Gallstones as a cause in presumed acute alcoholic pancreatitis: observational multicentre study.

BACKGROUND: Data on the incidence and clinical relevance of gallstones in patients with suspected acute alcoholic pancreatitis are lacking and are essential to minimize the risk of recurrent acute pancreatitis. The aim of this study was to assess the incidence of gallstones and the associated rate of recurrent acute pancreatitis in patients with presumed acute alcoholic pancreatitis. METHODS: Between 2008 and 2019, 23 hospitals prospectively enrolled patients with acute pancreatitis. Those diagnosed with their first episode of presumed acute alcoholic pancreatitis were included in this study. The term gallstones was used to describe the presence of cholelithiasis or biliary sludge found during imaging. The primary outcome was pancreatitis recurrence during 3 years of follow-up. RESULTS: A total of 334 patients were eligible for inclusion, of whom 316 were included in the follow-up analysis. Gallstone evaluation, either during the index admission or during follow-up, was performed for 306 of 334 patients (91.6%). Gallstones were detected in 54 patients (17.6%), with a median time to detection of 6 (interquartile range 0-42) weeks. During follow-up, recurrent acute pancreatitis occurred in 121 of 316 patients (38.3%), with a significantly higher incidence rate for patients with gallstones compared with patients without gallstones (59% versus 34.2% respectively; P < 0.001), while more patients with gallstones had stopped drinking alcohol at the time of their first recurrence (41% versus 24% respectively; P = 0.020). Cholecystectomy was performed for 19 patients with gallstones (36%). The recurrence rate was lower for patients in the cholecystectomy group compared with patients who did receive inadequate treatment or no treatment (5/19 versus 19/34 respectively; P = 0.038). CONCLUSION: Gallstones were found in almost one in every five patients diagnosed with acute alcoholic pancreatitis. Gallstones were associated with a higher rate of recurrent pancreatitis, while undergoing cholecystectomy was associated with a reduction in this rate.

Structured alcohol cessation support program versus current practice in acute alcoholic pancreatitis (PANDA): Study protocol for a multicentre cluster randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: The most important risk factor for recurrent pancreatitis after an episode of acute alcoholic pancreatitis is continuation of alcohol use. Current guidelines do not recommend any specific treatment strategy regarding alcohol cessation. The PANDA trial investigates whether implementation of a structured alcohol cessation support program prevents pancreatitis recurrence after a first episode of acute alcoholic pancreatitis. METHODS: PANDA is a nationwide cluster randomised superiority trial. Participating hospitals are randomised for the investigational management, consisting of a structured alcohol cessation support program, or current practice. Patients with a first episode of acute pancreatitis caused by harmful drinking (AUDIT score >7 and < 16 for men and >6 and < 14 for women) will be included. The primary endpoint is recurrence of acute pancreatitis. Secondary endpoints include cessation or reduction of alcohol use, other alcohol-related diseases, mortality, quality of life, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and costs. The follow-up period comprises one year after inclusion. DISCUSSION: This is the first multicentre trial with a cluster randomised trial design to investigate whether a structured alcohol cessation support program reduces recurrent acute pancreatitis in patients after a first episode of acute alcoholic pancreatitis, as compared with current practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Netherlands Trial Registry (NL8852). Prospectively registered.

Prospective multicentre study of indications for surgery in patients with idiopathic acute pancreatitis following endoscopic ultrasonography (PICUS).

