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. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: In the randomized POINTER trial, patients assigned to the postponed-drainage approach using antibiotic treatment required fewer interventions, as compared to 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. 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 to immediate drainage, and should therefore be the preferred approach. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN33682933.

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.

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.

Short-term and Long-term Outcomes of a Disruption and Disconnection of the Pancreatic Duct in Necrotizing Pancreatitis: A Multicenter Cohort Study in 896 Patients.

INTRODUCTION: Necrotizing pancreatitis may result in a disrupted or disconnected pancreatic duct (DPD) with the potential for long-lasting negative impact on a patient's clinical outcome. There is a lack of detailed data on the full clinical spectrum of DPD, which is critical for the development of better diagnostic and treatment strategies. METHODS: We performed a long-term post hoc analysis of a prospectively collected nationwide cohort of 896 patients with necrotizing pancreatitis (2005-2015). The median follow-up after hospital admission was 75 months (P25-P75: 41-151). Clinical outcomes of patients with and without DPD were compared using regression analyses, adjusted for potential confounders. Predictive features for DPD were explored. RESULTS: DPD was confirmed in 243 (27%) of the 896 patients and resulted in worse clinical outcomes during both the patient's initial admission and follow-up. During hospital admission, DPD was associated with an increased rate of new-onset intensive care unit admission (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 2.52; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.62-3.93), new-onset organ failure (aOR 2.26; 95% CI 1.45-3.55), infected necrosis (aOR 4.63; 95% CI 2.87-7.64), and pancreatic interventions (aOR 7.55; 95% CI 4.23-13.96). During long-term follow-up, DPD increased the risk of pancreatic intervention (aOR 9.71; 95% CI 5.37-18.30), recurrent pancreatitis (aOR 2.08; 95% CI 1.32-3.29), chronic pancreatitis (aOR 2.73; 95% CI 1.47-5.15), and endocrine pancreatic insufficiency (aOR 1.63; 95% CI 1.05-2.53). Central or subtotal pancreatic necrosis on computed tomography (OR 9.49; 95% CI 6.31-14.29) and a high level of serum C-reactive protein in the first 48 hours after admission (per 10-point increase, OR 1.02; 95% CI 1.00-1.03) were identified as independent predictors for developing DPD. DISCUSSION: At least 1 of every 4 patients with necrotizing pancreatitis experience DPD, which is associated with detrimental, short-term and long-term interventions, and complications. Central and subtotal pancreatic necrosis and high levels of serum C-reactive protein in the first 48 hours are independent predictors for DPD.

Perforation and Fistula of the Gastrointestinal Tract in Patients With Necrotizing Pancreatitis: A Nationwide Prospective Cohort.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to explore the incidence, risk factors, clinical course and treatment of perforation and fistula of the gastrointestinal (GI) tract in a large unselected cohort of patients with necrotizing pancreatitis. BACKGROUND: Perforation and fistula of the GI tract may occur in necrotizing pancreatitis. Data from large unselected patient populations on the incidence, risk factors, clinical outcomes, and treatment are lacking. METHODS: We performed a post hoc analysis of a nationwide prospective database of 896 patients with necrotizing pancreatitis. GI tract perforation and fistula were defined as spontaneous or iatrogenic discontinuation of the GI wall. Multivariable logistic regression was used to explore risk factors and to adjust for confounders to explore associations of the GI tract perforation and fistula on the clinical course. RESULTS: A perforation or fistula of the GI tract was identified in 139 (16%) patients, located in the stomach in 23 (14%), duodenum in 56 (35%), jejunum or ileum in 18 (11%), and colon in 64 (40%). Risk factors were high C-reactive protein within 48 hours after admission [odds ratio (OR): 1.19; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.01-1.39] and early organ failure (OR: 2.76; 95% CI: 1.78-4.29). Prior invasive intervention was a risk factor for developing a perforation or fistula of the lower GI tract (OR: 2.60; 95% CI: 1.04-6.60). While perforation or fistula of the upper GI tract appeared to be protective for persistent intensive care unit-admission (OR: 0.11, 95% CI: 0.02-0.44) and persistent organ failure (OR: 0.15; 95% CI: 0.02-0.58), perforation or fistula of the lower GI tract was associated with a higher rate of new onset organ failure (OR: 2.47; 95% CI: 1.23-4.84). When the stomach or duodenum was affected, treatment was mostly conservative (n=54, 68%). Treatment was mostly surgical when the colon was affected (n=38, 59%). CONCLUSIONS: Perforation and fistula of the GI tract occurred in one out of six patients with necrotizing pancreatitis. Risk factors were high C-reactive protein within 48 hours and early organ failure. Prior intervention was identified as a risk factor for perforation or fistula of the lower GI tract. The clinical course was mostly affected by involvement of the lower GI tract.

