Purpose
Routine colonic evaluation is advised after an episode of diverticulitis to exclude colorectal cancer. In the recent years, the possible relation between diverticulitis and colorectal cancer ...has been subject of debate. The aim of this study is to evaluate the benefit of routine colonic endoscopy after an episode of diverticulitis.
Methods
Records of all consecutive patients presenting with a radiologically confirmed episode of diverticulitis between 2007 and 2010 were retrieved from an in-hospital database. Patients who subsequently underwent colonic evaluation were included. The endoscopic detection rate of hyperplastic polyps, adenomas and advanced colonic neoplasia was assessed. Findings were categorized on the basis of the most advanced lesion identified.
Results
Three hundred and seven patients presented with a radiologically confirmed primary episode of diverticulitis. Two hundred and five patients underwent colonic evaluation. Hyperplastic polyps were found in15 (6.8 %), adenomas in 18 (8.8 %) and advanced neoplastic lesions in 7 (3.4 %) patients. Only two patients had a colorectal malignancy.
Conclusion
There appears to be no benefit in performing routine colonic evaluation after an episode of diverticulitis as the incidence of colorectal cancer is almost equal to that of the general population. A more selective approach might therefore be justified. Potentially, only patients with persisting abdominal complaints after an episode of diverticulitis should be offered colonic evaluation to definitively exclude causal pathology.
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.
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.
Acute pancreatitis is the most common gastrointestinal indication for hospital admission, and infected pancreatic and/or extrapancreatic necrosis is a potentially lethal complication. Current ...standard treatment of infected necrosis is a step-up approach, consisting of catheter drainage followed, if necessary, by minimally invasive necrosectomy. International guidelines recommend postponing catheter drainage until the stage of 'walled-off necrosis' has been reached, a process that typically takes 4 weeks after onset of acute pancreatitis. This recommendation stems from the era of primary surgical necrosectomy. However, postponement of catheter drainage might not be necessary, and earlier detection and subsequent earlier drainage of infected necrosis could improve outcome. Strong data and consensus among international expert pancreatologists are lacking. Future clinical, preferably randomized, studies should focus on timing of catheter drainage in patients with infected necrotizing pancreatitis. In this Perspectives, we discuss challenges in the invasive treatment of patients with infected necrotizing pancreatitis, focusing on timing of catheter drainage.
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.
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.
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.
ISRCTN, 33682933 . Registered on 6 August 2015. Retrospectively registered.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Display omitted
While the primary end point of mortality and major complications did not differ between groups, the endoscopic step-up approach resulted in overall fewer pancreaticocutaneous fistulas and fewer reinterventions during long-term follow-up.
To compare the long-term outcomes of immediate drainage versus the postponed-drainage approach in patients with infected necrotizing pancreatitis.
In the randomized POINTER trial, patients assigned ...to the postponed-drainage approach using antibiotic treatment required fewer interventions, as compared with immediate drainage, and over a third were treated without any intervention.
Clinical data of those patients alive after the initial 6-month follow-up were re-evaluated. The primary outcome was a composite of death and major complications.
Out of 104 patients, 88 were re-evaluated with a median follow-up of 51 months. After the initial 6-month follow-up, the primary outcome occurred in 7 of 47 patients (15%) in the immediate-drainage group and 7 of 41 patients (17%) in the postponed-drainage group (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.33-2.28; P =0.78). Additional drainage procedures were performed in 7 patients (15%) versus 3 patients (7%) (RR 2.03; 95% CI 0.56-7.37; P =0.34). The median number of additional interventions was 0 (IQR 0-0) in both groups ( P =0.028). In the total follow-up, the median number of interventions was higher in the immediate-drainage group than in the postponed-drainage group (4 vs. 1, P =0.001). Eventually, 14 of 15 patients (93%) in the postponed-drainage group who were successfully treated in the initial 6-month follow-up with antibiotics and without any intervention remained without intervention. At the end of follow-up, pancreatic function and quality of life were similar.
Also, during long-term follow-up, a postponed-drainage approach using antibiotics in patients with infected necrotizing pancreatitis results in fewer interventions as compared with immediate drainage and should therefore be the preferred approach.
ISRCTN33682933.
Objective:
The use and impact of antibiotics and the impact of causative pathogens on clinical outcomes in a large real-world cohort covering the entire clinical spectrum of necrotizing pancreatitis ...remain unknown.
Summary Background Data:
International guidelines recommend broad-spectrum antibiotics in patients with suspected infected necrotizing pancreatitis. This recommendation is not based on high-level evidence and clinical effects are unknown.
Materials and Methods:
This study is a post-hoc analysis of a nationwide prospective cohort of 401 patients with necrotizing pancreatitis in 15 Dutch centers (2010-2019). Across the patient population from the time of admission to 6 months postadmission, multivariable regression analyses were used to analyze (1) microbiological cultures and (2) antibiotic use.
Results:
Antibiotics were started in 321/401 patients (80%) administered at a median of 5 days (P25-P75: 1-13) after admission. The median duration of antibiotics was 27 days (P25-P75: 15-48). In 221/321 patients (69%) infection was not proven by cultures at the time of initiation of antibiotics. Empirical antibiotics for infected necrosis provided insufficient coverage in 64/128 patients (50%) with a pancreatic culture. Prolonged antibiotic therapy was associated with
Enterococcus
infection (OR 1.08 95% CI 1.03-1.16,
P
=0.01).
Enterococcus
infection was associated with new/persistent organ failure (OR 3.08 95% CI 1.35-7.29,
P
<0.01) and mortality (OR 5.78 95% CI 1.46-38.73,
P
=0.03). Yeast was found in 30/147 cultures (20%).
Discussion:
In this nationwide study of patients with necrotizing pancreatitis, the vast majority received antibiotics, typically administered early in the disease course and without a proven infection. Empirical antibiotics were inappropriate based on pancreatic cultures in half the patients. Future clinical research and practice must consider antibiotic selective pressure due to prolonged therapy and coverage of
Enterococcus
and yeast. Improved guidelines on antimicrobial diagnostics and therapy could reduce inappropriate antibiotic use and improve clinical outcomes.
PDF