BACKGROUND: Cholecystectomy in patients with idiopathic acute pancreatitis (IAP) is controversial. A randomized trial found cholecystectomy to reduce the recurrence rate of IAP but did not include preoperative endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS). As EUS is effective in detecting gallstone disease, cholecystectomy may be indicated only in patients with gallstone disease. This study aimed to determine the diagnostic value of EUS in patients with IAP, and the rate of recurrent pancreatitis in patients in whom EUS could not determine the aetiology (EUS-negative IAP). METHODS: This prospective multicentre cohort study included patients with a first episode of IAP who underwent outpatient EUS. The primary outcome was detection of aetiology by EUS. Secondary outcomes included adverse events after EUS, recurrence of pancreatitis, and quality of life during 1-year follow-up. RESULTS: After screening 957 consecutive patients with acute pancreatitis from 24 centres, 105 patients with IAP were included and underwent EUS. In 34 patients (32 per cent), EUS detected an aetiology: (micro)lithiasis and biliary sludge (23.8 per cent), chronic pancreatitis (6.7 per cent), and neoplasms (2.9 per cent); 2 of the latter patients underwent pancreatoduodenectomy. During 1-year follow-up, the pancreatitis recurrence rate was 17 per cent (12 of 71) among patients with EUS-negative IAP versus 6 per cent (2 of 34) among those with positive EUS. Recurrent pancreatitis was associated with poorer quality of life. CONCLUSION: EUS detected an aetiology in a one-third of patients with a first episode of IAP, requiring mostly cholecystectomy or pancreatoduodenectomy. The role of cholecystectomy in patients with EUS-negative IAP remains uncertain and warrants further study.

Some patients develop acute inflammation of the pancreas without a clear cause. These patients have a high risk of developing more episodes of acute inflammation of the pancreas. Potentially, such inflammation could be caused by tiny gallstones that physicians are not able to detect. If this is true, these patients may also benefit from surgical removal of the gallbladder. However, this is still controversial. Endoscopic ultrasonography is a diagnostic procedure during which a physician looks at the gallbladder and bile ducts in detail via a small ultrasound probe inserted through the mouth. This endoscopic ultrasonography may be able to detect gallstones better than physicians were able to previously. This study tested the value of endoscopic ultrasonography, and the number of patients who developed more episodes of acute inflammation after endoscopic ultrasonography was recorded. Some 106 patients with acute inflammation of the pancreas for the first time without a clear cause participated and were offered endoscopic ultrasonography. The number of times endoscopic ultrasonography found a cause for the acute inflammation was recorded, as well as safety parameters, number of patients who developed more episodes of acute inflammation, and quality of life. After screening 957 patients, 105 ultimately underwent endoscopic ultrasonography. A cause was found in one-third of patients. This was mostly (tiny) gallstones, but chronic inflammation and even tumours were found. These patients were mostly treated surgically for their gallstones and tumours. In the first year after the first acute episode of inflammation, the inflammation came back at least once in almost one in six patients in whom endoscopic ultrasonography did not find a cause. This occurred less in patients in whom a cause was found; the inflammation came back in 1 in 16 of these patients. It was also found that having inflammation coming back negatively affected quality of life. In this study, endoscopic ultrasonography was able to detect a cause in one-third of patients with first-time acute inflammation of the pancreas. In one in four patients, this cause could be treated by a surgical procedure. Whether surgical removal of the gallbladder can be helpful in patients in whom endoscopic ultrasonography is not able to detect an aetiology should be investigated in further studies.

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.

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.

Suspected common bile duct stones: reduction of unnecessary ERCP by pre-procedural imaging and timing of ERCP.

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is the procedure of choice to remove sludge/stones from the common bile duct (CBD). In a small but clinically important proportion of patients with suspected choledocholithiasis ERCP is negative. This is undesirable because of ERCP associated morbidity. We aimed to map the diagnostic pathway leading up to ERCP and evaluate ERCP outcome. METHODS: We established a prospective multicenter cohort of patients with suspected CBD stones. We assessed the determinants that were associated with CBD sludge or stone detection upon ERCP. RESULTS: We established a cohort of 707 patients with suspected CBD sludge or stones (62% female, median age 59 years). ERCP was negative for CBD sludge or stones in 155 patients (22%). Patients with positive ERCPs frequently had pre-procedural endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) or magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) imaging (44% vs. 35%; P = 0.045). The likelihood of ERCP sludge and stones detection was higher when the time interval between EUS or MRCP and ERCP was less than 2 days (odds ratio 2.35; 95% CI 1.25-4.44; P = 0.008; number needed to harm 7.7). CONCLUSIONS: Even in the current era of society guidelines and use of advanced imaging CBD sludge or stones are absent in one out of five ERCPs performed for suspected CBD stones. The proportion of unnecessary ERCPs is lower in case of pre-procedural EUS or MRCP. A shorter time interval between EUS or MRCP increases the yield of ERCP for suspected CBD stones and should, therefore, preferably be performed within 2 days before ERCP.

