Left psoas abscess due to duodenal fistula as a late complication of necrotizing pancreatitis treated by endoscopic approach.

Gastrointestinal fistulas can be a complication of severe acute pancreatitis, and their incidence is low and sporadically reported in the literature. The most frequently reported site is in the colon, followed by duodenal fistulas. Psoas abscess is a rare condition. Iliopsoas abscesses are classified as primary or secondary. Secondary abscesses develop by spreading infection from contiguous anatomical structures, such as the gastrointestinal tract. We present the case of a recurrent left psoas abscess secondary to a duodenal fistula as a late complication of necrotizing pancreatitis resolved by endoscopic treatment.

Can topical epinephrine application to the papilla prevent pancreatitis after endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography? Results from a double blind, multicentre, placebo controlled, randomised clinical trial.

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: Post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP) is a complication associated with important morbidity, occasional mortality and high costs. Preventive strategies are suboptimal as PEP continues to affect 4% to 9% of patients. Spraying epinephrine on the papilla may decrease oedema and prevent PEP. This study aimed to compare rectal indomethacin plus epinephrine (EI) versus rectal indomethacin plus sterile water (WI) for the prevention of PEP. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This multicentre randomised controlled trial included patients aged >18 years with an indication for ERCP and naive major papilla. All patients received 100 mg of rectal indomethacin and 10 mL of sterile water or a 1:10 000 epinephrine dilution. Patients were asked about PEP symptoms via telephone 24 hours and 7 days after the procedure. The trial was stopped half way through after a new publication reported an increased incidence of PEP among patients receiving epinephrine. RESULTS: Of the 3602 patients deemed eligible, 3054 were excluded after screening. The remaining 548 patients were randomised to EI group (n=275) or WI group (n=273). The EI and WI groups had similar baseline characteristics. Patients in the EI group had a similar incidence of PEP to those in the WI group (3.6% (10/275) vs 5.12% (14/273), p=0.41). Pancreatic duct guidewire insertion was identified as a risk factor for PEP (OR 4.38, 95% CI (1.44 to 13.29), p=0.009). CONCLUSION: Spraying epinephrine on the papilla was no more effective than rectal indomethacin alone for the prevention of PEP. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: This study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02959112).

Utility of endoscopic ultrasound in idiopathic acute recurrent pancreatitis.

Idiopathic acute recurrent pancreatitis (IARP) is defined as at least two episodes of acute pancreatitis with the complete or near-complete resolution of symptoms and signs of pancreatitis between episodes, without an identified cause. There is a paucity of information about the usefulness of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) in IARP. OBJECTIVES: To determine the diagnostic yield of EUS in IARP. DESIGN: A retrospective study was performed in patients with IARP evaluated by EUS between January 2009 and December 2016. Follow-up assessments of acute pancreatitis recurrence were carried out. RESULTS: Seventy-three patients with 102 EUS procedures were included. EUS was able to identify the cause of IARP in 55 patients (75.3%). The most common findings were chronic pancreatitis in 27 patients (49.1%), followed by lithiasic pathology in 24 patients (43.6%), and intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm in four patients (7.3%). A directed treatment against EUS findings had a protective tendency associated with the final resolution of recurrence. There were no complications reported. CONCLUSION: EUS performed in patients with IARP helped to identify a possible cause in 2/3 of the cases. The majority of patients have a treatable disease.

Analysis of circulating blood and tissue biopsy PDX1 and MSX2 gene expression in patients with pancreatic cancer: A case-control experimental study.

Early diagnosis of pancreatic cancer (PC) is based on endoscopic ultrasound (EUS). However, EUS is invasive and requires a high level of technical skill. Recently, liquid biopsies have achieved the same sensitivity and specificity for the diagnosis of numerous pathologies, including cancer. Insulin-promoting factor 1 (PDX1) and Msh-homeobox 2 (MSX2), 2 homeotic genes, have been confirmed to be related to pancreatic oncogenesis.The aim of this study is to establish the diagnostic utility of circulating serum levels of MSX2 and PDX1 expression in patients with PC.A prospective study was conducted from January 2014 to February 2017. Patients with a suspected diagnosis of PC who underwent fine needle aspiration biopsy guided by EUS (EUS-FNA) were included in the study, in addition to non-PC control subjects. Both tissue and blood serum samples were submitted to histopathological analysis and measurement of PDX1 and MSX2 gene expression by means of qRT-PCR.Patients were divided into non-PC, malignant pathology (MP), or benign pathology (BP) groups. Significant differences in both MSX2 [2.05 (1.66-4.60) vs 0.83 (0.49-1.60), P = .006] and PDX1 [2.59 (1.28-10.12) vs 1.02 (0.81-1.17), P = .036] gene expression were found in blood samples of PC compared with non-PC subjects. We also observed a significant increase in MSX2 transcripts in tissue biopsy samples of patients diagnosed with MP compared with those with BP [1.98 (1.44-4.61) and 0.66 (0.45-1.54), respectively, P = .012]. The ROC curves indicate a sensitivity and specificity of 80% for PDX1 and 86% for MSX2.Gene expression of MSX2 in tissue samples obtained by EUS-FNA and serum expression of MSX2 and PDX1 were higher in patients with PC.

