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

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

Optimal timing of cholecystectomy after necrotising biliary pancreatitis.

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

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

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

Natural History of Gas Configurations and Encapsulation in Necrotic Collections During Necrotizing Pancreatitis.

BACKGROUND: Decision-making on invasive intervention in patients with clinical signs of infected necrotizing pancreatitis is often related to the presence of gas configurations and the degree of encapsulation in necrotic collections on imaging. Data on the natural history of gas configurations and encapsulation in necrotizing pancreatitis are, however, lacking. METHODS: A post hoc analysis was performed of a previously described prospective cohort in 21 Dutch hospitals (2004-2008). All computed tomography scans (CTs) performed during hospitalization for necrotizing pancreatitis were categorized per week (1 to 8, and thereafter) and re-assessed by an abdominal radiologist. RESULTS: A total of 639 patients with necrotizing pancreatitis were included, with median four (IQR 2-7) CTs per patient. The incidence of first onset of gas configurations varied per week without a linear correlation: 2-3-13-11-10-19-12-21-12%, respectively. Overall, gas configurations were found in 113/639 (18%) patients and in 113/202 (56%) patients with infected necrosis. The incidence of walled-off necrosis increased per week: 0-3-12-39-62-76-93-97-100% for weeks 1-8 and thereafter respectively. Clinically relevant walled-off necrosis (largely or fully encapsulated necrotic collections) was seen in 162/379 (43%) patients within the first 3 weeks. CONCLUSIONS: Gas configurations occur in every phase of the disease and develop in half of the patients with infected necrotizing pancreatitis. Opposed to traditional views, clinically relevant walled-off necrosis occurs frequently within the first 3 weeks.

Minimally invasive and endoscopic versus open necrosectomy for necrotising pancreatitis: a pooled analysis of individual data for 1980 patients.

OBJECTIVE: Minimally invasive surgical necrosectomy and endoscopic necrosectomy, compared with open necrosectomy, might improve outcomes in necrotising pancreatitis, especially in critically ill patients. Evidence from large comparative studies is lacking. DESIGN: We combined original and newly collected data from 15 published and unpublished patient cohorts (51 hospitals; 8 countries) on pancreatic necrosectomy for necrotising pancreatitis. Death rates were compared in patients undergoing open necrosectomy versus minimally invasive surgical or endoscopic necrosectomy. To adjust for confounding and to study effect modification by clinical severity, we performed two types of analyses: logistic multivariable regression and propensity score matching with stratification according to predicted risk of death at baseline (low: <5%; intermediate: ≥5% to <15%; high: ≥15% to <35%; and very high: ≥35%). RESULTS: Among 1980 patients with necrotising pancreatitis, 1167 underwent open necrosectomy and 813 underwent minimally invasive surgical (n=467) or endoscopic (n=346) necrosectomy. There was a lower risk of death for minimally invasive surgical necrosectomy (OR, 0.53; 95% CI 0.34 to 0.84; p=0.006) and endoscopic necrosectomy (OR, 0.20; 95% CI 0.06 to 0.63; p=0.006). After propensity score matching with risk stratification, minimally invasive surgical necrosectomy remained associated with a lower risk of death than open necrosectomy in the very high-risk group (42/111 vs 59/111; risk ratio, 0.70; 95% CI 0.52 to 0.95; p=0.02). Endoscopic necrosectomy was associated with a lower risk of death than open necrosectomy in the high-risk group (3/40 vs 12/40; risk ratio, 0.27; 95% CI 0.08 to 0.88; p=0.03) and in the very high-risk group (12/57 vs 28/57; risk ratio, 0.43; 95% CI 0.24 to 0.77; p=0.005). CONCLUSION: In high-risk patients with necrotising pancreatitis, minimally invasive surgical and endoscopic necrosectomy are associated with reduced death rates compared with open necrosectomy.

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.

