Early (<4 Weeks) Versus Standard (≥ 4 Weeks) Endoscopically Centered Step-Up Interventions for Necrotizing Pancreatitis

Endoscopic management of infected necrotizing pancreatitis: Advancing through standardization

Infected necrotizing pancreatitis (INP) remains a life-threatening complication of acute pancreatitis. Despite advancements such as endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided drainage, lumen-apposing metal stents, and protocolized step-up strategies, the clinical practice remains heterogeneous, with variability in endoscopic strategies, procedural timing, device selection, and adjunctive techniques contributing to inconsistent outcomes. This review synthesizes current evidence to contribute to a structured framework integrating multidisciplinary team decision-making, advanced imaging (three-dimensional reconstruction, contrast-enhanced computed tomography/magnetic resonance imaging), EUS assessment, and biomarker-driven risk stratification (C-reactive protein, procalcitonin) to optimize patient selection, intervention timing, and complication management. Key standardization components include endoscopic assessment and procedural strategies, optimal timing of intervention, personalized approaches for complex pancreatic collections, and techniques to reduce the number of endoscopic debridements and mitigate complications. This work aims to enhance clinical outcomes, minimize practice heterogeneity, and establish a foundation for future research and guideline development in endoscopic management of INP.

Influencing factor analysis and clinical efficacy of early intervention in severe acute pancreatitis with persistent organ failure

This study aims to analyze the risk factors requiring early intervention in severe acute pancreatitis (SAP) patients with persistent organ failure and evaluate the clinical outcomes following treatment. This was a retrospective observational study. Inverse probability treatment weighting using propensity score methods was employed to balance baseline characteristics. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed to identify risk factors associated with early intervention. Smooth curve fitting was applied to explore potential relationships between variables and intervention timing. Threshold effect analysis was conducted to identify the optimal inflection point in nonlinear relationship. A total of 310 patients were included in this study. Compared to the standard treatment group (n = 162), the early intervention group (n = 148) had a higher proportion of multiple organ failure (77.1% vs. 63.6%, P = 0.021) and higher mortality (27.7% vs. 16.0%, P = 0.013), but early intervention was not significantly associated with adverse outcome (OR 1.52, 95% CI 0.71-3.26, P = 0.283). Risk factors associated with early intervention included computed tomography severity index, SOFA score, intra-abdominal pressure (IAP), and remifentanil equivalents. Among these, the SOFA score showed a negative linear relationship with intervention timing, while distinct threshold effects were observed between IAP, remifentanil equivalents, and intervention timing. One week after intervention, most patients showed improved organ function, along with reduced requirements for sedation and analgesia, as well as decreased C-reactive protein level levels and IAP (all P < 0.05). SAP patients requiring early intervention tended to have higher disease severity. Although early intervention can improve short-term organ function, reduce IAP, and lower analgesic requirements, its impact on reducing mortality remains uncertain.

Novel minimally invasive strategies for achieving source control in intra-abdominal infections

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To provide an overview of recent advancements in minimally invasive intra-abdominal source control techniques.

RECENT FINDINGS

There have been multiple recent advances in minimally invasive techniques for managing intra-abdominal infection or sepsis. Endoscopic based interventions include stenting, suturing, clip placement, and endoscopic vacuum therapy. Robotic surgery is becoming progressively more popular in emergency general surgery and offers comparable results compared to laparoscopic surgery with lower rates of conversion to open.

SUMMARY

Endoscopic based interventions and minimally invasive surgery offer comparable outcomes to more invasive interventions with less morbidity for patients, though the ability to perform these techniques may not be limited to tertiary and quaternary health centers. Providers must use their clinical judgment to determine the best course of action.

Endoscopic Step-Up Approach in Management of Necrotizing Pancreatitis

The endoscopic step-up approach in the management of necrotizing pancreatitis involves sequential steps of intervention at different time points in the clinical course of the disease. EUS -guided drainage of walled-off necrosis is the first step of the endoscopic step-up approach. Lumen-apposing metal stents are preferred over plastic stents for safe and effective drainage because of their wide caliber. Successive steps in the endoscopic step-up approach include direct endoscopic necrosectomy and/or irrigation using naso-cystic tube in symptomatic patients, primarily based on necrotic debris characteristics. Minimally invasive percutaneous radiological and/or surgical drainage are considered when endoscopic drainage is not feasible or successful.

Surgical Step-Up Approach in Management of Necrotizing Pancreatitis

Necrotizing pancreatitis often demands intervention; contemporary management is directed by the step-up approach. Timing of intervention and specific approach is best directed by a multi-disciplinary team including advanced endosocpists, interventional radiologists, and surgeons with interest and experience managing this complex problem. The intervention is often a combination of percutaneous drainage, transluminal endoscopic approaches, and surgical debridement (minimally invasive or open). Goals of treatment are to evacuate solid infected necrosis, gain enteral access when needed, and to prevent recurrence-cholecystectomy in the setting of biliary pancreatitis. Experienced clinical judgment leads to optimal patient outcomes.

Visceral adipose tissue area predicts major adverse kidney events in patients with acute necrotizing pancreatitis

BACKGROUND

Given the previously reported harmful effects of abdominal fat burden on kidney function, we aim to investigate the relationship between major adverse kidney events within 30 days (MAKE30) and abdominal obesity in acute necrotizing pancreatitis (ANP) patients and explore the underlying risk factors.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study of all patients admitted within 72 h after the first episode of ANP to a tertiary center between June 2015 and June 2019 was conducted. Automatic image analysis software was used to calculate the area of subcutaneous adipose tissue (SAT), visceral adipose tissue (VAT) and skeletal muscle from computed tomography scans at the umbilical level. The potential risk factors of MAKE30 were analyzed by logistic regression.

RESULTS

A total of 208 eligible ANP patients were enrolled, with an incidence of 23% for MAKE30. VAT area was more closely associated with the development of MAKE30, with an area under the ROC curve of 0.69 (cutoff value 200 cm2, 63.8% sensitivity and 66.7% specificity). Multivariate logistic regression analysis demonstrated that VAT area [OR 1.01 (1.01-1.02); p < 0.001] was an independent risk factor in predicting MAKE30. Patients with a VAT area > 200 cm2 had more requirements of renal replacement therapy (32% vs. 12%, P < 0.001), and a significantly higher incidence of other poor clinical outcomes (all p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Early assessment of the VAT area may help identify ANP patients at high risk of MAKE30, suggesting that it could be a potential indicator for adverse kidney events.