Repeat endoscopic ultrasound fine needle aspiration after a first negative procedure is useful in pancreatic lesions.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: There is no consensus about the ideal method for diagnosis in patients who have already undergone endoscopic ultrasound fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA), and the inconclusive material is often obtained. The aim was to evaluate the diagnostic yield of the second EUS-FNA of pancreatic lesions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data of patients with EUS-FNA of pancreatic lesions is performed. All patients who underwent more than one EUS-FNA for the evaluation of suspected pancreatic cancer over a 7-year period were included in the analysis. RESULTS: A total of 296 EUS-FNAs of the pancreas were performed in 257 patients. The diagnostic yield with the first EUS-FNA was 78.6% (202/257). Thirty-nine (13.3%) FNAs were repeated in 34 patients; 17 (50%) patients were women. The mean ± standard deviation (SD) age was 58.8 ± 16.1 years. The location of the lesions in the pancreatic gland, from which the second biopsies were taken, was head of the pancreas, n = 28 (82.4%), body of the pancreas, n = 3 (8.8%), and tail, n = 3 (8.8%). The mean ± SD of the size of the lesion was 36.3 ± 14.6 mm. The second EUS-FNA was more likely to be positive for diagnosis in patients with an "atypical" histological result in the first EUS-FNA (odds ratio [OR]: 4.04; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.9-18.3), in contrast to patients with a first EUS-FNA reported as "normal" (OR: 0.21; 95% CI: 0.06-0.71). Overall, the diagnostic yield of the second EUS-FNA was 58.8% (20/34) with an increase to 86.3% overall (222/257). CONCLUSION: Repeat EUS-FNA in pancreatic lesions is necessary in patients with a negative first EUS-FNA because it improves the diagnostic yield.

EUS-guided drainage of pancreatic pseudocysts offers similar success and complications compared to surgical treatment but with a lower cost.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Pancreatic pseudocysts (PPC) are a complication that occurs in acute and chronic pancreatitis. They comprise 75% of cystic lesions of the pancreas. There are scarce data about surgical versus endoscopic treatment on PPC. The aim of this study was to compare both treatment modalities regarding clinical success, complication rate, recurrence, hospital stay and cost. METHODS: Retrospectively, data obtained prospectively from 2000 to 2012 were analyzed. A PPC was defined as a fluid collection in the pancreatic or peripancreatic area that had a well-defined wall and contained no solid debris or recognizable parenchymal necrosis. Clinical success was defined as complete resolution or a decrease in size of the PPC to 2 cm or smaller. RESULTS: Overall, 64 procedures in 61 patients were included: 21 (33%) cases were drained endoscopically guided by EUS and 43 (67%) cases were drained surgically. The clinical success of the endoscopic group was 90.5 versus 90.7% for the surgical group (P = 0.7), with a complication rate of 23.8 and 25.6%, respectively (P = 0.8), and a mortality rate of 0 and 2.3% for each group, respectively (P = 0.4). The hospital stay was lower for the endoscopic group: 0 (0-10) days compared with 7 (2-42) days in the surgical group (P < 0.0001). Likewise, the cost was lower in the endoscopic group (P < 0.001). The recurrence rate was similar in both groups: 9.5 and 4.5% respectively (P = 0.59). The two recurrences found in the endoscopic group were associated with stent migration, and the recurrence in the surgical group was due to the type of surgery performed (open drainage). CONCLUSION: Endoscopic treatment of PPC offers the same clinical success, recurrence, complication and mortality rate as surgical treatment but with a shorter hospital stay and lower costs.

