Explore the vast range of titles available.

ObjectiveIn patients with pancreatitis, early persisting organ failure is believed to be the most important cause of mortality. This study investigates the relation between the timing (onset and duration) of organ failure and mortality and its association with infected pancreatic necrosis in patients with necrotising pancreatitis.DesignWe performed a post hoc analysis of a prospective database of 639 patients with necrotising pancreatitis from 21 hospitals. We evaluated the onset, duration and type of organ failure (ie, respiratory, cardiovascular and renal failure) and its association with mortality and infected pancreatic necrosis.ResultsIn total, 240 of 639 (38%) patients with necrotising pancreatitis developed organ failure. Persistent organ failure (ie, any type or combination) started in the first week in 51% of patients with 42% mortality, in 13% during the second week with 46% mortality and in 36% after the second week with 29% mortality. Mortality in patients with persistent multiple organ failure lasting <1 week, 1–2 weeks, 2–3 weeks or longer than 3 weeks was 43%, 38%, 46% and 52%, respectively (p=0.68). Mortality was higher in patients with organ failure alone than in patients with organ failure and infected pancreatic necrosis (44% vs 29%, p=0.04). However, when excluding patients with very early mortality (within 10 days of admission), patients with organ failure with or without infected pancreatic necrosis had similar mortality rates (28% vs 34%, p=0.33).ConclusionIn patients with necrotising pancreatitis, early persistent organ failure is not associated with increased mortality when compared with persistent organ failure which develops further on during the disease course. Furthermore, no association was found between the duration of organ failure and mortality.

Background Laparoscopic cholecystectomy in acute calculous cholecystitis in high risk patients can lead to significant morbidity and mortality. Percutaneous cholecystostomy may be an alternative treatment option but the current literature does not provide the surgical community with evidence based advice. Methods/Design The CHOCOLATE trial is a randomised controlled, parallel-group, superiority multicenter trial. High risk patients, defined as APACHE-II score 7-14, with acute calculous cholecystitis will be randomised to laparoscopic cholecystectomy or percutaneous cholecystostomy. During a two year period 284 patients will be enrolled from 30 high volume teaching hospitals. The primary endpoint is a composite endpoint of major complications within three months following randomization and need for re-intervention and mortality during the follow-up period of one year. Secondary endpoints include all other complications, duration of hospital admission, difficulty of procedures and total costs. Discussion The CHOCOLATE trial is designed to provide the surgical community with an evidence based guideline in the treatment of acute calculous cholecystitis in high risk patients. Trial Registration Netherlands Trial Register (NTR): NTR2666

AbstractObjectiveTo assess whether laparoscopic cholecystectomy is superior to percutaneous catheter drainage in high risk patients with acute calculous cholecystitis.DesignMulticentre, randomised controlled, superiority trial.Setting11 hospitals in the Netherlands, February 2011 to January 2016.Participants142 high risk patients with acute calculous cholecystitis were randomly allocated to laparoscopic cholecystectomy (n=66) or to percutaneous catheter drainage (n=68). High risk was defined as an acute physiological assessment and chronic health evaluation II (APACHE II) score of 7 or more.Main outcome measuresThe primary endpoints were death within one year and the occurrence of major complications, defined as infectious and cardiopulmonary complications within one month, need for reintervention (surgical, radiological, or endoscopic that had to be related to acute cholecystitis) within one year, or recurrent biliary disease within one year.ResultsThe trial was concluded early after a planned interim analysis. The rate of death did not differ between the laparoscopic cholecystectomy and percutaneous catheter drainage group (3% v 9%, P=0.27), but major complications occurred in eight of 66 patients (12%) assigned to cholecystectomy and in 44 of 68 patients (65%) assigned to percutaneous drainage (risk ratio 0.19, 95% confidence interval 0.10 to 0.37; P<0.001). In the drainage group 45 patients (66%) required a reintervention compared with eight patients (12%) in the cholecystectomy group (P<0.001). Recurrent biliary disease occurred more often in the percutaneous drainage group (53% v 5%, P<0.001), and the median length of hospital stay was longer (9 days v 5 days, P<0.001).ConclusionLaparoscopic cholecystectomy compared with percutaneous catheter drainage reduced the rate of major complications in high risk patients with acute cholecystitis.Trial registrationDutch Trial Register NTR2666.

ObjectiveFollowing 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.DesignA 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.ResultsOverall, 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)).ConclusionThe optimal timing of cholecystectomy after necrotising biliary pancreatitis, in the absence of peripancreatic collections, is within 8 weeks after discharge.

In this trial in patients with acute pancreatitis, early tube feeding was not superior to an oral diet after 72 hours (with tube feeding if needed) in reducing the rate of major infection or death. In the oral-diet group, 69% of patients did not require tube feeding. Acute pancreatitis is the most common gastrointestinal disease leading to hospital admission, and its incidence continues to rise. 1 – 4 Most patients with acute pancreatitis recover uneventfully and are discharged after a few days. 5 , 6 In 20% of patients, the disease course is complicated by major infection, such as infected pancreatic necrosis, which is associated with a mortality of 15%. 7 – 11 A meta-analysis of eight randomized trials involving 348 patients showed that nasoenteric tube feeding, as compared with total parenteral nutrition, reduced the rate of infections and mortality among patients with severe pancreatitis. 12 These infections are thought to be mediated by . . .

