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.

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.

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.

Improved guideline compliance after a 3-year audit of multidisciplinary colorectal cancer care in the western part of the Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: From 2006 to 2008, an audit of the multidisciplinary diagnosis and treatment of colorectal cancer patients in the western part of the Netherlands was carried out. We evaluated whether compliance with guidelines had improved. METHODS: All patients with newly diagnosed and surgically treated colon (n = 1,667) and rectal cancer (n = 544) stage I-III were evaluated. Nine quality indicators were derived from the evidence-based guidelines. In order to compare hospital performances, hospital results were adjusted for casemix differences between hospitals. RESULTS: Colon cancer patients showed an increase in the examination of 10 or more lymph nodes (from 53% to 78%, P < 0.0001). For rectal cancer patients there was an increase in preoperative visualisation of the total colon (63-74%, P = 0.02), MRI (73-85%, P = 0.003), radiotherapy (from 82% to 93% for patients <75 years, P = 0.01) and examination of at least 10 lymph nodes (40-55%, P = 0.004). In 2006, standardised hospital performances differed widely for all quality indicators. Two years later, hospital performances for some quality indicators were more similar. CONCLUSIONS: After the feedback of benchmark information, compliance with guidelines for diagnosis and treatment of colorectal cancer patients improved, and differences between individual hospitals decreased. Although secular trends cannot be ruled out, it is highly likely that these results can be attributed to the audit.

A double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized study of infliximab in primary sclerosing cholangitis.

GOALS: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of infliximab in patients with primary sclerosing cholangitis. STUDY: In this double-blind, placebo-controlled study, 24 patients with primary sclerosing cholangitis were screened and randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive infliximab (5 mg/kg) or placebo at weeks 0, 2, 6, 12, 18, and 24; patients were followed through week 52. The primary efficacy end point was a decrease of at least 50% in the serum alkaline phosphatase level from baseline to week 18. A blinded histologic assessment of liver biopsy samples, obtained at weeks 0 and 26, was performed using a predefined scoring system, including scores for inflammation, fibrosis, and cholestasis. RESULTS: Patient enrollment was prematurely stopped when results of an interim analysis showed no significant treatment benefit. Of the 24 patients screened, 10 were enrolled (6 patients received infliximab). Mean alkaline phosphatase levels at weeks 0, 18, and 52 were 349, 330, and 389 U/L, respectively, for the infliximab group and 481, 438, and 391 U/L, respectively, for the placebo group. Liver biopsy samples were analyzed in 7 patients (4 infliximab); no apparent differences could be detected in any of the histologic parameters. In 3 of 4 infliximab-treated patients and 2 of 3 placebo-treated patients, the disease stage did not change after 6 months of treatment. No meaningful changes were detected in the symptom score. No serious drug-related adverse events were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Study findings failed to demonstrate efficacy of infliximab in this small group of patients with established primary sclerosing cholangitis.