Objective To describe the long-term consequences of necrotising pancreatitis, including complications, the need for interventions and the quality of life. Design Long-term follow-up of a prospective multicentre cohort of 373 necrotising pancreatitis patients (2005-2008) was performed. Patients were prospectively evaluated and received questionnaires. Readmissions (ie, for recurrent or chronic pancreatitis), interventions, pancreatic insufficiency and quality of life were compared between initial treatment groups: conservative, endoscopic/percutaneous drainage alone and necrosectomy. Associations of patient and disease characteristics during index admission with outcomes during follow-up were assessed. Results During a median follow-up of 13.5 years (range 12-15.5 years), 97/373 patients (26%) were readmitted for recurrent pancreatitis. Endoscopic or percutaneous drainage was performed in 47/373 patients (13%), of whom 21/47 patients (45%) were initially treated conservatively. Pancreatic necrosectomy or pancreatic surgery was performed in 31/373 patients (8%), without differences between treatment groups. Endocrine insufficiency (126/373 patients; 34%) and exocrine insufficiency (90/373 patients; 38%), developed less often following conservative treatment (p<0.001 and p=0.016, respectively). Quality of life scores did not differ between groups. Pancreatic gland necrosis >50% during initial admission was associated with percutaneous/endoscopic drainage (OR 4.3 (95% CI 1.5 to 12.2)), pancreatic surgery (OR 3.2 (95% CI 1.1 to 9.5) and development of endocrine insufficiency (OR13.1 (95% CI 5.3 to 32.0) and exocrine insufficiency (OR6.1 (95% CI 2.4 to 15.5) during follow-up. Conclusion Acute necrotising pancreatitis carries a substantial disease burden during long-term follow-up in terms of recurrent disease, the necessity for interventions and development of pancreatic insufficiency, even when treated conservatively during the index admission. Extensive (>50%) pancreatic parenchymal necrosis seems to be an important predictor of interventions and complications during follow-up.

ObjectiveRoutine 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.DesignA 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.ResultsOverall, 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).ConclusionIn 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 numberISRCTN15545919.

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.

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.

Introduction: Disruption or disconnection of the pancreatic duct is a common finding following severe pancreatitis. Unselected data and guidelines are currently lacking on the exact incidence and clinical impact. Methods: A total of 927 consecutive patients with severe acute pancreatitis, defined by the revised Atlanta Classification were evaluated for a disrupted/disconnection pancreatic duct. We assessed patient characteristics, diagnostic modalities, invasive interventions and clinical impact of disruption/disconnection of the pancreatic duct. Generalized linear models were used to adjust for pre-specified confounders. Results: Disruption/disconnection of the pancreatic duct was diagnosed in 261/927 patients (28%). An association was found for male gender (OR 1.5, 95% CI 1.1 - 2.1, p=0.008) and parenchymal necrosis (OR 4.6, 95% CI 3.2 - 6.7, p< 0.001). An independent effect of a disrupted/disconnected pancreatic duct on readmission (adjusted OR 1.8, 95% CI 1.2 - 2.7, p=0.003), need for invasive intervention (adjusted OR 10.6, 95% CI 5.5 - 20.5, p< 0.001) and organ failure (adjusted OR 1.7, 95% CI 1.2 - 2.4, p=0.003), with no independent effect on mortality beyond the first week (adjusted OR 0.7, 95% CI 0.4 - 1.1, p = 0.143), was found. We found an independent association with abdominal compartment syndrome (adjusted OR 3.1, 95% CI 1.3 - 7.4, p=0.009). Conclusions: Around one third of patients with severe acute pancreatitis develop a disrupted/disconnected pancreatic duct. Diagnostic modalities and treatment strategies vary widely and the clinical impact is considerable. Efforts should be made to define an optimal diagnostic work-up and treatment strategy to improve outcomes.

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.