The early identification of clinically severe acute pancreatitis (AP) is critical for the triage and treatment of patients. The aim of this study was to compare the accuracy of computed tomography (CT) and clinical scoring systems for predicting the severity of AP on admission. Demographic, clinical, and laboratory data of all consecutive patients with a primary diagnosis of AP during a two-and-half-year period was prospectively collected for this study. A retrospective analysis of the abdominal CT data was performed. Seven CT scoring systems (CT severity index (CTSI), modified CT severity index (MCTSI), pancreatic size index (PSI), extrapancreatic score (EP), ''extrapancreatic inflammation on CT'' score (EPIC), ''mesenteric oedema and peritoneal fluid'' score (MOP), and Balthazar grade) as well as two clinical scoring systems: Acute Physiology, Age, and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE)-II and Bedside Index for Severity in AP (BISAP) were comparatively evaluated with regard to their ability to predict the severity of AP on admission (first 24 h of hospitalization). Clinically severe AP was defined as one or more of the following: mortality, persistent organ failure and/or the presence of local pancreatic complications that require intervention. All CT scans were reviewed in consensus by two radiologists, each blinded to patient outcome. The accuracy of each imaging and clinical scoring system for predicting the severity of AP was assessed using receiver operating curve analysis. Of 346 consecutive episodes of AP, there were 159 (46%) episodes in 150 patients (84 men, 66 women; mean age, 54 years; age range, 21-91 years) who were evaluated with a contrast-enhanced CT scan (n = 131 episodes) or an unenhanced CT scan (n = 28 episodes) on the first day of admission. Clinically severe AP was diagnosed in 29/159 (18%) episodes; 9 (6%) patients died. Overall, the Balthazar grading system (any CT technique) and CTSI (contrast-enhanced CT only) demonstrated the highest accuracy among the CT scoring systems for predicting severity, but this was not statistically significant. There were no statistically significant differences between the predictive accuracies of CT and clinical scoring systems. The predictive accuracy of CT scoring systems for severity of AP is similar to clinical scoring systems. Hence, a CT on admission solely for severity assessment in AP is not recommended.

ObjectivePain in chronic pancreatitis is subdivided in a continuous or intermittent pattern, each thought to represent a different entity, requiring specific treatment. Because evidence is missing, we studied pain patterns in a prospective longitudinal nationwide study.Design1131 patients with chronic pancreatitis (fulfilling M-ANNHEIM criteria) were included between 2011 and 2018 in 30 Dutch hospitals. Patients with continuous or intermittent pain were compared for demographics, pain characteristics, quality of life (Short-Form 36), imaging findings, disease duration and treatment. Alternation of pain pattern and associated variables were longitudinally assessed using a multivariable multinomial logistic regression model.ResultsAt inclusion, 589 patients (52%) had continuous pain, 231 patients (20%) had intermittent pain and 311 patients (28%) had no pain. Patients with continuous pain had more severe pain, used more opioids and neuropathic pain medication, and had a lower quality of life. There were no differences between pain patterns for morphological findings on imaging, disease duration and treatment. During a median follow-up of 47 months, 552 of 905 patients (61%) alternated at least once between pain patterns. All alternations were associated with the Visual Analogue Scale pain intensity score and surgery was only associated with the change from pain to no pain.ConclusionContinuous and intermittent pain patterns in chronic pancreatitis do not seem to be the result of distinctly different pathophysiological entities. The subjectively reported character of pain is not related to imaging findings or disease duration. Pain patterns often change over time and are merely a feature of how severity of pain is experienced.

In this randomized trial involving patients with necrotizing pancreatitis, a less invasive step-up approach (percutaneous drainage followed, if necessary, by minimally invasive retroperitoneal necrosectomy) was associated with fewer complications than open necrosectomy. In patients with necrotizing pancreatitis, a less invasive step-up approach (percutaneous drainage followed, if necessary, by minimally invasive retroperitoneal necrosectomy) was associated with fewer complications than open necrosectomy. Acute pancreatitis is the third most common gastrointestinal disorder requiring hospitalization in the United States, with annual costs exceeding $2 billion. 1 , 2 Necrotizing pancreatitis, which is associated with an 8 to 39% rate of death, develops in approximately 20% of patients. 3 The major cause of death, next to early organ failure, is secondary infection of pancreatic or peripancreatic necrotic tissue, leading to sepsis and multiple organ failure. 4 Secondary infection of necrotic tissue in patients with necrotizing pancreatitis is virtually always an indication for intervention. 3 , 5 – 7 The traditional approach to the treatment of necrotizing pancreatitis with secondary infection of necrotic . . .

Objective In the revised Atlanta classification of acute pancreatitis, the term necrotising pancreatitis also refers to patients with only extrapancreatic fat necrosis without pancreatic parenchymal necrosis (EXPN), as determined on contrast-enhanced CT (CECT). Patients with EXPN are thought to have a better clinical outcome, although robust data are lacking. Methods A post hoc analysis was performed of a prospective multicentre database including 639 patients with necrotising pancreatitis on contrast-enhanced CT. All CECT scans were reviewed by a single radiologist blinded to the clinical outcome. Patients with EXPN were compared with patients with pancreatic parenchymal necrosis (with or without extrapancreatic necrosis). Outcomes were persistent organ failure, need for intervention and mortality. A predefined subgroup analysis was performed on patients who developed infected necrosis. Results 315 patients with EXPN were compared with 324 patients with pancreatic parenchymal necrosis. Patients with EXPN less often suffered from complications: persistent organ failure (21% vs 45%, p<0.001), persistent multiple organ failure (15% vs 36%, p<0.001), infected necrosis (16% vs 47%, p<0.001), intervention (18% vs 57%, p<0.001) and mortality (9% vs 20%, p<0.001). When infection of extrapancreatic necrosis developed, outcomes between groups were equal (mortality with infected necrosis: EXPN 28% vs pancreatic necrosis 18%, p=0.16). Conclusion EXPN causes fewer complications than pancreatic parenchymal necrosis. It should therefore be considered a separate entity in acute pancreatitis. Outcome in cases of infected necrosis is similar.

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