Global research trends in necrotizing pancreatitis: a bibliometric analysis from 2013 to 2024

Background

This study aims to analyzing scientific publications related to necrotizing pancreatitis and its mortality, identifying key areas and trends, and determining the leading research institutions, authors, countries, and journals actively working in this field.

Methods

The Web of Science and Scopus databases were searched for articles on NP published between January 1, 2013, and April 22, 2024. Articles published before 2013, conference abstracts, and case reports were excluded. The articles were assessed based on various metrics, including the number of citations, publication dates, countries of origin, institutions, journals, and authors.

Results

A total of 929 articles were identified, of which 251 were deemed suitable for analysis after duplicates were removed. China contributed the most articles, followed by the United States and India. The most frequent publications appeared in specialized journals such as "Pancreatology" and "Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery." The primary research institutions were universities and medical centers. The highest-impact articles focused on minimally invasive treatment methods for NP. There has been a growing body of research in NP over the past decade, particularly in China and the United States.

Conclusion

Despite advancements in medical science, the mortality rate associated with pancreatic necrosis remains high. This highlights the continued challenge in effectively addressing complications of acute pancreatitis. Researchers worldwide are actively exploring alternative therapeutic approaches to mitigate these complications and improve patient outcomes.

Controversies in endoscopic ultrasonography-guided management of walled-off necrosis

Walled-off necrosis (WON) develops as local complications after acute necrotizing pancreatitis. Although less invasive interventions such as endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS)-guided drainage and endoscopic necrosectomy are selected over surgical interventions, delayed and step-up interventions are still preferred to avoid procedure-related adverse events. However, there is a controversy about the appropriate timing of drainage and subsequent necrosectomy. The advent of large-caliber lumen-apposing metal stents has also brought about potential advantages of proactive interventions, which still needs investigation in future trials. When step-up interventions of necrosectomy and additional drainage are necessary, a structured or protocoled approach for WON has been reported to improve safety and effectiveness of endoscopic and/or percutaneous treatment, but has not been standardized yet. Finally, long-term outcomes such as recurrence of WON, pancreatic endocrine, and exocrine function are increasingly investigated in association with disconnected pancreatic duct syndrome. In this review we discuss current evidence and controversy on EUS-guided management of WON.

Drainage for fluid collections post pancreatic surgery and acute pancreatitis: similar but different?

Postoperative pancreatic fistulas (POPFs) are common adverse events that occur after pancreatic surgery. Endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS)-guided drainage (EUS-D) is a first-line treatment, similar to that for pancreatic fluid collection (PFCs) after acute pancreatitis. However, some POPFs do not develop fluid collections depending on the presence or location of the surgical drain, whereas others develop fluid collections, such as postoperative fluid collections (POPFCs). Although POPFCs are similar to PFCs, the strategy and modality for POPF management need to be modified according to the presence of fluid collections, surgical drains, and surgical type. As discussed for PFCs, the indications, timing, and selection of interventions or stents for EUS-D have not been fully elucidated for POPFs. In this review, we discuss the management of POPFs and POPFCs in comparison with PFCs due to acute pancreatitis and summarize the topics that should be addressed in future studies.

Practical approach to acute pancreatitis: from diagnosis to the management of complications

The purpose of this review is to provide a practical guide for the clinical care of patients with acute pancreatitis (AP) from the management of the early phases of disease to the treatment of local complications. AP is one of the most frequent causes of gastroenterological admission in emergency departments. It is characterized by a dynamic and unpredictable course and in its most severe forms, is associated with organ dysfunction and/or local complications, requiring intensive care with significant morbidity and mortality. Initial therapy includes adequate fluid resuscitation, nutrition, analgesia, and when necessary critical care support. In recent years, the development of minimally invasive tailored treatments for local complications, such as endoscopic drainage, has improved patients' acceptance and outcomes. Despite this, the management of AP remains a challenge for clinicians. The present review was conducted by the authors, who formulated specific questions addressing the most critical and current aspects of the clinical course of AP with the aim of providing key messages.

P, Gupta P, Gulati A, Shah J, Singh A, Jearth V, Samanta J, Mandavdhare H, Sharma V, Sinha SK, Dutta U, Kocchar R. Tracking Wall Characteristics of Necrotic Pancreatic Fluid Collections in Acute Pancreatitis on Serial Contrast-Enhanced Computed Tomography

Background  Encapsulated pancreatic fluid collection (PFC) is a requisite for endoscopic drainage procedures. The 4-week threshold for defining walled-off necrosis does not capture the dynamic process of encapsulation. We aim to investigate the changes in the wall characteristics of PFC in acute necrotizing pancreatitis (ANP) by comparing baseline contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CECT) with follow-up CT scans. Methods  This retrospective study comprised consecutive patients with ANP who underwent a baseline CECT within first 2 weeks and follow-up CECT in the third to fifth weeks of illness. Presence, extent, and encapsulation thickness (defined as enhancing wall around the collection) on baseline CECT were compared with follow-up CT (done in the third-fifth weeks of illness). Results  Thirty patients (19 males and 11 females; mean age 41.5 ± 13.5 years) were included in the study. The mean time to first CECT was 10 ± 3.6 days. There were 58 collections. The most common site was the lesser sac ( n  = 29), followed by the left pararenal space ( n  = 15). At baseline CT, 52 (89.7%) collections had varying degree of encapsulation (15.3%, complete encapsulation). Complete encapsulation was seen in 52 and 82.6% collections in third and fourth week, respectively. All collections in fifth week and beyond were encapsulated. The wall was thicker on follow-up CECT scans ( p  < 0.01). The mean wall thickness was not significantly associated with the degree of encapsulation ( p  = 0.417). There was no significant association between the site and degree of encapsulation ( p  = 0.546). Conclusion  Encapsulation is dynamic and collections may get "walled off" before 4 weeks. Walled-off collections should be defined based on imaging rather than a fixed 4-week revised Atlanta classification threshold.

The i-EUS consensus on the management of pancreatic fluid collections - Part 1

Pancreatic fluid collections (PFCs), including pancreatic pseudocysts (PPs) and walled-off pancreatic necrosis (WON), are common complications of pancreatitis and pancreatic surgery. Historically, the treatment of these conditions has relied on surgical and radiological approaches; however, it has later shifted toward an endoscopy-based approach. With the development of dedicated lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMS), interventional Endoscopic Ultrasound (EUS)-guided procedures have become the standard approach for PFC drainage. However, there is still limited consensus on several aspects of the multidisciplinary management of PFCs. The interventional endoscopy and ultrasound (i-EUS) group is an Italian network of clinicians and scientists with special interest in biliopancreatic interventional endoscopy, especially interventional EUS. This manuscript describes the first part of the results of a consensus conference organized by i-EUS with the aim of providing evidence-based guidance on aspects such as indications for treating PFCs, the timing of intervention, and different technical strategies for managing patients with PFCs.