Describing Peripancreatic Collections According to the Revised Atlanta Classification of Acute Pancreatitis: An International Interobserver Agreement Study.

OBJECTIVES: Severe acute pancreatitis is associated with peripancreatic morphologic changes as seen on imaging. Uniform communication regarding these morphologic findings is crucial for accurate diagnosis and treatment. For the original 1992 Atlanta classification, interobserver agreement is poor. We hypothesized that for the revised Atlanta classification, interobserver agreement will be better. METHODS: An international, interobserver agreement study was performed among expert and nonexpert radiologists (n = 14), surgeons (n = 15), and gastroenterologists (n = 8). Representative computed tomographies of all stages of acute pancreatitis were selected from 55 patients and were assessed according to the revised Atlanta classification. The interobserver agreement was calculated among all reviewers and subgroups, that is, expert and nonexpert reviewers; interobserver agreement was defined as poor (≤0.20), fair (0.21-0.40), moderate (0.41-0.60), good (0.61-0.80), or very good (0.81-1.00). RESULTS: Interobserver agreement among all reviewers was good (0.75 [standard deviation, 0.21]) for describing the type of acute pancreatitis and good (0.62 [standard deviation, 0.19]) for the type of peripancreatic collection. Expert radiologists showed the best and nonexpert clinicians the lowest interobserver agreement. CONCLUSIONS: Interobserver agreement was good for the revised Atlanta classification, supporting the importance for widespread adaption of this revised classification for clinical and research communications.

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

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

Predicting Success of Catheter Drainage in Infected Necrotizing Pancreatitis.

INTRODUCTION: At least 30% of patients with infected necrotizing pancreatitis are successfully treated with catheter drainage alone. It is currently not possible to predict which patients also need necrosectomy. We evaluated predictive factors for successful catheter drainage. METHODS: This was a post hoc analysis of 130 prospectively included patients undergoing catheter drainage for (suspected) infected necrotizing pancreatitis. Using logistic regression, we evaluated the association between success of catheter drainage (ie, survival without necrosectomy) and 22 factors regarding demographics, disease severity (eg, Acute Physiology And Chronic Health Evaluation II score, organ failure), and morphologic characteristics on computed tomography (eg, percentage of necrosis). RESULTS: Catheter drainage was performed percutaneously in 113 patients and endoscopically in 17 patients. Infected necrosis was confirmed in 116 patients (89%). Catheter drainage was successful in 45 patients (35%). In multivariable regression, the following factors were associated with a reduced chance of success: male sex [odds ratio (OR) = 0.27; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.09-0.55; P <0.01), multiple organ failure (OR = 0.15; 95% CI: 0.04-0.62; P < 0.01), percentage of pancreatic necrosis (<30%/30%-50%/>50%: OR = 0.54; 95% CI: 0.30-0.96; P = 0.03), and heterogeneous collection (OR = 0.21; 95% CI: 0.06-0.67; P < 0.01). A prediction model incorporating these factors demonstrated an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.76. A prognostic nomogram yielded success probability of catheter drainage from 2% to 91%. CONCLUSIONS: Male sex, multiple organ failure, increasing percentage of pancreatic necrosis and heterogeneity of the collection are negative predictors for success of catheter drainage in infected necrotizing pancreatitis. The constructed nomogram can guide prognostication in clinical practice and risk stratification in clinical studies.