Comparison of lumen-apposing metal stents versus double-pigtail plastic stents for infected necrotising pancreatitis.

OBJECTIVE: Lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMS) are believed to clinically improve endoscopic transluminal drainage of infected necrosis when compared with double-pigtail plastic stents. However, comparative data from prospective studies are very limited. DESIGN: Patients with infected necrotising pancreatitis, who underwent an endoscopic step-up approach with LAMS within a multicentre prospective cohort study were compared with the data of 51 patients in the randomised TENSION trial who had been assigned to the endoscopic step-up approach with double-pigtail plastic stents. The clinical study protocol was otherwise identical for both groups. Primary end point was the need for endoscopic transluminal necrosectomy. Secondary end points included mortality, major complications, hospital stay and healthcare costs. RESULTS: A total of 53 patients were treated with LAMS in 16 hospitals during 27 months. The need for endoscopic transluminal necrosectomy was 64% (n=34) and was not different from the previous trial using plastic stents (53%, n=27)), also after correction for baseline characteristics (OR 1.21 (95% CI 0.45 to 3.23)). Secondary end points did not differ between groups either, which also included bleeding requiring intervention-5 patients (9%) after LAMS placement vs 11 patients (22%) after placement of plastic stents (relative risk 0.44; 95% CI 0.16 to 1.17). Total healthcare costs were also comparable (mean difference -€6348, bias-corrected and accelerated 95% CI -€26 386 to €10 121). CONCLUSION: Our comparison of two patient groups from two multicentre prospective studies with a similar design suggests that LAMS do not reduce the need for endoscopic transluminal necrosectomy when compared with double-pigtail plastic stents in patients with infected necrotising pancreatitis. Also, the rate of bleeding complications was comparable.

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.).

Aggressive fluid hydration plus non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs versus non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs alone for post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis (FLUYT): a multicentre, open-label, randomised, controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Pancreatitis is the most common complication of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). Prophylactic rectal administration of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) is considered as standard of care to reduce the risk of post-ERCP pancreatitis. It has been suggested that aggressive hydration might further reduce this risk. Guidelines already recommend aggressive hydration in patients who are unable to receive rectal NSAIDs, although it is laborious and time consuming. We aimed to evaluate the added value of aggressive hydration in patients receiving prophylactic rectal NSAIDs. METHODS: FLUYT, a multicentre, open-label, randomised, controlled trial done across 22 Dutch hospitals, included patients aged between 18 and 85 years with moderate to high risk of post-ERCP pancreatitis. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) by a web-based module with varying block sizes to a combination of aggressive hydration and rectal NSAIDs (100 mg diclofenac or indomethacin; aggressive hydration group) or rectal NSAIDs (100 mg diclofenac or indomethacin) alone (control group). Randomisation was stratified according to treatment centre. Aggressive hydration comprised 20 mL/kg intravenous Ringer's lactate solution within 60 min from the start of ERCP, followed by 3 mL/kg per h for 8 h. The control group received normal intravenous saline with a maximum of 1·5 mL/kg per h and 3 L per 24 h. The primary endpoint was post-ERCP pancreatitis and was analysed on a modified intention-to-treat basis (including all patients who underwent randomisation and an ERCP and for whom data regarding the primary outcome were available). The trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN13659155. FINDINGS: Between June 5, 2015, and June 6, 2019, 826 patients were randomly assigned, of whom 388 in the aggressive hydration group and 425 in the control group were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis. Post-ERCP pancreatitis occurred in 30 (8%) patients in the aggressive hydration group and in 39 (9%) patients in the control group (relative risk 0·84, 95% CI 0·53-1·33, p=0·53). There were no differences in serious adverse events, including hydration-related complications (relative risk 0·99, 95% CI 0·59-1·64; p=1·00), ERCP-related complications (0·90, 0·62-1·31; p=0·62), intensive care unit admission (0·37, 0·07-1·80; p=0·22), and 30-day mortality (0·95, 0·50-1·83; p=1·00). INTERPRETATION: Aggressive periprocedural hydration did not reduce the incidence of post-ERCP pancreatitis in patients with moderate to high risk of developing this complication who routinely received prophylactic rectal NSAIDs. Therefore, the burden of laborious and time-consuming aggressive periprocedural hydration to further reduce the risk of post-ERCP pancreatitis is not justified. FUNDING: Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development and Radboud University Medical Center.