When to Intervene in Acute Necrotizing Pancreatitis: A Narrative Review of the Optimal Timing for Intervention Strategies

Introduction: Acute necrotizing pancreatitis (ANP) is the acute inflammation of pancreatic parenchyma, most commonly due to alcohol abuse or cholelithiasis. The treatment can be either conservative or invasive, including a variety of techniques; however, it has not yet been established if the intervention should be early or if it should be delayed. The aim of this review is to investigate the optimal time for intervention in ANP. Methods: A literature search was conducted in PubMed and Scopus from inception until September 2024 for studies reporting the comparison between early and late intervention. Results: Early intervention, within 4 weeks of symptom onset, often involves drainage via percutaneous, endoscopic, or combined methods. Delayed intervention occurs after 4 weeks of symptom onset. This can be conducted either surgically or via minimally invasive means. The results of this review reveal that the time of intervention for ANP plays an important role in the prognosis and the course of the disease. In particular, early intervention is associated with higher mortality, which is also the primary clinical outcome. Delayed intervention is also superior regarding secondary clinical outcomes, specifically the complications associated with the intervention. Thus, it is accompanied by fewer episodes of new-onset organ failure, bleeding, gastrointestinal fistula, pancreatic fistula, wound infection, endocrine pancreatic insufficiency, and other complications. Finally, delayed intervention results in shorter stays, both in hospitals and the ICU. Conclusions: Delayed intervention is clearly more effective than early intervention and should be preferred. However, early intervention appears to be both safe and effective, and it is feasible.

When to Intervene in Acute Necrotizing Pancreatitis: A Narrative Review of the Optimal Timing for Intervention Strategies

Introduction: Acute necrotizing pancreatitis (ANP) is the acute inflammation of pancreatic parenchyma, most commonly due to alcohol abuse or cholelithiasis. The treatment can be either conservative or invasive, including a variety of techniques; however, it has not yet been established if the intervention should be early or if it should be delayed. The aim of this review is to investigate the optimal time for intervention in ANP. Methods: A literature search was conducted in PubMed and Scopus from inception until September 2024 for studies reporting the comparison between early and late intervention. Results: Early intervention, within 4 weeks of symptom onset, often involves drainage via percutaneous, endoscopic, or combined methods. Delayed intervention occurs after 4 weeks of symptom onset. This can be conducted either surgically or via minimally invasive means. The results of this review reveal that the time of intervention for ANP plays an important role in the prognosis and the course of the disease. In particular, early intervention is associated with higher mortality, which is also the primary clinical outcome. Delayed intervention is also superior regarding secondary clinical outcomes, specifically the complications associated with the intervention. Thus, it is accompanied by fewer episodes of new-onset organ failure, bleeding, gastrointestinal fistula, pancreatic fistula, wound infection, endocrine pancreatic insufficiency, and other complications. Finally, delayed intervention results in shorter stays, both in hospitals and the ICU. Conclusions: Delayed intervention is clearly more effective than early intervention and should be preferred. However, early intervention appears to be both safe and effective, and it is feasible.

Early versus delayed necrosectomy in pancreatic necrosis: A population-based cohort study on readmission, healthcare utilization, and in-hospital mortality

BACKGROUND

Acute necrotizing pancreatitis is a severe and life-threatening condition. It poses a considerable challenge for clinicians due to its complex nature and the high risk of complications. Several minimally invasive and open necrosectomy procedures have been developed. Despite advancements in treatment modalities, the optimal timing to perform necrosectomy lacks consensus.

AIM

To evaluate the impact of necrosectomy timing on patients with pancreatic necrosis in the United States.

METHODS

A national retrospective cohort study was conducted using the 2016-2019 Nationwide Readmissions Database. Patients with non-elective admissions for pancreatic necrosis were identified. The participants were divided into two groups based on the necrosectomy timing: The early group received intervention within 48 hours, whereas the delayed group underwent the procedure after 48 hours. The various intervention techniques included endoscopic, percutaneous, or surgical necrosectomy. The major outcomes of interest were 30-day readmission rates, healthcare utilization, and inpatient mortality.

RESULTS

A total of 1309 patients with pancreatic necrosis were included. After propensity score matching, 349 cases treated with early necrosectomy were matched to 375 controls who received delayed intervention. The early cohort had a 30-day readmission rate of 8.6% compared to 4.8% in the delayed cohort (P = 0.040). Early necrosectomy had lower rates of mechanical ventilation (2.9% vs 10.9%, P < 0.001), septic shock (8% vs 19.5%, P < 0.001), and in-hospital mortality (1.1% vs 4.3%, P = 0.01). Patients in the early intervention group incurred lower healthcare costs, with median total charges of $52202 compared to $147418 in the delayed group. Participants in the early cohort also had a relatively shorter median length of stay (6 vs 16 days, P < 0.001). The timing of necrosectomy did not significantly influence the risk of 30-day readmission, with a hazard ratio of 0.56 (95% confidence interval: 0.31-1.02, P = 0.06).

CONCLUSION

Our findings show that early necrosectomy is associated with better clinical outcomes and lower healthcare costs. Delayed intervention does not significantly alter the risk of 30-day readmission.

Diagnosis and Management of Acute Pancreatitis

Acute pancreatitis (AP) is increasing in incidence across the world, and in all age groups. Major changes in management have occurred in the last decade. Avoiding total parenteral nutrition and prophylactic antibiotics, avoiding overly aggressive fluid resuscitation, initiating early feeding, avoiding endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography in the absence of concomitant cholangitis, same-admission cholecystectomy, and minimally invasive approaches to infected necrosis should now be standard of care. Increasing recognition of the risk of recurrence of AP, and progression to chronic pancreatitis, along with the unexpectedly high risk of diabetes and exocrine insufficiency after AP is the subject of large ongoing studies. In this review, we provide an update on important changes in management for this increasingly common disease.