BACKGROUND & AIMSIn a 2010 randomized trial (the PANTER trial), a surgical step-up approach for infected necrotizing pancreatitis was found to reduce the composite endpoint of death or major complications compared with open necrosectomy; 35% of patients were successfully treated with simple catheter drainage only. There is concern, however, that minimally invasive treatment increases the need for reinterventions for residual peripancreatic necrotic collections and other complications during the long term. We therefore performed a long-term follow-up study.METHODSWe reevaluated all the 73 patients (of the 88 patients randomly assigned to groups) who were still alive after the index admission, at a mean 86 months (±11 months) of follow-up. We collected data on all clinical and health care resource utilization endpoints through this follow-up period. The primary endpoint was death or major complications (the same as for the PANTER trial). We also measured exocrine insufficiency, quality of life (using the Short Form-36 and EuroQol 5 dimensions forms), and Izbicki pain scores.RESULTSFrom index admission to long-term follow-up, 19 patients (44%) died or had major complications in the step-up group compared with 33 patients (73%) in the open-necrosectomy group (P = .005). Significantly lower proportions of patients in the step-up group had incisional hernias (23% vs 53%; P = .004), pancreatic exocrine insufficiency (29% vs 56%; P = .03), or endocrine insufficiency (40% vs 64%; P = .05). There were no significant differences between groups in proportions of patients requiring additional drainage procedures (11% vs 13%; P = .99) or pancreatic surgery (11% vs 5%; P = .43), or in recurrent acute pancreatitis, chronic pancreatitis, Izbicki pain scores, or medical costs. Quality of life increased during follow-up without a significant difference between groups.CONCLUSIONSIn an analysis of long-term outcomes of trial participants, we found the step-up approach for necrotizing pancreatitis to be superior to open necrosectomy, without increased risk of reinterventions.

BACKGROUND:Cholecystectomy after gallstone pancreatitis may be technically demanding. The aim of this study was to investigate risk factors for a difficult cholecystectomy after mild pancreatitis. METHODS:This was a prospective study within a randomized controlled trial on the timing of cholecystectomy after mild gallstone pancreatitis. Difficulty of cholecystectomy was scored on a 0 to 10 visual analogue scale (VAS) by the senior attending surgeon. The primary outcome 'difficult cholecystectomy' was defined by presence of one or more of the following features: a VAS score ≥ 8, duration of surgery > 75 minutes, conversion or subtotal cholecystectomy. RESULTS:249 patients were included in the primary analysis. A difficult cholecystectomy occurred in 82 patients (33%). In the 'same-admission cholecystectomy' group 29 of 112 cholecystectomies were difficult (26%) versus 49 of 127 patients (39%) who underwent surgery after 2 weeks (p = 0.037). After multivariable analysis, male sex (OR 1.80, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.04-3.13; p = 0.037), prior sphincterotomy (OR 1.79, 95% CI 1.01-3.16; p = 0.046), and delaying cholecystectomy for at least two weeks (OR 1.81, 95% CI 1.04-3.16; p = 0.036) were independent predictors of a difficult cholecystectomy. CONCLUSION:Surgeons should anticipate a difficult cholecystectomy after mild gallstone pancreatitis in case of male sex, prior sphincterotomy and delayed cholecystectomy.

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.

With great interest, we read the study by Sugimoto et al ( 1 Sugimoto M. Sonntag D.P. Flint G.S. Better outcomes if percutaneous drainage is used early and proactively in the course of necrotizing pancreatitis. J Vasc Intervent Radiol. 2016; 27: 418-425 Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (31) Google Scholar ) regarding early and proactive drainage in patients with necrotizing pancreatitis. The authors are to be commended for their study of a new treatment strategy in this challenging patient group. Better Outcomes if Percutaneous Drainage Is Used Early and Proactively in the Course of Necrotizing PancreatitisJournal of Vascular and Interventional RadiologyVol. 27Issue 3PreviewTo compare outcomes after percutaneous catheter drainage (PCD) for acute necrotizing pancreatitis versus those in a randomized controlled trial as a reference standard. Full-Text PDF Letter to the EditorJournal of Vascular and Interventional RadiologyVol. 27Issue 12PreviewDrs. Sugimoto and Traverso respond: Full-Text PDF

with treatment rates increasing over the last 10 years.Among treated AIP1 patients, 4 failed to respond to initial steroids, and 12 experienced a relapse (average time to relapse was 577 +/-799 days).Among patients who failed the steroid taper or who relapsed, 10 were treated with a second course of prednisone, 6 with azathioprine, 1 with rituximab, 1 with mycophenolate, and 3 remained on low-dose steroids indefinitely.Among AIP2 patients, one failed to taper steroids and remains on low-dose indefinitely, but no relapses have been observed.Rates of endoscopic balloon dilation of strictures and stenting varied between AIP1 and 2 patients (21 vs 25%, and 96 vs 75%, respectively), but were not statistically significant.Conclusions: 1) AIP1 and 2 patients varied demographically and by baseline lab values.2) Improved early diagnostic testing may reduce the number of surgeries.3) Over a third of AIP1 patients did not respond or relapsed after initial prednisone treatment.4) Despite a smaller AIP2 cohort size and shorter clinical follow up, our data suggest AIP1 patients may require more aggressive initial and recurrent medical management.

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.

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.

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.