Various Modalities Accurate in Diagnosing a Disrupted or Disconnected Pancreatic Duct in Acute Pancreatitis: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Severe pancreatitis may result in a disrupted pancreatic duct, which is associated with a complicated clinical course. Diagnosis of a disrupted pancreatic duct is not standardized in clinical practice or international guidelines. We performed a systematic review of the literature on imaging modalities for diagnosing a disrupted pancreatic duct in patients with acute pancreatitis. METHODS: A systematic search was performed in PubMed, Embase and Cochrane library databases to identify all studies evaluating diagnostic modalities for the diagnosis of a disrupted pancreatic duct in acute pancreatitis. All data regarding diagnostic accuracy were extracted. RESULTS: We included 8 studies, evaluating five different diagnostic modalities in 142 patients with severe acute pancreatitis. Study quality was assessed, with proportionally divided high and low risk of bias and low applicability concerns in 75% of the studies. A sensitivity of 100% was reported for endoscopic ultrasound and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. The sensitivity of magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography with or without secretin was 83%. A sensitivity of 92% was demonstrated for a combined cohort of secretin-magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography and magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography. A sensitivity of 100% and specificity of 50% was found for amylase measurements in drain fluid compared with ERCP. CONCLUSIONS: This review suggests that various diagnostic modalities are accurate in diagnosing a disrupted pancreatic duct in patients with acute pancreatitis. Amylase measurement in drain fluid should be standardized. Given the invasive nature of other modalities, secretin-magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography or magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography would be recommended as first diagnostic modality. Further prospective studies, however, are needed.

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.

Treatment of disrupted and disconnected pancreatic duct in necrotizing pancreatitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Necrotizing pancreatitis may lead to loss of integrity of the pancreatic duct, resulting in leakage of pancreatic fluid. Pancreatic duct disruption or disconnection is associated with a prolonged disease course and particular complications. Since a standard treatment for this condition is currently lacking, we performed a systematic review of the literature to compare outcomes of various treatment strategies. METHODS: A systematic review was performed according to the PRISMA guidelines in the PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane databases. Included were articles considering the treatment of patients with disrupted or disconnected pancreatic duct resulting from acute necrotizing pancreatitis. RESULTS: Overall, 21 observational cohort studies were included comprising a total of 583 relevant patients. The most frequently used treatment strategies included endoscopic transpapillary drainage, endoscopic transluminal drainage, surgical drainage or resection, or combined procedures. Pooled analysis showed success rates of 81% (95%-CI: 60-92%) for transpapillary and 92% (95%-CI: 77-98%) for transluminal drainage, 80% (95%-CI: 67-89%) for distal pancreatectomy and 84% (95%-CI: 73-91%) for cyst-jejunostomy. Success rates did not differ between surgical procedures (cyst-jejunostomy and distal pancreatectomy (risk ratio = 1.06, p = .26)) but distal pancreatectomy was associated with a higher incidence of endocrine pancreatic insufficiency (risk ratio = 3.06, p = .01). The success rate of conservative treatment is unknown. DISCUSSION: Different treatment strategies for pancreatic duct disruption and duct disconnection after necrotizing pancreatitis show high success rates but various sources of bias in the available studies are likely. High-quality prospective, studies, including unselected patients, are needed to establish the most effective treatment in specific subgroups of patients, including timing of treatment and long-term follow-up.

Management of (Peri)Pancreatic Collections in Acute Pancreatitis.

The development of (peri)pancreatic fluid collections are frequent local complications in acute pancreatitis. These collections are classified as early (acute peripancreatic fluid collection or acute necrotic collection) or late (walled-off necrosis or pseudocyst). The majority of pancreatic fluid collections resolve spontaneously and do not require intervention. However, infection may require intervention. Interventions may include endoscopic or percutaneous catheter drainage, or in a next step endoscopic or surgical necrosectomy, minimally invasive or open. The best timing for the first intervention is still under investigation. Whereas some use antibiotics to postpone intervention until the stage of walled-off necrosis, others drain earlier. Endoscopic drainage of (peri)pancreatic fluid collections is now the preferred approach of drainage due to reduced morbidity as compared to surgical or percutaneous drainage. However, each collection must be treated according to a tailored approach. The final treatment should take into consideration anatomic characteristics, patient preference, comorbidity profile of the patient, and physician discretion. This review summarizes the current evidence on the treatment of (peri)pancreatic fluid collections.