Endoscopic management of pancreatic collections. Endoscopic Ultrasound Group, Spanish Society of Digestive Endoscopy (GSEED-USE) Clinical Guidelines

Acute pancreatitis is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. It can develop complications such as fluid collections and necrosis. Infection of necrosis occurs in about 20-40 % of patients with severe acute pancreatitis, and is associated with organ failure and worse prognosis. In the past few years the treatment of pancreatic collections has shifted from open surgery to minimally invasive techniques such as endoscopic ultrasound-guided drainage. These guidelines from a selection of experts among the Endoscopic Ultrasound Group, Spanish Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (GSEED-USE) are intended to provide advice on the management of pancreatic collections based on a thorough review of the available scientific evidence. It also reflects the experience and clinical practice of the authors, who are advanced endoscopists or clinical pancreatologists with extensive experience in managing patients with acute pancreatitis.

Endoscopic Drainage of Pancreatic Fluid Collections

Pancreatic fluid collections (PFCs) are commonly encountered complications of acute and chronic pancreatitis. With the advancement of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) techniques and devices, EUS-directed transmural drainage of symptomatic or infected PFCs has become the standard of care. Traditionally, plastic stents have been used for drainage, although lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMSs) are now favored by most endoscopists due to ease of use and reduced procedure time. While safety has been repeatedly demonstrated, follow-up care for these patients is critical as delayed adverse events of indwelling drains are known to occur.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided pancreatic fluid collection drainage: Where are we?

Pancreatic fluid collections (PFCs) result from injury to the pancreas from acute or chronic pancreatitis, surgery, or trauma. Management of these collections has evolved over the last 2 decades. The choice of interventions includes percutaneous, endoscopic, minimally invasive surgery, or a combined approach. Endoscopic drainage is the drainage of PFCs by creating an artificial communication between the collection and gastrointestinal lumen that is maintained by placing a stent across the fistulous tract. In this editorial, we endeavored to update the current status of endoscopic ultrasound-guided drainage of PFCs.

Infected pancreatic necrosis-Current trends in management

Acute necrotizing pancreatitis is a common gastrointestinal disease requiring hospitalization and multiple interventions resulting in higher morbidity and mortality. Development of infection in such necrotic tissue is one of the sentinel events in natural history of necrotizing pancreatitis. Infected necrosis develops in around 1/3rd of patients with necrotizing pancreatitis resulting in higher mortality. So, timely diagnosis of infected necrosis using clinical, laboratory and radiological parameters is of utmost importance. Though initial conservative management with antibiotics and organ support system is effective in some patients, a majority of patients still requires drainage of the collection by various modalities. Mode of drainage of infected pancreatic necrosis depends on various factors such as the clinical status of the patient, location and characteristics of collection and availability of the expertise and includes endoscopic, percutaneous and minimally invasive or open surgical approaches. Endoscopic drainage has proved to be a game changer in the management of infected pancreatic necrosis in the last decade with rapid evolution in procedure techniques, development of novel metal stent and dedicated necrosectomy devices for better clinical outcome. Despite widespread adoption of endoscopic transluminal drainage of pancreatic necrosis with excellent clinical outcomes, peripheral collections are still not amenable for endoscopic drainage and in such scenario, the role of percutaneous catheter drainage or minimally invasive surgical necrosectomy cannot be understated. In a nutshell, the management of patients with infected pancreatic necrosis involves a multi-disciplinary team including a gastroenterologist, an intensivist, an interventional radiologist and a surgeon for optimum clinical outcomes.

Factors affecting the time interval of endoscopic ultrasound-guided endoscopic necrosectomy of walled-off pancreatic necrosis: A retrospective single-center study in China

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided endoscopic necrosectomy is an effective and minimally invasive treatment for walled-off pancreatic necrosis (WON). This study investigated the factors affecting the time interval of EUS-guided WON necrosectomy.

METHODS

Patients who received EUS-guided necrosectomy in the Endoscopy Center of the First Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University in the past 5 years were retrospectively analyzed. Data including general information, etiology, blood biochemical indexes, physical signs, CT severity grade, location, size, solid necrotic ratio, type and number of stents, and immediate necrosectomy were collected to explore the relationships between these factors and the interval of endoscopic necrosectomy.

RESULTS

A total of 51 WON patients were included. No significant correlation has been noted between the endoscopic debridement interval and the following indexes, including the patients' general information, the etiology of pancreatitis, blood biochemical indexes (leukocyte count, neutrophil percentage, C-reactive protein), preoperative fever, and WON's location and size, type and number of stents, and whether immediate necrosectomy. However, there were significant differences between the debridement interval and the modified CT Severity Index (MCTSI) (p < 0.001), the solid necrotic ratio of WON (p < 0.001) before the intervention, postoperative fever (p = 0.038), C-reactive protein increasing (p = 0.012) and fever before reintervention (p = 0.024).

CONCLUSIONS

The EUS-measured solid necrotic ratio, the MCTSI, postoperative fever, C-reactive protein increase, and fever before reintervention in patients affect the time interval of EUS-guided endoscopic necrosectomy in WON patients. These five indicators may be promisingly effective in predicting and managing endoscopic necrosectomy intervals.

Early Endoscopic Interventions for Pancreatic Necrosis: Indications, Technique, and Outcomes

Endoscopic transmural drainage is usually performed for symptomatic well-encapsulated walled-off necrosis (WON) that usually develops in the delayed phase (> 4 weeks after disease onset) of acute necrotising pancreatitis (ANP). Endoscopic drainage is usually not advocated in the early (< 4 weeks after disease onset) stage of illness because of the risk of complications due to an incompletely formed encapsulating wall and poor demarcation of viable from necrotic tissue. However, emerging data from expert tertiary care centres over the last few years shows that the early endoscopic transluminal drainage approach is effective and safe. The development of lumen-apposing metal stents and better accessories for endoscopic necrosectomy has fuelled the expansion of indications of endoscopic drainage of pancreatic necrosis. However, early endoscopic drainage is associated with higher rates of adverse events; therefore, careful patient selection is paramount. This article will review the current indications, techniques and outcomes of early endoscopic transluminal drainage in pancreatic necrotic collections.

Epidemiology, treatment and outcomes of infected pancreatic necrosis in France: a bicenter study

INTRODUCTION

Acute necrotizing pancreatitis (ANP) mortality increases when pancreatic necrosis is infected (IPN). Current treatment of IPN relies on prolonged antibiotic therapies associated with a step-up strategy of drainage. The objective of this study was to analyze IPN treatment outcomes in two referral centers in France.