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

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

Same-admission versus interval cholecystectomy for mild gallstone pancreatitis (PONCHO): a multicentre randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: In patients with mild gallstone pancreatitis, cholecystectomy during the same hospital admission might reduce the risk of recurrent gallstone-related complications, compared with the more commonly used strategy of interval cholecystectomy. However, evidence to support same-admission cholecystectomy is poor, and concerns exist about an increased risk of cholecystectomy-related complications with this approach. In this study, we aimed to compare same-admission and interval cholecystectomy, with the hypothesis that same-admission cholecystectomy would reduce the risk of recurrent gallstone-related complications without increasing the difficulty of surgery. METHODS: For this multicentre, parallel-group, assessor-masked, randomised controlled superiority trial, inpatients recovering from mild gallstone pancreatitis at 23 hospitals in the Netherlands (with hospital discharge foreseen within 48 h) were assessed for eligibility. Adult patients (aged ≥18 years) were eligible for randomisation if they had a serum C-reactive protein concentration less than 100 mg/L, no need for opioid analgesics, and could tolerate a normal oral diet. Patients with American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class III physical status who were older than 75 years of age, all ASA class IV patients, those with chronic pancreatitis, and those with ongoing alcohol misuse were excluded. A central study coordinator randomly assigned eligible patients (1:1) by computer-based randomisation, with varying block sizes of two and four patients, to cholecystectomy within 3 days of randomisation (same-admission cholecystectomy) or to discharge and cholecystectomy 25-30 days after randomisation (interval cholecystectomy). Randomisation was stratified by centre and by whether or not endoscopic sphincterotomy had been done. Neither investigators nor participants were masked to group assignment. The primary endpoint was a composite of readmission for recurrent gallstone-related complications (pancreatitis, cholangitis, cholecystitis, choledocholithiasis needing endoscopic intervention, or gallstone colic) or mortality within 6 months after randomisation, analysed by intention to treat. The trial was designed to reduce the incidence of the primary endpoint from 8% in the interval group to 1% in the same-admission group. Safety endpoints included bile duct leakage and other complications necessitating re-intervention. This trial is registered with Current Controlled Trials, number ISRCTN72764151, and is complete. FINDINGS: Between Dec 22, 2010, and Aug 19, 2013, 266 inpatients from 23 hospitals in the Netherlands were randomly assigned to interval cholecystectomy (n=137) or same-admission cholecystectomy (n=129). One patient from each group was excluded from the final analyses, because of an incorrect diagnosis of pancreatitis in one patient (in the interval group) and discontinued follow-up in the other (in the same-admission group). The primary endpoint occurred in 23 (17%) of 136 patients in the interval group and in six (5%) of 128 patients in the same-admission group (risk ratio 0·28, 95% CI 0·12-0·66; p=0·002). Safety endpoints occurred in four patients: one case of bile duct leakage and one case of postoperative bleeding in each group. All of these were serious adverse events and were judged to be treatment related, but none led to death. INTERPRETATION: Compared with interval cholecystectomy, same-admission cholecystectomy reduced the rate of recurrent gallstone-related complications in patients with mild gallstone pancreatitis, with a very low risk of cholecystectomy-related complications. FUNDING: Dutch Digestive Disease Foundation.

Early versus on-demand nasoenteric tube feeding in acute pancreatitis.

BACKGROUND: Early enteral feeding through a nasoenteric feeding tube is often used in patients with severe acute pancreatitis to prevent gut-derived infections, but evidence to support this strategy is limited. We conducted a multicenter, randomized trial comparing early nasoenteric tube feeding with an oral diet at 72 hours after presentation to the emergency department in patients with acute pancreatitis. METHODS: We enrolled patients with acute pancreatitis who were at high risk for complications on the basis of an Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score of 8 or higher (on a scale of 0 to 71, with higher scores indicating more severe disease), an Imrie or modified Glasgow score of 3 or higher (on a scale of 0 to 8, with higher scores indicating more severe disease), or a serum C-reactive protein level of more than 150 mg per liter. Patients were randomly assigned to nasoenteric tube feeding within 24 hours after randomization (early group) or to an oral diet initiated 72 hours after presentation (on-demand group), with tube feeding provided if the oral diet was not tolerated. The primary end point was a composite of major infection (infected pancreatic necrosis, bacteremia, or pneumonia) or death during 6 months of follow-up. RESULTS: A total of 208 patients were enrolled at 19 Dutch hospitals. The primary end point occurred in 30 of 101 patients (30%) in the early group and in 28 of 104 (27%) in the on-demand group (risk ratio, 1.07; 95% confidence interval, 0.79 to 1.44; P=0.76). There were no significant differences between the early group and the on-demand group in the rate of major infection (25% and 26%, respectively; P=0.87) or death (11% and 7%, respectively; P=0.33). In the on-demand group, 72 patients (69%) tolerated an oral diet and did not require tube feeding. CONCLUSIONS: This trial did not show the superiority of early nasoenteric tube feeding, as compared with an oral diet after 72 hours, in reducing the rate of infection or death in patients with acute pancreatitis at high risk for complications. (Funded by the Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development and others; PYTHON Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN18170985.).