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.

Managing Infected Pancreatic Necrosis.

The management of infected pancreatic necrosis has historically been based on early, open necrosectomy, associated with significant mortality. In recent years, an evidence based transformation has occurred towards the step-up approach consisting of percutaneous catheter drainage, if necessary, followed by minimally invasive necrosectomy. More recently the endoscopic step-up approach has gained popularity. This review evaluates the diagnosis, prevention and treatment of infected necrotizing pancreatitis. Key points in managing infected pancreatic necrosis: - multidisciplinary team approach in tertiary level centres; - no indication for prophylactic antibiotics or probiotics; - nasogastric, enteral nutrition indicated after 72 hours, if oral feeding is insufficient; - only intervene in infected necrosis; - delay intervention until "walled-off necrosis"; - step-up approach of percutaneous or endoscopic catheter drainage, followed by minimally invasive necrosectomy, if required; - endoscopic strategies are preferable where possible.

Fluid hydration to prevent post-ERCP pancreatitis in average- to high-risk patients receiving prophylactic rectal NSAIDs (FLUYT trial): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP) is the most common complication of ERCP and may run a severe course. Evidence suggests that vigorous periprocedural hydration can prevent PEP, but studies to date have significant methodological drawbacks. Importantly, evidence for its added value in patients already receiving prophylactic rectal non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) is lacking and the cost-effectiveness of the approach has not been investigated. We hypothesize that combination therapy of rectal NSAIDs and periprocedural hydration would significantly lower the incidence of post-ERCP pancreatitis compared to rectal NSAIDs alone in moderate- to high-risk patients undergoing ERCP. METHODS: The FLUYT trial is a multicenter, parallel group, open label, superiority randomized controlled trial. A total of 826 moderate- to high-risk patients undergoing ERCP that receive prophylactic rectal NSAIDs will be randomized to a control group (no fluids or normal saline with a maximum of 1.5 mL/kg/h and 3 L/24 h) or intervention group (lactated Ringer's solution with 20 mL/kg over 60 min at start of ERCP, followed by 3 mL/kg/h for 8 h thereafter). The primary endpoint is the incidence of post-ERCP pancreatitis. Secondary endpoints include PEP severity, hydration-related complications, and cost-effectiveness. DISCUSSION: The FLUYT trial design, including hydration schedule, fluid type, and sample size, maximize its power of identifying a potential difference in post-ERCP pancreatitis incidence in patients receiving prophylactic rectal NSAIDs. TRIAL REGISTRATION: EudraCT: 2015-000829-37 . Registered on 18 February 2015. ISRCTN: 13659155 . Registered on 18 May 2015.

Systematic review on the impact of pancreatoduodenectomy on quality of life in patients with pancreatic cancer.

BACKGROUND: Patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy for pancreatic cancer have a high risk of major postoperative complications and a low survival rate. Insight in the impact of pancreatoduodenectomy on quality of life (QoL) is therefore of great importance. The aim of this systematic review was to assess QoL after pancreatoduodenectomy for pancreatic cancer. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature was performed according to the PRISMA guidelines. A systematic search of all the English literature available in PubMed and Medline was performed. All studies assessing QoL with validated questionnaires in pancreatic cancer patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy were included. RESULTS: After screening a total of 788 articles, the full texts of 36 articles were assessed, and 17 articles were included. QoL of physical and social functioning domains decreased in the first 3 months after surgery. Recovery of physical and social functioning towards baseline values took place after 3-6 months. Pain, fatigue and diarrhoea scores deteriorated postoperatively, but eventually resolved after 3-6 months. CONCLUSION: Pancreatoduodenectomy for malignant disease negatively influences QoL in the physical and social domains at short term. It will eventually recover to baseline values after 3-6 months. This information is valuable for counselling and expectation management of patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy.

Acute pancreatitis: recent advances through randomised trials.

Acute pancreatitis is one of the most common GI conditions requiring acute hospitalisation and has a rising incidence. In recent years, important insights on the management of acute pancreatitis have been obtained through numerous randomised controlled trials. Based on this evidence, the treatment of acute pancreatitis has gradually developed towards a tailored, multidisciplinary effort, with distinctive roles for gastroenterologists, radiologists and surgeons. This review summarises how to diagnose, classify and manage patients with acute pancreatitis, emphasising the evidence obtained through randomised controlled trials.