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.

Optimal timing of rectal diclofenac in preventing post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis.

Background and study aims Rectal nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) prophylaxis reduces incidence of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis. Direct comparisons to the optimal timing of administration, before or after ERCP, are lacking. Therefore, we aimed to assess whether timing of rectal NSAID prophylaxis affects the incidence of post-ERCP pancreatitis. Patients and methods We conducted an analysis of prospectively collected data from a randomized clinical trial. We included patients with a moderate to high risk of developing post-ERCP pancreatitis, all of whom received rectal diclofenac monotherapy 100-mg prophylaxis. Administration was within 30 minutes before or after the ERCP at the discretion of the endoscopist. The primary endpoint was post-ERCP pancreatitis. Secondary endpoints included severity of pancreatitis, length of hospitalization, and Intensive Care Unit (ICU) admittance. Results We included 346 patients who received the rectal NSAID before ERCP and 63 patients who received it after ERCP. No differences in baseline characteristics were observed. Post-ERCP pancreatitis incidence was lower in the group that received pre-procedure rectal NSAIDs (8 %), compared to post-procedure (18 %) (relative risk: 2.32; 95% confidence interval: 1.21 to 4.46, P  = 0.02). Hospital stays were significantly longer with post-procedure prophylaxis (1 day; interquartile range [IQR] 1-2 days vs. 1 day; IQR 1-4 days; P  = 0.02). Patients from the post-procedure group were more likely to be admitted to the ICU (1 patient [0.3 %] vs. 4 patients [6 %]; P  = 0.002). Conclusions Pre-procedure administration of rectal diclofenac is associated with a significant reduction in post-ERCP pancreatitis incidence compared to post-procedure use.

Performance of diagnostic tools for acute cholangitis in patients with suspected biliary obstruction.

BACKGROUND: Acute cholangitis is an infection requiring endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and antibiotics. Several diagnostic tools help to diagnose cholangitis. Because diagnostic performance of these tools has not been studied and might therefore impose unnecessary ERCPs, we aimed to evaluate this. METHODS: We established a nationwide prospective cohort of patients with suspected biliary obstruction who underwent an ERCP. We assessed the diagnostic performance of Tokyo Guidelines (TG18), Dutch Pancreatitis Study Group (DPSG) criteria, and Charcot triad relative to real-world cholangitis as the reference standard. RESULTS: 127 (16%) of 794 patients were diagnosed with real-world cholangitis. Using the TG18, DPSG, and Charcot triad, 345 (44%), 55 (7%), and 66 (8%) patients were defined as having cholangitis, respectively. Sensitivity for TG18 was 82% (95% CI 74-88) and specificity 60% (95% CI 56-63). The sensitivity for DPSG and Charcot was 42% (95% CI 33-51) and 46% (95% CI 38-56), specificity was 99.7% (95% CI 99-100) and 99% (95% CI 98-100), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: TG18 criteria incorrectly diagnoses four out of ten patients with real-world cholangitis, while DPSG and Charcot criteria failed to diagnose more than half of patients. As the cholangitis diagnosis has many consequences for treatment, there is a need for more accurate diagnostic tools or work-up towards ERCP.

Pancreatitis and pancreatic cancer: A case of the chicken or the egg.

Acute pancreatitis (AP), chronic pancreatitis (CP) and pancreatic cancer are three distinct pancreatic diseases with different prognoses and treatment options. However, it may be difficult to differentiate between benign and malignant disease. AP may be a first symptom of pancreatic cancer, particularly in patients between the ages of 56 and 75 with presumed idiopathic AP who had a concomitant diagnosis of new-onset diabetes mellitus or patients who present with CP at diagnosis of AP. In these patients, additional imaging is warranted, preferably by endoscopic ultrasonography. CP may lead to pancreatic cancer through oncogenic mutations, mostly in patients with hereditary CP, and in patients in whom risk factors for pancreatic cancer (e.g., nicotine and alcohol abuse) are also present. Patients with PRSS1-mediated CP and patients with a history of autosomal dominant hereditary CP without known genetic mutations may be considered for surveillance for pancreatic cancer. Pancreatic inflammation may mimic pancreatic cancer by appearing as a focal mass-forming lesion on imaging. Differentiation between the above mentioned benign and malignant disease may be facilitated by specific features like the duct-penetrating sign and the duct-to-parenchyma ratio. Research efforts are aimed towards developing a superior discriminant between pancreatitis and pancreatic cancer in the form of imaging modalities or biomarkers. This may aid clinicians in timely diagnosing pancreatic cancer in a potentially curable stage.