Timing of enteral nutrition in acute pancreatitis: meta-analysis of individuals using a single-arm of randomised trials.

INTRODUCTION: In acute pancreatitis, enteral nutrition (EN) reduces the rate of complications, such as infected pancreatic necrosis, organ failure, and mortality, as compared to parenteral nutrition (PN). Starting EN within 24 h of admission might further reduce complications. METHODS: A literature search for trials of EN in acute pancreatitis was performed. Authors of eligible trials were requested to provide the data of all patients in the EN-arm of their trials. A meta-analysis of individual patient data was performed. The cohort of patients with EN was divided into patients receiving EN within 24 h or after 24 h of admission. Multivariable logistic regression, adjusting for predicted disease severity and trial, was used to study the effect of timing of EN on a composite endpoint of infected pancreatic necrosis, organ failure, or mortality. RESULTS: Observational data from 165 individuals from 8 randomised trials were obtained; 100 patients with EN within 24 h and 65 patients with EN after 24 h of admission. In the multivariable model, EN started within 24 h of admission compared to EN started after 24 h of admission, reduced the composite endpoint from 45% to 19% (adjusted odds ratio [OR] of 0.44; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.20-0.96). Within the composite endpoint, organ failure was reduced from 42% to 16% (adjusted OR 0.42; 95% CI 0.19-0.94). CONCLUSIONS: In this meta-analysis of observational data from individuals with acute pancreatitis, starting EN within 24 h after hospital admission, compared with after 24 h, was associated with a reduction in complications.

Minimally invasive intervention for infected necrosis in acute pancreatitis.

Infected necrosis is the main indication for invasive intervention in acute necrotizing pancreatitis. The 2013 IAP/APA guidelines state that percutaneous catheter drainage should be the first step in the treatment of infected necrosis. In 50-65% of patients, additional necrosectomy is required after catheter drainage, which was traditionally done by open necrosectomy. Driven by the perceived lower complication rate, there is an increasing trend toward minimally invasive percutaneous and endoscopic transluminal necrosectomy. The authors present an overview of current minimally invasive treatment options for necrotizing pancreatitis and review recent developments in clinical studies.

Abdominal compartment syndrome in acute pancreatitis: a systematic review.

Abdominal compartment syndrome (ACS) is a lethal complication of acute pancreatitis. We performed a systematic review to assess the treatment and outcome of these patients.A systematic literature search for cohorts of patients with acute pancreatitis and ACS was performed. The main outcomes were number of patients with ACS, radiologic and surgical interventions, morbidity, mortality, and methodological quality.After screening 169 articles, 7 studies were included. Three studies were prospective and 4 studies were retrospective. The overall methodological quality of the studies was moderate to low. The pooled data consisted of 271 patients, of whom 103 (38%) developed ACS. Percutaneous drainage of intraabdominal fluid was reported as first intervention in 11 (11%) patients. Additional decompressive laparotomy was performed in 8 patients. Decompressive laparotomy was performed in a total of 76 (74%) patients. The median decrease in intraabdominal pressure was 15 mm Hg (range, 33-18 mm Hg). Mortality in acute pancreatitis patients with ACS was 49% versus 11% without ACS. Morbidity ranged from 17% to 90%.Abdominal compartment syndrome during acute pancreatitis is associated with high mortality and morbidity. Studies are relatively small and have methodological shortcomings. The optimal timing and method of invasive interventions, as well as their effect on clinical outcomes, should be further evaluated.