METHODS

Data of consecutive patients with documented IPN hospitalized in two expert centers in France between 2014 and 2019 were retrospectively reviewed. The composite primary outcome was the proportion of unsuccessful management outcome, defined as new emergency drainage to treat sepsis with organ failure, an unplanned new antibiotic course, an unplanned prolongation of antibiotic course and/or death by septic shock, within three months following the diagnosis of ANP.

RESULTS

All in all, 187 patients (138 males; 74.0%), with documented IPN were included. The most frequently identified microorganism was Escherichia coli (26.2%). Ninety-eight patients (52.4%) were admitted to an intensive care unit or resuscitation ward within the first two days of ANP care. Overall, 126 patients (67.4%) endured an unsuccessful outcome: new emergency drainage to treat acute sepsis (62.0%), unplanned new antibiotic course (47.1%), unplanned prolongation of antibiotic course (44.9%) and/or death by septic shock complicating IPN (8.0%).

CONCLUSION

The unfavorable evolution in two thirds of patients shows that determination of optimal drainage timing and choice of antibiotic therapy remain major challenges in 2024.

A New Step-Up Dual Endoscopic Approach for Large-Size Infected Pancreatic Necrosis: Percutaneous Endoscopic Necrosectomy Followed by Transluminal Endoscopic Drainage/Necrosectomy

BACKGROUND

Acute pancreatitis in 10% to 20% of cases can be associated with necrosis of the pancreatic gland, peripancreatic tissue, or both. We report a case series of a new endoscopic approach to treat infected pancreatic necrosis (IPN).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Consecutive patients with IPN, extending from the perigastric area up to the paracolic gutters or into the pelvis, were prospectively studied from January 2017 to June 2022. The treatment protocol was radiologic percutaneous drainage as the first step, followed by fully covered metal stent placement (FC-SEMS) in the track of the catheter. Percutaneous endoscopic necrosectomy (PEN) was performed 2 to 4 days later using a flexible endoscope through the percutaneous tract. About 2 to 4 weeks later, when a matured sac was visible, EUS-guided endoscopic transluminal drainage (ETD) with lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMS) was performed. Control of sepsis with resolution of collection(s) was the primary outcome measure.

RESULTS

We included 18 patients, males in 50% of cases with age 60±12 years old. Most frequent cause of pancreatitis was biliary (7 cases) followed by alcoholic in 6 cases; in 3 cases pancreatitis was caused by hyperlipemia and in 2 cases was idiopathic. Mean size of WON was 18±2 cm. For PEN, SEMSs used were esophageal FC-SEMS. LAMS used for ETD were Hot Axios, Hot Spaxus and Nagistent. Mean time of endoscopic intervention for PEN and ETD was 18±3 and 37±4 days, respectively. In 5 cases adverse events occurred: 3 cases of overinflations resolved with introduction of Verres needles in abdomen. In 2 cases postprocedural GI bleeding required endoscopic intervention. In all cases control of sepsis was reached together with resolution of collections. No cases of deaths were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Step-up percutaneous and transluminal endoscopic necrosectomy therapy is an effective strategy for large-size IPN with combined central and peripheral necrosis.

Long-Term Outcome of Immediate Versus Postponed Intervention in Patients With Infected Necrotizing Pancreatitis (POINTER): Multicenter Randomized Trial

OBJECTIVE

To compare the long-term outcomes of immediate drainage versus the postponed-drainage approach in patients with infected necrotizing pancreatitis.

BACKGROUND

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.

METHODS

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.

RESULTS

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.

CONCLUSIONS

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.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN33682933.

Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Drainage of Pancreatic Fluid Collections: Not All Queries Are Already Solved

Pancreatic fluid collections (PFCs) are well-known complications of acute pancreatitis. The overinfection of these collections leads to a worsening of the prognosis with an increase in the morbidity and mortality rate. The primary strategy for managing infected pancreatic necrosis (IPN) or symptomatic PFCs is a minimally invasive step-up approach, with endosonography-guided (EUS-guided) transmural drainage and debridement as the preferred and less invasive method. Different stents are available to drain PFCs: self-expandable metal stents (SEMSs), double pigtail stents (DPPSs), or lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMSs). In particular, LAMSs are useful when direct endoscopic necrosectomy is needed, as they allow easy access to the necrotic cavity; however, the rate of adverse events is not negligible, and to date, the superiority over DPPSs is still debated. Moreover, the timing for necrosectomy, the drainage technique, and the concurrent medical management are still debated. In this review, we focus attention on indications, timing, techniques, complications, and particularly on aspects that remain under debate concerning the EUS-guided drainage of PFCs.

Indications, Techniques and Future Perspectives of Walled-off Necrosis Management

Necrotizing pancreatitis is a complex clinical condition burdened with significant morbidity and mortality. In recent years, the huge progress of interventional endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) has allowed a shift in the management of pancreatic necrotic collections from surgical/percutaneous approaches to mini-invasive endoscopic internal drainage and debridement procedures. The development of lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMSs), devices specifically dedicated to transmural EUS interventions, further prompted the diffusion of such techniques. Several studies have reported excellent outcomes of endoscopic interventions, in terms of technical success, clinical efficacy and safety compared to surgical interventions, and thus endoscopic drainage of walled-off necrosis (WON) has become a fundamental tool for the management of such conditions. Despite these advancements, some critical unresolved issues remain. Endoscopic therapeutic approaches to WON are still heterogeneous among different centers and experts. A standardized protocol on indication, timing and technique of endoscopic necrosectomy is still lacking, and experts often adopt a strategy based on personal experience more than robust data from well-conducted studies. In this review, we will summarize the available evidence on endoscopic management of WON and will discuss some unanswered questions in this rapidly evolving field.

Recent Treatment Strategies for Acute Pancreatitis

Acute pancreatitis (AP) is a leading gastrointestinal disease that causes hospitalization. Initial management in the first 72 h after the diagnosis of AP is pivotal, which can influence the clinical outcomes of the disease. Initial management, including assessment of disease severity, fluid resuscitation, pain control, nutritional support, antibiotic use, and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in gallstone pancreatitis, plays a fundamental role in AP treatment. Recent updates for fluid resuscitation, including treatment goals, the type, rate, volume, and duration, have triggered a paradigm shift from aggressive hydration with normal saline to goal-directed and non-aggressive hydration with lactated Ringer's solution. Evidence of the clinical benefit of early enteral feeding is becoming definitive. The routine use of prophylactic antibiotics is generally limited, and the procalcitonin-based algorithm of antibiotic use has recently been investigated to distinguish between inflammation and infection in patients with AP. Although urgent ERCP (within 24 h) should be performed for patients with gallstone pancreatitis and cholangitis, urgent ERCP is not indicated in patients without cholangitis. The management approach for patients with local complications of AP, particularly those with infected necrotizing pancreatitis, is discussed in detail, including indications, timing, anatomical considerations, and selection of intervention methods. Furthermore, convalescent treatment, including cholecystectomy in gallstone pancreatitis, lipid-lowering medications in hypertriglyceridemia-induced AP, and alcohol intervention in alcoholic pancreatitis, is also important for improving the prognosis and preventing recurrence in patients with AP. This review focuses on recent updates on the initial and convalescent management strategies for AP.

