Explore the vast range of titles available.

A multicenter, randomized trial of patients with infected necrotizing pancreatitis evaluated immediate drainage within 24 hours after infected necrosis was diagnosed as compared with postponed drainage. Immediate drainage was not superior to postponed drainage in reducing complications. Patients assigned to immediate drainage underwent a greater number of invasive procedures.

ObjectiveLumen-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.DesignPatients 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.ResultsA 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).ConclusionOur 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.

ObjectiveIn treating pancreatic walled-off necrosis (WON), lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMS) have not proven superior to the traditional double pigtail technique (DPT). Among patients with large WON (>15 cm) and their associated substantial risk of treatment failure, the increased drainage capacity of a novel 20-mm LAMS might improve clinical outcomes. Hence, we conducted a study comparing the DPT and 20-mm LAMS in patients with large WON.DesignA single-centre, open-label, randomised, controlled superiority trial using an endoscopic step-up approach in patients with WON exceeding 15 cm in size. The primary endpoint was the number of necrosectomies needed to achieve clinical success (clinical and CT resolution), while the secondary endpoints included technical success, adverse events, length of stay and mortality.ResultsTwenty-two patients were included in the DPT group and 20 in the LAMS group, with no significant differences in patient characteristics. The median size of WON was 24.1 cm (P25–P75: 19.6–31.1). The technical success rates were 100% for DPT and 95% for LAMS (p=0.48), while clinical success rates were 95.5% and 94.7%, respectively (p=1.0). The mean number of necrosectomies was 2.2 for DPT and 3.2 for LAMS (p=0.42). Five patients (12%) developed procedure-related serious adverse events (DPT=4, LAMS=1, p=0.35). The median length of stay was 43 (P25–P75: 40–67) and 58 days (P25–P75: 40–86) in the DPT and LAMS groups (p=0.71), respectively, with an overall mortality of 4.8%.ConclusionsFor treating large WON, LAMS are not superior to DPT. The techniques are associated with comparable needs for necrosectomy and hospital stay, and no gross difference in adverse events.Trial registration number NCT04057846.

ObjectiveAlthough lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMS) are increasingly used for drainage of walled-off necrosis (WON), their advantage over plastic stents is unclear. We compared efficacy of LAMS and plastic stents for WON drainage.DesignPatients with WON were randomised to endoscopic ultrasound-guided drainage using LAMS or plastic stents. Primary outcome was comparing total number of procedures to achieve treatment success defined as symptom relief in conjunction with WON resolution on CT at 6 months. Secondary outcomes were treatment success, procedure duration, clinical/stent-related adverse events, readmissions, length of hospital stay (LOS) and costs.Results60 patients underwent LAMS (n=31) or plastic stent (n=29) placement. There was no significant difference in total number of procedures performed (median 2 (range 2–7) LAMS vs 3 (range 2–7) plastic, p=0.192), treatment success, clinical adverse events, readmissions, LOS and overall treatment costs between cohorts. Although procedure duration was shorter (15 vs 40 min, p<0.001), stent-related adverse events (32.3% vs 6.9%, p=0.01) and procedure costs (US$12 155 vs US$6609, p<0.001) were higher with LAMS. Significant stent-related adverse events were observed ≥3 weeks postintervention in LAMS cohort. Interim audit resulted in protocol amendment where CT scan was obtained at 3 weeks postintervention followed by LAMS removal if WON had resolved. After protocol amendment, there was no significant difference in adverse events between cohorts.ConclusionExcept for procedure duration, there was no significant difference in treatment outcomes between LAMS and plastic stents. To minimise adverse events with LAMS, patients should undergo follow-up imaging and stent removal at 3 weeks if WON has resolved.Trial registration number NCT02685865.

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.

PurposeInfected pancreatic necrosis (IPN) is a highly morbid complication of acute necrotising pancreatitis (ANP). Since there is evidence of early-onset immunosuppression in acute pancreatitis, immune enhancement may be a therapeutic option. This trial aimed to evaluate whether early immune-enhancing Thymosin alpha 1 (Tα1) treatment reduces the incidence of IPN in patients with predicted severe ANP.MethodsWe conducted a multicentre, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial involving ANP patients with an Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE II) score ≥ 8 and a computed tomography (CT) severity score ≥ 5 admitted within 7 days of the advent of symptoms. Enrolled patients were assigned to receive a subcutaneous injection of Tα1 1.6 mg every 12 h for the first 7 days and 1.6 mg once a day for the subsequent 7 days or matching placebos (normal saline). The primary outcome was the development of IPN during the index admission.ResultsA total of 508 patients were randomised, of whom 254 were assigned to receive Tα1 and 254 placebo. The vast majority of the participants required admission to the intensive care unit (ICU) (479/508, 94.3%). During the index admission, 40/254(15.7%) patients in the Tα1 group developed IPN compared with 46/254 patients (18.1%) in the placebo group (difference -2.4% [95% CI − 7.4 to 5.1%]; p = 0.48). The results were similar across four predefined subgroups. There was no difference in other major complications, including new-onset organ failure (10.6% vs. 15%), bleeding (6.3% vs. 3.5%), and gastrointestinal fistula (2% vs. 2.4%).ConclusionThe immune-enhancing Tα1 treatment of patients with predicted severe ANP did not reduce the incidence of IPN during the index admission.

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.

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 . . .

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. 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. 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. 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. The Dutch Digestive Disease Foundation, Fonds NutsOhra, and the Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development.

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 . . .