Alcohol Reduction to Reduce Relapse in Acute Alcoholic Pancreatitis-Missed Opportunities.

AIM: Resuming drinking is a main contributant to recurrence in alcoholic pancreatitis. We assessed current clinical practice in the Netherlands regarding alcohol in managing patients with a first episode of acute alcoholic pancreatitis. METHODS: A survey was distributed to 35 hospitals affiliated with the Dutch Pancreatitis Study Group. We evaluated current support based on various components of brief interventions, the participation of psychosocial healthcare providers, the cooperation with the primary care physicians and the presence of a protocol and its implementation. RESULTS: The response rate was 100% (n = 35). Psychoeducation is the most frequently performed intervention in current support treatment (97% of hospitals). In 17% of hospitals, healthcare providers with a psychosocial background routinely participate in current support treatment; 37% of hospitals create an individual treatment plan in which goals regarding alcohol cessation are specified and only 46% of hospitals provide the primary care physician with specific discharge information; 31% of hospitals indicate that the treatment is uniformly performed within their division of Gastroenterology. Protocols are available in 3% of the hospitals surveyed. Opportunities to involve the patient's social network were not given sufficient priority. CONCLUSION: Among Dutch hospitals, there is no routine management strategy with regard to enhancing treatment for heavy alcohol use in alcoholic pancreatitis patients. There is a need to test a validated support program in randomized studies. Meanwhile, possible opportunities for effecting change are often missed.

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.

Role of endoscopic ultrasonography in the diagnostic work-up of idiopathic acute pancreatitis (PICUS): study protocol for a nationwide prospective cohort study.

INTRODUCTION: Idiopathic acute pancreatitis (IAP) remains a dilemma for physicians as it is uncertain whether patients with IAP may actually have an occult aetiology. It is unclear to what extent additional diagnostic modalities such as endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) are warranted after a first episode of IAP in order to uncover this aetiology. Failure to timely determine treatable aetiologies delays appropriate treatment and might subsequently cause recurrence of acute pancreatitis. Therefore, the aim of the Pancreatitis of Idiopathic origin: Clinical added value of endoscopic UltraSonography (PICUS) Study is to determine the value of routine EUS in determining the aetiology of pancreatitis in patients with a first episode of IAP. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: PICUS is designed as a multicentre prospective cohort study of 106 patients with a first episode of IAP after complete standard diagnostic work-up, in whom a diagnostic EUS will be performed. Standard diagnostic work-up will include a complete personal and family history, laboratory tests including serum alanine aminotransferase, calcium and triglyceride levels and imaging by transabdominal ultrasound, magnetic resonance imaging or magnetic resonance cholangiopancreaticography after clinical recovery from the acute pancreatitis episode. The primary outcome measure is detection of aetiology by EUS. Secondary outcome measures include pancreatitis recurrence rate, severity of recurrent pancreatitis, readmission, additional interventions, complications, length of hospital stay, quality of life, mortality and costs, during a follow-up period of 12 months. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: PICUS is conducted according to the Declaration of Helsinki and Guideline for Good Clinical Practice. Five medical ethics review committees assessed PICUS (Medical Ethics Review Committee of Academic Medical Center, University Medical Center Utrecht, Radboud University Medical Center, Erasmus Medical Center and Maastricht University Medical Center). The results will be submitted for publication in an international peer-reviewed journal. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Netherlands Trial Registry (NL7066). Prospectively registered.