Upfront endoscopic necrosectomy or step-up endoscopic approach for infected necrotising pancreatitis (DESTIN): a single-blinded, multicentre, randomised trial

BACKGROUND

Although the preferred management approach for patients with infected necrotising pancreatitis is endoscopic transluminal stenting followed by endoscopic necrosectomy as step-up treatment if there is no clinical improvement, the optimal timing of necrosectomy is unclear. Therefore, we aimed to compare outcomes between performing upfront necrosectomy at the index intervention versus as a step-up measure in patients with infected necrotising pancreatitis.

METHODS

This single-blinded, multicentre, randomised trial (DESTIN) was done at six tertiary care hospitals (five hospitals in the USA and one hospital in India). We enrolled patients (aged ≥18 years) with confirmed or suspected infected necrotising pancreatitis with a necrosis extent of at least 33% who were amenable to endoscopic ultrasound-guided drainage. By use of computer-generated permuted block randomisation (block size four), eligible patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either upfront endoscopic necrosectomy or endoscopic step-up treatment. Endoscopists were not masked to treatment allocation, but participants, research coordinators, and the statistician were. Lumen-apposing metal stents (20 mm diameter; 10 mm saddle length) were used for drainage in both groups. In the upfront group, direct necrosectomy was performed immediately after stenting in the same treatment session. In the step-up group, direct necrosectomy or additional drainage was done at a subsequent treatment session if there was no clinical improvement (resolution of any criteria of systemic inflammatory response syndrome or sepsis or one or more organ failure and at least a 25% percentage decrease in necrotic collection size) 72 h after stenting. The primary outcome was the number of reinterventions per patient to achieve treatment success from index intervention to 6 months' follow-up, which was defined as symptom relief in conjunction with disease resolution on CT. Reinterventions included any endoscopic or radiological procedures performed for necrosectomy or additional drainage after the index intervention, excluding the follow-up procedure at 4 weeks for stent removal. All endpoints and safety were analysed by intention-to-treat. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT05043415 and NCT04113499, and recruitment and follow-up have been completed.

FINDINGS

Between Nov 27, 2019, and Oct 26, 2022, 183 patients were assessed for eligibility and 70 patients (24 [34%] women and 46 [66%] men) were randomly assigned to receive upfront necrosectomy (n=37) or step-up treatment (n=33) and included in the intention-to-treat population. At the time of index intervention, seven (10%) of 70 patients had organ failure and 64 (91%) patients had walled-off necrosis. The median number of reinterventions was significantly lower for upfront necrosectomy (1 [IQR 0 to 1] than for the step-up approach (2 [1 to 4], difference -1 [95% CI -2 to 0]; p=0·0027). Mortality did not differ between groups (zero patients in the upfront necrosectomy group vs two [6%] in the step-up group, difference -6·1 percentage points [95% CI -16·5 to 4·5]; p=0·22), nor did overall disease-related adverse events (12 [32%] patients in the upfront necrosectomy group vs 16 [48%] patients in the step-up group, difference -16·1 percentage points [-37·4 to 7·0]; p=0·17), nor procedure-related adverse events (four [11%] patients in the upfront necrosectomy group vs eight [24%] patients in the step-up group, difference -13·4 percentage points [-30·8 to 5·0]; p=0·14).

INTERPRETATION

In stabilised patients with infected necrotising pancreatitis and fully encapsulated collections, an approach incorporating upfront necrosectomy at the index intervention rather than as a step-up measure could safely reduce the number of reinterventions required to achieve treatment success.

FUNDING

None.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided drainage of early pancreatic necrotic collection: Single-center retrospective study

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided drainage is the standard of care for drainage of pancreatic necrosis. Though initially it was mainly used for drainage of only walled-off necrosis, recently, a few studies have also shown its safety in the management of acute necrotic collections. We did a retrospective study to evaluate the safety and efficacy of EUS-guided drainage in the early phase of pancreatitis as compared to interventions in the late phase.

METHODS

We retrieved baseline disease-related, procedure-related and outcome-related details of patients who underwent EUS-guided drainage of pancreatic necrosis. Patients were divided into early (≤ 28 days from onset of pancreatitis) or delayed (> 28 days) drainage groups. Both groups were compared for disease-related characteristics and outcomes.

RESULTS

Total 101 patients were included in the study. The mean age of included patients was 35.54 ± 13.58 years and 75 were male. Thirty-five patients (34.7%) underwent early drainage. In the early group, a majority of patients underwent intervention due to infected collection (88.6% vs. 18.2%; p < 0.001). More patients in the early group had < 30% wall formation (28.6% vs. 0%; p < 0.001) and > 30% solid debris within the collection (42.9% vs. 15.2%; p = 0.005). Patients in the early group were also more likely to require endoscopic necrosectomy (57.1% vs. 27.3%; p = 0.003) and additional percutaneous drainage (31.4% vs. 12.1%; p = 0.018). Overall, three patients in the early group and one patient in the delayed group had procedure-related complications. Four patients in the early group and one patient in the delayed group succumbed to illness (p = 0.029).

CONCLUSION

Though delayed interventions remain standard of care in the management of acute pancreatitis, some patients may require early intervention due to infected collection with deteriorating clinical status. Early EUS-guided interventions in such carefully selected patients have in similar clinical outcomes and complication rates compared to delayed intervention. However, such patients are more likely to require additional endoscopic or percutaneous interventions.

Endoscopic versus minimally invasive surgical approach for infected necrotizing pancreatitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Acute pancreatitis is a common condition of the digestive system, but sometimes it develops into severe cases. In about 10-20% of patients, necrosis of the pancreas or its periphery occurs. Although most have aseptic necrosis, 30% of cases will develop infectious necrotizing pancreatitis. Infected necrotizing pancreatitis (INP) requires a critical treatment approach. Minimally invasive surgical approach (MIS) and endoscopy are the management methods. This meta-analysis compares the outcomes of MIS and endoscopic treatments.