Endoscopic transluminal necrosectomy in necrotising pancreatitis: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: We performed a systematic review to assess the outcome of endoscopic transluminal necrosectomy in necrotising pancreatitis with additional focus on indication, disease severity, and methodological quality of studies. DESIGN: We searched the literature published between January 2005 and June 2013. Cohorts, including patients with (infected) necrotising pancreatitis, undergoing endoscopic necrosectomy were included. Indication, disease severity, and methodological quality were described. The main outcomes were mortality, major complications, number of endoscopic sessions, and definitive successful treatment with endoscopic necrosectomy alone. RESULTS: After screening 581 papers, 14 studies, including 455 patients, fulfilled the eligibility criteria. All included studies were retrospective analyses except for one randomized, controlled trial. Overall methodological quality was moderate to low (mean 5, range 2-9). Less than 50 % of studies reported on pre-procedural severity of disease: mean APACHE-II score before intervention was 8; organ failure was present in 23 % of patients; and infected necrosis in 57 % of patients. On average, four (range 1-23) endoscopic interventions were performed per patient. With endoscopic necrosectomy alone, definitive successful treatment was achieved in 81 % of patients. Mortality was 6 % (28/460 patients) and complications occurred in 36 % of patients. Bleeding was the most common complication. CONCLUSIONS: Endoscopic transluminal necrosectomy is an effective treatment for the majority of patients with necrotising pancreatitis with acceptable mortality and complication rates. It should be noted that methodological quality of the available studies is limited and that the combined patient population of endoscopically treated patients is only moderately ill.

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

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

Pancreatitis of biliary origin, optimal timing of cholecystectomy (PONCHO trial): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: After an initial attack of biliary pancreatitis, cholecystectomy minimizes the risk of recurrent biliary pancreatitis and other gallstone-related complications. Guidelines advocate performing cholecystectomy within 2 to 4 weeks after discharge for mild biliary pancreatitis. During this waiting period, the patient is at risk of recurrent biliary events. In current clinical practice, surgeons usually postpone cholecystectomy for 6 weeks due to a perceived risk of a more difficult dissection in the early days following pancreatitis and for logistical reasons. We hypothesize that early laparoscopic cholecystectomy minimizes the risk of recurrent biliary pancreatitis or other complications of gallstone disease in patients with mild biliary pancreatitis without increasing the difficulty of dissection and the surgical complication rate compared with interval laparoscopic cholecystectomy. METHODS/DESIGN: PONCHO is a randomized controlled, parallel-group, assessor-blinded, superiority multicenter trial. Patients are randomly allocated to undergo early laparoscopic cholecystectomy, within 72 hours after randomization, or interval laparoscopic cholecystectomy, 25 to 30 days after randomization. During a 30-month period, 266 patients will be enrolled from 18 hospitals of the Dutch Pancreatitis Study Group. The primary endpoint is a composite endpoint of mortality and acute re-admissions for biliary events (that is, recurrent biliary pancreatitis, acute cholecystitis, symptomatic/obstructive choledocholithiasis requiring endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreaticography including cholangitis (with/without endoscopic sphincterotomy), and uncomplicated biliary colics) occurring within 6 months following randomization. Secondary endpoints include the individual endpoints of the composite endpoint, surgical and other complications, technical difficulty of cholecystectomy and costs. DISCUSSION: The PONCHO trial is designed to show that early laparoscopic cholecystectomy (within 72 hours) reduces the combined endpoint of mortality and re-admissions for biliary events as compared with interval laparoscopic cholecystectomy (between 25 and 30 days) after recovery of a first episode of mild biliary pancreatitis. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials: ISRCTN72764151.