizing pancreatitis, length of hospital stay and an economical evaluation. DISCUSSION: The APEC trial investigates whether an early ERC with sphincterotomy reduces the composite endpoint of major complications or death compared with conservative treatment in patients with biliary pancreatitis at high risk of complications. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN97372133 (date registration: 17-12-2012).

Diagnostic strategy and timing of intervention in infected necrotizing pancreatitis: an international expert survey and case vignette study.

BACKGROUND: The optimal diagnostic strategy and timing of intervention in infected necrotizing pancreatitis are subject to debate. A survey was performed on these topics amongst a group of international expert pancreatologists. METHODS: An online survey including case vignettes was sent to 118 international pancreatologists. The use and timing of fine-needle aspiration (FNA), antibiotics, catheter drainage and (minimally invasive) necrosectomy were evaluated. RESULTS: The response rate was 74% (N = 87). None of the respondents use FNA routinely, 85% selectively and 15% never. Most respondents (87%) use a step-up approach in patients with infected necrosis. Walled-off necrosis (WON) is considered a prerequisite for endoscopic drainage and percutaneous drainage by 66% and 12%, respectively. After diagnosing infected necrosis, 55% routinely postpone invasive interventions, whereas 45% proceed immediately to intervention. A lack of consensus about timing of intervention was apparent on day 14 with proven infected necrosis (58% intervention versus 42% non-invasive) as well as on day 20 with only clinically suspected infected necrosis (59% intervention versus 41% non-invasive). DISCUSSION: The step-up approach is the preferred treatment strategy in infected necrotizing pancreatitis amongst expert pancreatologists. There is no uniformity regarding the use of FNA and timing of intervention in the first 2-3 weeks of infected necrotizing pancreatitis.

Transluminal endoscopic step-up approach versus minimally invasive surgical step-up approach in patients with infected necrotising pancreatitis (TENSION trial): design and rationale of a randomised controlled multicenter trial [ISRCTN09186711].

BACKGROUND: Infected necrotising pancreatitis is a potentially lethal disease that nearly always requires intervention. Traditionally, primary open necrosectomy has been the treatment of choice. In recent years, the surgical step-up approach, consisting of percutaneous catheter drainage followed, if necessary, by (minimally invasive) surgical necrosectomy has become the standard of care. A promising minimally invasive alternative is the endoscopic transluminal step-up approach. This approach consists of endoscopic transluminal drainage followed, if necessary, by endoscopic transluminal necrosectomy. We hypothesise that the less invasive endoscopic step-up approach is superior to the surgical step-up approach in terms of clinical and economic outcomes. METHODS/DESIGN: The TENSION trial is a randomised controlled, parallel-group superiority multicenter trial. Patients with (suspected) infected necrotising pancreatitis with an indication for intervention and in whom both treatment modalities are deemed possible, will be randomised to either an endoscopic transluminal or a surgical step-up approach. During a 4 year study period, 98 patients will be enrolled from 24 hospitals of the Dutch Pancreatitis Study Group. The primary endpoint is a composite of death and major complications within 6 months following randomisation. Secondary endpoints include complications such as pancreaticocutaneous fistula, exocrine or endocrine pancreatic insufficiency, need for additional radiological, endoscopic or surgical intervention, the need for necrosectomy after drainage, the number of (re-)interventions, quality of life, and total direct and indirect costs. DISCUSSION: The TENSION trial will answer the question whether an endoscopic step-up approach reduces the combined primary endpoint of death and major complications, as well as hospital stay and related costs compared with a surgical step-up approach in patients with infected necrotising pancreatitis.

Endoscopic evaluation of the colon after an episode of diverticulitis: a call for a more selective approach.

PURPOSE: Routine colonic evaluation is advised after an episode of diverticulitis to exclude colorectal cancer. In the recent years, the possible relation between diverticulitis and colorectal cancer has been subject of debate. The aim of this study is to evaluate the benefit of routine colonic endoscopy after an episode of diverticulitis. METHODS: Records of all consecutive patients presenting with a radiologically confirmed episode of diverticulitis between 2007 and 2010 were retrieved from an in-hospital database. Patients who subsequently underwent colonic evaluation were included. The endoscopic detection rate of hyperplastic polyps, adenomas and advanced colonic neoplasia was assessed. Findings were categorized on the basis of the most advanced lesion identified. RESULTS: Three hundred and seven patients presented with a radiologically confirmed primary episode of diverticulitis. Two hundred and five patients underwent colonic evaluation. Hyperplastic polyps were found in15 (6.8 %), adenomas in 18 (8.8 %) and advanced neoplastic lesions in 7 (3.4 %) patients. Only two patients had a colorectal malignancy. CONCLUSION: There appears to be no benefit in performing routine colonic evaluation after an episode of diverticulitis as the incidence of colorectal cancer is almost equal to that of the general population. A more selective approach might therefore be justified. Potentially, only patients with persisting abdominal complaints after an episode of diverticulitis should be offered colonic evaluation to definitively exclude causal pathology.