METHODS

We searched a medical database until December 2022 to compare the results of endoscopic and MIS procedures for INP. We selected eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that reported treatment complications for the meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Five RCTs comparing a total of 284 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Among them, 139 patients underwent MIS, while 145 underwent endoscopic procedures. The results showed significant differences (p < 0.05) in the risk ratios (RRs) for major complications (RR: 0.69, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.49-0.97), new onset of organ failure (RR: 0.29, 95% CI: 0.11-0.82), surgical site infection (RR: 0.26, 95% CI: 0.07-0.92), fistula or perforation (RR: 0.27, 95% CI: 0.12-0.64), and pancreatic fistula (RR: 0.14, 95% CI: 0.05-0.45). The hospital stay was significantly shorter for the endoscopic group compared to the MIS group, with a mean difference of 6.74 days (95% CI: -12.94 to -0.54). There were no significant differences (p > 0.05) in the RR for death, bleeding, incisional hernia, percutaneous drainage, pancreatic endocrine deficiency, pancreatic exocrine deficiency, or the need for enzyme use.

CONCLUSIONS

Endoscopic management of INP performs better compared to surgical treatment due to its lower complication rate and higher patient life quality.

Time to think prime times for treatment of necrotizing pancreatitis: Pendulum conundrum

Pancreatic fluid collections (PFCs) typically develop as local complications of acute pancreatitis and complicate the clinical course of patients with acute pancreatitis and potentially fatal clinical outcomes. Interventions are required in cases of symptomatic walled-off necrosis (WON) (matured PFCs with necrosis) and pancreatic pseudocysts (matured PFCs without necrosis). In the management of necrotizing pancreatitis and WON, endoscopic ultrasound-guided transluminal drainage combined with on-demand endoscopic necrosectomy (i.e. the step-up approach) is increasingly used as a less invasive treatment modality compared with a surgical or percutaneous approach. Through the substantial research efforts and development of specific devices and stents (e.g. lumen-apposing metal stents), endoscopic techniques of PFC management have been standardized to some extent. However, there has been no consensus about timing of carrying out each treatment step; for instance, it is uncertain when direct endoscopic necrosectomy should be initiated and finished and when a plastic or metal stent should be removed following clinical treatment success. Despite emerging evidence for the effectiveness of noninterventional supportive treatment (e.g. antibiotics, nutritional support, irrigation of the cavity), there has been only limited data on the timing of starting and stopping the treatment. Large studies are required to optimize the timing of those treatment options and improve clinical outcomes of patients with PFCs. In this review, we summarize the current available evidence on the indications and timing of interventional and supportive treatment modalities for this patient population and discussed clinical unmet needs that should be addressed in future research.

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided versus percutaneous drainage for the management of post-operative fluid collections after distal pancreatectomy

BACKGROUND

Post-operative pancreatic fluid collections (POPFCs) can be drained using percutaneous or endoscopic approaches. The primary aim of this study was to compare rates of clinical success between endoscopic ultrasound-guided drainage (EUSD) with percutaneous drainage (PTD) in the management of symptomatic POPFCs after distal pancreatectomy. Secondary outcomes included technical success, total number of interventions, time to resolution, rates of adverse events (AEs), and POPFC recurrence.

METHODS

Adults who underwent distal pancreatectomy from January 2012 to August 2021 and developed symptomatic POPFC in the resection bed were retrospectively identified from a single academic center database. Demographic data, procedural data, and clinical outcomes were abstracted. Clinical success was defined as symptomatic improvement and radiographic resolution without requiring an alternate drainage modality. Quantitative variables were compared using a two-tailed t-test and categorical data were compared using Chi-squared or Fisher's exact tests.

RESULTS

Of 1046 patients that underwent distal pancreatectomy, 217 met study inclusion criteria (median age 60 years, 51.2% female), of whom 106 underwent EUSD and 111 PTD. There were no significant differences in baseline pathology and POPFC size. PTD was generally performed earlier after surgery (10 vs. 27 days; p < 0.001) and more commonly in the inpatient setting (82.9% vs. 49.1%; p < 0.001). EUSD was associated with a significantly higher rate of clinical success (92.5% vs. 76.6%; p = 0.001), fewer median number of interventions (2 vs. 4; p < 0.001), and lower rate of POPFC recurrence (7.6% vs. 20.7%; p = 0.007). AEs were similar between EUSD (10.4%) and PTD (6.3%, p = 0.28), with approximately one-third of EUSD AEs due to stent migration.

CONCLUSION

In patients with POPFCs after distal pancreatectomy, delayed drainage with EUSD was associated with higher rates of clinical success, fewer interventions, and lower rates of recurrence than earlier drainage with PTD.

Therapeutic Endoscopic Ultrasound: Current Indications and Future Perspectives

The transcendence of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) from diagnostic to therapeutic tool has revolutionized management options in the field of gastroenterology. Through EUS-guided methods, pancreaticobiliary obstruction can now be utilized as an alternative to surgical and percutaneous approaches. This modality also allows for gallbladder drainage in patients who are not ideal operative candidates. By utilizing its unique imaging capabilities, EUS also allows for drainage access points in cases of gastric outlet obstruction as well as windows to ablate pancreatic cystic lesions. As technical progress continues to evolve, interventional gastroenterology continues to push the envelope of minimally invasive therapeutic procedures in a multidisciplinary setting. In this comprehensive review, we set out to describe current indications and innovations through EUS.

Early versus late endoscopic treatment of pancreatic necrotic collections: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background and study aims Recently studies have compared early (<4 weeks) vs. late or standard (>4 weeks) endoscopic treatment of pancreatic necrotic collections (PNC) and have reported favorable results for early treatment. In this meta-analysis, we compared the efficacy and safety of early vs. late endoscopic treatment of PNC. Patients and methods We reviewed several databases from inception to September 30, 2021 to identify studies that compared early with late endoscopic treatment of PNC. Our outcomes of interest were adverse events (AEs), resolution of PNC, performance of direct endoscopic necrosectomy, need for further interventions, and mean number of endoscopic necrosectomy sessions. We calculated pooled risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for categorical variables and mean differences (MDs) with 95% CIs for continuous variables. Data were analyzed by random effect model. Heterogeneity was assessed by I 2 statistic. Results We included four studies with 427 patients. We found no significant difference in rates of AEs, RR (95% CI) 1.70 (range, 0.56-5.20), resolution of necrotic or fluid collections, RR (95% CI) 0.89 (range, 0.71-1.11), need for further interventions, RR (95% CI) 1.47 (range, 0.70-3.08), direct necrosectomy, RR (95% CI) 1.39 (range, 0.22-8.80), mortality, RR (95% CI) 2.37 (range, 0.26-21.72) and mean number of endoscopic necrosectomy sessions, MD (95% CI) 1.58 (range,-0.20-3.36) between groups. Conclusions Early endoscopic treatment of PNC can be considered for indications such as infected necrosis or sterile necrosis with symptoms or complications; however, future large multicenter studies are required to further evaluate its safety.