Endoscopic ultrasonography can detect a cause in the majority of patients with idiopathic acute pancreatitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Idiopathic acute pancreatitis (IAP) has a 25 % pancreatitis recurrence rate. Endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) may diagnose treatable causes of IAP and hence prevent recurrence. The goal of this systematic review with meta-analysis is to determine the diagnostic yield of EUS and its impact on recurrence. METHODS: PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library were systematically searched for English studies on EUS in adults with IAP. The primary outcome was diagnostic yield. Secondary outcomes included recurrence. Methodological quality was assessed using the QUADAS-2 score. Meta-analysis was performed to calculate the pooled diagnostic yield and risk ratio with 95 % confidence intervals (CI) using a random-effects model with inverse variance method. RESULTS: 22 studies were included, with 1490 IAP patients who underwent EUS. Overall diagnostic yield was 59 % (874 /1490; 95 %CI 52 % - 66 %). The most common etiologies were biliary (429 /1490; 30 %, 95 %CI 21 % - 41 %) and chronic pancreatitis (271 /1490; 12 %, 95 %CI 8 % - 19 %). In 2 % of patients, neoplasms were detected (45 /1490; 95 %CI 1 % - 4 %). There was no difference in yield between patients with or without recurrent IAP before EUS (risk ratio 0.89, 95 %CI 0.71 - 1.11). CONCLUSIONS: EUS is able to identify a potential etiology in the majority of patients with IAP, detecting mostly biliary origin or chronic pancreatitis, but also neoplasms in 2 % of patients. EUS may be associated with a reduction of recurrence rate. Future studies should include complete diagnostic work-up and preferably include patients with a first episode of IAP only.

The diagnostic work-up and outcomes of 'presumed' idiopathic acute pancreatitis: A post-hoc analysis of a multicentre observational cohort.

INTRODUCTION: After standard diagnostic work-up, the aetiology of acute pancreatitis remains unknown in 16-27% of cases, a condition referred to as idiopathic acute pancreatitis (IAP). Determining the aetiology of pancreatitis is essential, as it may direct treatment in the acute phase and guides interventions to prevent recurrent pancreatitis. METHODS: Between 2008 and 2015, patients with acute pancreatitis were registered prospectively in 19 Dutch hospitals. Patients who had a negative initial diagnostic work-up with regard to the underlying aetiology of their pancreatitis were labelled 'presumed' IAP. The aim of this study was to assess the use of diagnostic modalities and their yield to establish an aetiology in 'presumed' IAP, and to assess recurrence rates both with and without treatment. RESULTS: Out of the 1632 registered patients, 191 patients had a first episode of 'presumed' IAP, of whom 176 (92%) underwent additional diagnostic testing: CT (n = 124, diagnostic yield 8%), EUS (n = 62, yield 35%), MRI/MRCP (n = 56, yield 33%), repeat ultrasound (n = 97, yield 21%), IgG4 (n = 54, yield 9%) and ERCP (n = 15, yield 47%). In 64 of 176 patients (36%) an aetiological diagnosis was established, mostly biliary (n = 39). In 13 out of 176 of patients (7%) a neoplasm was diagnosed. If additional diagnostic workup revealed an aetiology, the recurrence rate was lower in the treated patients than in the patients without a definite aetiology (15% versus 43%, p = 0.014). CONCLUSION: Additional diagnostic testing revealed an aetiology in one-third of 'presumed' IAP patients. The aetiology found was mostly biliary, but occasionally neoplasms were found. Identification of an aetiology with subsequent treatment reduced the rate of recurrence.

Measuring trainee competence in performing endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: A systematic review of the literature.

Background: Current recommendations on training in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography are predicated on a performance-centred approach designed to ensure that trainees achieve appropriate skills. We aimed to analyse how competence in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography is defined in the literature and what proportion of trainees actually reach this threshold. Methods: We conducted a systematic MEDLINE search for studies reporting on endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography training programmes in a clinical setting. The main outcome measure was threshold for achieving competence in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography; the secondary outcome measure was assessment of trainee performance. Quality was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool and the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies criteria. Results: Of 522 initially identified articles, 20 were included in the analysis; most studies showed a high risk of bias. Cannulation rate of the desired duct was the main marker of competence in all studies; however, only 8/20 studies reported on the performance of individual trainees, who achieved their respective standard of competence in only 25.6% of reported cases. Conclusions: Current literature identifies cannulation rate of a native papilla to be the most appropriate measure of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography competence; however, most trainees do not reach predefined competence thresholds. Furthermore, due to the limitations of available studies, the most appropriate competence measure remains subject for debate.