Search

Importance: For patients with painful chronic pancreatitis, surgical treatment is postponed until medical and endoscopic treatment have failed. Observational studies have suggested that earlier surgery could mitigate disease progression, providing better pain control and preserving pancreatic function. Objective: To determine whether early surgery is more effective than the endoscopy-first approach in terms of clinical outcomes. Design, Setting, and Participants: The ESCAPE trial was an unblinded, multicenter, randomized clinical superiority trial involving 30 Dutch hospitals participating in the Dutch Pancreatitis Study Group. From April 2011 until September 2016, a total of 88 patients with chronic pancreatitis, a dilated main pancreatic duct, and who only recently started using prescribed opioids for severe pain (strong opioids for ≤2 months or weak opioids for ≤6 months) were included. The 18-month follow-up period ended in March 2018. Interventions: There were 44 patients randomized to the early surgery group who underwent pancreatic drainage surgery within 6 weeks after randomization and 44 patients randomized to the endoscopy-first approach group who underwent medical treatment, endoscopy including lithotripsy if needed, and surgery if needed. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was pain, measured on the Izbicki pain score and integrated over 18 months (range, 0-100 [increasing score indicates more pain severity]). Secondary outcomes were pain relief at the end of follow-up; number of interventions, complications, hospital admissions; pancreatic function; quality of life (measured on the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey [SF-36]); and mortality. Results: Among 88 patients who were randomized (mean age, 52 years; 21 (24%) women), 85 (97%) completed the trial. During 18 months of follow-up, patients in the early surgery group had a lower Izbicki pain score than patients in the group randomized to receive the endoscopy-first approach group (37 vs 49; between-group difference, -12 points [95% CI, -22 to -2]; P =.02). Complete or partial pain relief at end of follow-up was achieved in 23 of 40 patients (58%) in the early surgery vs 16 of 41 (39%)in the endoscopy-first approach group (P =.10). The total number of interventions was lower in the early surgery group (median, 1 vs 3; P

Item does not contain fulltext CONTEXT: Most patients with infected necrotizing pancreatitis require necrosectomy. Surgical necrosectomy induces a proinflammatory response and is associated with a high complication rate. Endoscopic transgastric necrosectomy, a form of natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery, may reduce the proinflammatory response and reduce complications. OBJECTIVE: To compare the proinflammatory response and clinical outcome of endoscopic transgastric and surgical necrosectomy. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: Randomized controlled assessor-blinded clinical trial in 3 academic hospitals and 1 regional teaching hospital in The Netherlands between August 20, 2008, and March 3, 2010. Patients had signs of infected necrotizing pancreatitis and an indication for intervention. INTERVENTIONS: Random allocation to endoscopic transgastric or surgical necrosectomy. Endoscopic necrosectomy consisted of transgastric puncture, balloon dilatation, retroperitoneal drainage, and necrosectomy. Surgical necrosectomy consisted of video-assisted retroperitoneal debridement or, if not feasible, laparotomy. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary end point was the postprocedural proinflammatory response as measured by serum interleukin 6 (IL-6) levels. Secondary clinical end points included a predefined composite end point of major complications (new-onset multiple organ failure, intra-abdominal bleeding, enterocutaneous fistula, or pancreatic fistula) or death. RESULTS: We randomized 22 patients, 2 of whom did not undergo necrosectomy following percutaneous catheter drainage and could not be analyzed for the primary end point. Endoscopic transgastric necrosectomy reduced the postprocedural IL-6 levels compared with surgical necrosectomy (P = .004). The composite clinical end point occurred less often after endoscopic necrosectomy (20% vs 80%; risk difference [RD], 0.60; 95% CI, 0.16-0.80; P = .03). Endoscopic necrosectomy did not cause new-onset multiple organ failure (0% vs 50%, RD, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.12-0.76; P = .03) and reduced the number of pancreatic fistulas (10% vs 70%; RD, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.17-0.81; P = .02). CONCLUSION: In patients with infected necrotizing pancreatitis, endoscopic necrosectomy reduced the proinflammatory response as well as the composite clinical end point compared with surgical necrosectomy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: isrctn.org Identifier: ISRCTN07091918.

Background The aim of the study was to evaluate recurrent biliary events as a consequence of delay in cholecystectomy following mild biliary pancreatitis. Methods Between 2004 and 2007, patients with acute pancreatitis were registered prospectively in 15 Dutch hospitals. Patients with mild biliary pancreatitis were candidates for cholecystectomy. Recurrent biliary events requiring admission before and after cholecystectomy, and after endoscopic sphincterotomy (ES), were evaluated. Results Of 308 patients with mild biliary pancreatitis, 267 were candidates for cholecystectomy. Eighteen patients underwent cholecystectomy during the initial admission, leaving 249 potential candidates for cholecystectomy after discharge. Cholecystectomy was performed after a median of 6 weeks in 188 patients (75·5 per cent). Before cholecystectomy, 34 patients (13·7 per cent) were readmitted for biliary events, including 24 with recurrent biliary pancreatitis. ES was performed in 108 patients during the initial admission. Eight (7·4 per cent) of these patients suffered from biliary events after ES and before cholecystectomy, compared with 26 (18·4 per cent) of 141 patients who did not have ES (risk ratio 0·51, 95 per cent confidence interval 0·27 to 0·94; P = 0·015). Following cholecystectomy, eight (3·9 per cent) of 206 patients developed biliary events after a median of 31 weeks. Only 142 (53·2 per cent) of 267 patients were treated in accordance with the Dutch guideline, which recommends cholecystectomy or ES during the index admission or within 3 weeks thereafter. Conclusion A delay in cholecystectomy after mild biliary pancreatitis carries a substantial risk of recurrent biliary events. ES reduces the risk of recurrent pancreatitis but not of other biliary events.