Postoperative abdominal collections drainage: Percutaneous versus guided by endoscopic ultrasound.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Postoperative fluid collections (POFC) have high mortality. Percutaneous drainage (PD) is the preferred treatment modality. Drainage guided by endoscopic ultrasound (EUS-GD) represents a good alternative. The aim of the present study was to compare clinical success and complication rates of EUS-GD versus PD. METHODS: Data collected prospectively were analyzed in a retrospective manner. Patients with POFC from October 2008 to November 2013 were included. All collections were drained percutaneously or by EUS-GD. RESULTS: Sixty-three procedures in 43 patients with POFC were analyzed; 13 patients were drained using EUS-GD and 32 patients with PD. Two patients assigned initially to the PD group were reassigned to EUS-GD. Surgery procedures most often related to the collections were intestinal reconnection, distal pancreatectomy, biliary-digestive bypass, and exploratory laparotomy. Technical success (100% vs 91%; P = 0.25), clinical success (100% vs 84%; P = 0.13), recurrence (31% vs 25%; P = 0.69), hospital stay days (median 22 vs 27; P = 0.35), total costs (8328 ± 1600 USD vs 11 047 ± 1206 USD; P = 0.21), complications (0% vs 6%; P = 0.3), and mortality (8% vs 6%; P = 0.9) were each evaluated in the EUS-GD and PD groups, respectively. In the PD group one death was related to the procedure. CONCLUSIONS: EUS-GD is as effective and safe as PD in patients with POFC. The advantage of not requiring external drainage and a trend to higher clinical success and lower total costs must be considered.

Diagnostic yield of endoscopic ultrasound in patients with hypoglicemia and insulinoma suspected.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Noninvasive imaging techniques have shown limitations to identify insulinomas. In few studies reported so far, endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) has proven to be able to locate lesions. The aim of this study was to compare the performance of computed tomography versus EUS for the detection of insulinomas. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In a retrospective manner prospectively collected data were analyzed. Patients with hypoglucemia and hyperinsulinemia were included. Diagnostic yield was measured in relationship to sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value and accuracy. Surgical specimens were considered the gold standard. RESULTS: Sensitivity, positive predictive value, and accuracy of EUS was 100%, 95.4% and 95.4%, respectively. In the case of CT the sensitivity was 60%, specificity 100%, positive predictive value 100%, negative predictive value 7%, and accuracy were 68%. CONCLUSIONS: EUS is useful in the preoperative assessment of patients with hypoglycemia and serum hyperinsulinemia.

Follow-up of patients with pseudotumoral chronic pancreatitis: outcome and surveillance.

AIM: To follow up patients with pseudotumoral chronic pancreatitis (PCP) to assess their outcome and identify an optimal surveillance interval. METHODS: Data obtained prospectively were analyzed in a retrospective manner. Patients with clinical evidence of chronic pancreatitis (abdominal pain in the epigastrium, steatorrhea, and diabetes mellitus), endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) criteria > 4, and EUS-fine needle aspiration (FNA) were included. A pseudotumor was defined as a non-neoplastic space-occupying lesion, a cause of chronic pancreatitis that may mimic changes typical of pancreatic cancer on CT or endoscopic ultrasound but without histological evidence. A real tumor was defined as a neoplastic space-occupying lesion because of pancreatic cancer confirmed by histology. RESULTS: Thirty-five patients with chronic pancreatitis were included, 26 (74.2%) of whom were men. Nine (25.7%) patients were diagnosed with pseudotumoral chronic pancreatitis and two (2/35; 5.7%) patients with pseudotumoral chronic pancreatitis were diagnosed with pancreatic cancer on follow-up. The time between the diagnosis of pseudotumoral chronic pancreatitis and pancreatic adenocarcinoma was 35 and 30 d in the two patients. Definitive diagnosis of pancreatic adenocarcinoma was made by surgery. In the remaining six patients with pseudotumoral chronic pancreatitis, the median of follow-up was 11 mo (range 1-22 mo) and they showed no evidence of malignancy on surveillance. In the follow-up of patients without pseudotumoral chronic pancreatitis but with chronic pancreatitis, none were diagnosed with pancreatic cancer. According to our data, older patients with chronic pancreatitis are at risk of pseudotumoral chronic pancreatitis. CONCLUSION: According to characteristics of patient, detection of PCP should lead a surveillance program for pancreatic cancer with EUS-FNA in < 1 mo or directly to surgical resection.