Item does not contain fulltext INTRODUCTION: Previous studies have shown that 5-14% of patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy for suspected malignancy ultimately are diagnosed with benign disease. A "pancreatic mass" on computed tomography (CT) is considered to be the strongest predictor of malignancy, but studies describing its diagnostic value are lacking. The aim of this study was to determine the diagnostic value of a pancreatic mass on CT in patients with presumed pancreatic cancer, as well as the interobserver agreement among radiologists and the additional value of reassessment by expert-radiologists. METHODS: Reassessment of preoperative CT scans was performed within a previously described multicenter retrospective cohort study in 344 patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy for suspected malignancy (2003-2010). Preoperative CT scans were reassessed by 2 experienced abdominal radiologists separately and subsequently in a consensus meeting, after defining a pancreatic mass as "a measurable space occupying soft tissue density, except for an enlarged papilla or focal steatosis". RESULTS: CT scans of 86 patients with benign and 258 patients with (pre)malignant disease were reassessed. In 66% of patients a pancreatic mass was reported in the original CT report, versus 48% and 50% on reassessment by the 2 expert radiologists separately and 44% in consensus (P < .001 vs original report). Interobserver agreement between the original CT report and expert consensus was fair (kappa = 0.32, 95% confidence interval 0.23-0.42). Among both expert-radiologists agreement was moderate (kappa = 0.47, 95% confidence interval 0.38-0.56), with disagreement on the presence of a pancreatic mass in 29% of cases. The specificity for malignancy of pancreatic masses identified in expert consensus was twice as high compared with the original CT report (87% vs 42%, respectively). Positive predictive value increased to 98% after expert consensus, but negative predictive value was low (12%). CONCLUSION: Clinicians need to be aware of potential considerable disagreement among radiologists about the presence of a pancreatic mass. The specificity for malignancy doubled by expert radiologist reassessment when a uniform definition of "pancreatic mass" was used. 01 juli 2015 10 p.

Item does not contain fulltext OBJECTIVES: To determine the risk of recurrent biliary events in the period after mild biliary pancreatitis but before interval cholecystectomy and to determine the safety of cholecystectomy during the index admission. BACKGROUND: Although current guidelines recommend performing cholecystectomy early after mild biliary pancreatitis, consensus on the definition of early (ie, during index admission or within the first weeks after hospital discharge) is lacking. METHODS: We performed a systematic search in PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane for studies published from January 1992 to July 2010. Included were cohort studies of patients with mild biliary pancreatitis reporting on the timing of cholecystectomy, number of readmissions for recurrent biliary events before cholecystectomy, operative complications (eg, bile duct injury, bleeding), and mortality. Study quality and risks of bias were assessed. RESULTS: After screening 2413 studies, 8 cohort studies and 1 randomized trial describing 998 patients were included. Cholecystectomy was performed during index admission in 483 patients (48%) without any reported readmissions. Interval cholecystectomy was performed in 515 patients (52%) after 40 days (median; interquartile range: 19-58 days). Before interval cholecystectomy, 95 patients (18%) were readmitted for recurrent biliary events (0% vs 18%, P < 0.0001). These included recurrent biliary pancreatitis (n = 43, 8%), acute cholecystitis (n = 17), and biliary colics (n = 35). Patients who had an endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography had fewer recurrent biliary events (10% vs 24%, P = 0.001), especially less recurrent biliary pancreatitis (1% vs 9%). There were no differences in operative complications, conversion rate (7%), and mortality (0%) between index and interval cholecystectomy. Because baseline characteristics were only reported in 26% of patients, study populations could not be compared. CONCLUSIONS: Interval cholecystectomy after mild biliary pancreatitis is associated with a high risk of readmission for recurrent biliary events, especially recurrent biliary pancreatitis. Cholecystectomy during index admission for mild biliary pancreatitis appears safe, but selection bias could not be excluded. 01 mei 2012

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Treatment of patients with necrotizing pancreatitis has become more conservative and less invasive, but there are few data from prospective studies to support the efficacy of this change. We performed a prospective multicenter study of treatment outcomes among patients with necrotizing pancreatitis. METHODS: We collected data from 639 consecutive patients with necrotizing pancreatitis, from 2004 to 2008, treated at 21 Dutch hospitals. Data were analyzed for disease severity, interventions (radiologic, endoscopic, surgical), and outcome. RESULTS: Overall mortality was 15% (n = 93). Organ failure occurred in 240 patients (38%), with 35% mortality. Treatment was conservative in 397 patients (62%), with 7% mortality. An intervention was performed in 242 patients (38%), with 27% mortality; this included early emergency laparotomy in 32 patients (5%), with 78% mortality. Patients with longer times between admission and intervention had lower mortality: 0 to 14 days, 56%; 14 to 29 days, 26%; and >29 days, 15% (P