Percutaneous endoscopic necrosectomy for walled-off necrosis in the retroperitoneal space of the elderly: A case report

BACKGROUND

Walled-off necrosis (WON) is a late complication of acute pancreatitis possibly with a fatal outcome. Even for WON spreading to the retroperitoneal space, percutaneous endoscopic necrosectomy (PEN) can be an alternate approach to surgical necrosectomy, particularly for the older individuals or patients with poor condition because of WON.

CASE SUMMARY

An 88-year-old man was admitted to our hospital with a jaundice. Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) was performed to improve jaundice; however, post-ERCP pancreatitis developed. The inflammation of pancreatitis spread widely from the right retroperitoneal cavity to the pelvis, and WON was formed 4 wk later. A percutaneous drainage tube was placed into the WON under computed tomography guidance. However, the drainage did not ameliorate clinical symptoms including fever, which assured less invasive necrosectomy. A metallic stent for the upper gastrointestinal (GI) tract was placed from the percutaneous drainage route. An upper GI endoscope was inserted into the inside of the WON through the metallic stent, and the necrotic tissues were bluntly removed with a snare forceps. Ten times of these necrosectomies resulted in the near-complete removal of necrotic tissues. These procedures consequently abated his fever and remarkable improvement in blood tests.

CONCLUSION

PEN for WON occurring in the retroperitoneal space was safe and effective for very old individuals.

Endoscopic treatment of pancreatic necrosis: Still searching for perfection!

Over last few years, there has been a paradigm shift in the management of infected pancreatic necrosis with endoscopic and minimally invasive "step-up" management approach replacing open surgical necrosectomy. Because of being associated with reduced occurrence of new onset multi-organ failure, external pancreatic fistulae, shorter hospital stay, lower costs, and better quality of life compared with minimally invasive surgical approach, endoscopic "step-up" management approach is the preferred intervention for endoscopically accessible pancreatic necrotic collections at expert centers with endoscopic expertise. Development of lumen apposing metal stents and improvised accessories for interventional endoscopic ultrasound has revolutionized the endoscopic management of pancreatic necrosis making it more effective and safer. Despite these promising developments, endoscopic transluminal necrosectomy (ETN) remains the Achilles heel. Lack of dedicated endoscopic accessories, poor endoscopic visualization within the necrotic cavity, limited diameter of the instrument channel of the endoscope that is a significant impediment to remove large amount of necrotic material, and uncertain ability to avoid vessels and vital structures in the necrotic cavity are important limitations during endoscopic necrosectomy. Recent devices and solutions including use of cap assisted necrosectomy, over the scope grasper and powered endoscopic debridement device are welcome steps in our pursuit for an ideal, safer, and efficacious ETN device. This review will discuss recent advances as well as challenges in the endoscopic management of pancreatic necrosis.

Endoscopic ultrasound drainage of pancreatic fluid collections: do we know enough about the best approach?

Pancreatic fluid collection often occurs as a local complication of acute pancreatitis, and drainage is indicated in symptomatic patients. The drainage may be surgical, percutaneous, or endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) guided. In symptomatic collections older than 4 weeks and localized in the upper abdomen, EUS-guided drainage is the first choice of treatment. Lumen-apposing metal stents are useful in cases of walled-off necrosis, facilitating access to the cavity; however, they do not reduce the number of necrosectomy sessions required. In most pancreatic pseudocysts requiring drainage, plastic stents remain the first choice of treatment. This review aimed to summarize the principles and techniques of step-up therapy of pancreatic fluid collections, including preprocedural and postprocedural assessment and practical approaches of drainage and necrosectomy, making available evidence more accessible to endoscopists aiming to train for this procedure. Successful and safe EUS drainage connotes early recognition and treatment of complications and the presence of a multidisciplinary team for optimal patient management. However, the best time for necrosectomy, modality of drainage method (lumen-apposing metal stents or plastic stents), and duration of antibiotherapy are still under evaluation.

Evolution of interventional endoscopic ultrasound

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) has become an indispensable modality for the assessment of the gastrointestinal tract and adjacent structures since its origin in the 1980s. Following the development of the linear echoendoscope, EUS has evolved from a purely diagnostic modality to a sophisticated tool for intervention, with numerous luminal, pancreaticobiliary, and hepatic applications. Broadly, these applications may be subdivided into three categories: transluminal drainage or access procedures, injection therapy, and EUS-guided liver interventions. Transluminal drainage or access procedures include management of pancreatic fluid collection, EUS-guided biliary drainage, EUS-guided bile duct drainage, EUS-guided pancreatic duct drainage, and enteral anastomosis formation. Injection therapies include therapeutic EUS-guided injections for management of malignancies accessible by EUS. EUS-guided liver applications include EUS-guided liver biopsy, EUS-guided portal pressure gradient measurement, and EUS-guided vascular therapies. In this review, we discuss the origins of each of these EUS applications, evolution of techniques leading to the current status, and future directions of EUS-guided interventional therapy.

Current trends in acute pancreatitis: Diagnostic and therapeutic challenges

Acute pancreatitis (AP) is an inflammatory disease of the pancreas, which can progress to severe AP, with a high risk of death. It is one of the most complicated and clinically challenging of all disorders affecting the abdomen. The main causes of AP are gallstone migration and alcohol abuse. Other causes are uncommon, controversial and insufficiently explained. The disease is primarily characterized by inappropriate activation of trypsinogen, infiltration of inflammatory cells, and destruction of secretory cells. According to the revised Atlanta classification, severity of the disease is categorized into three levels: Mild, moderately severe and severe, depending upon organ failure and local as well as systemic complications. Various methods have been used for predicting the severity of AP and its outcome, such as clinical evaluation, imaging evaluation and testing of various biochemical markers. However, AP is a very complex disease and despite the fact that there are of several clinical, biochemical and imaging criteria for assessment of severity of AP, it is not an easy task to predict its subsequent course. Therefore, there are existing controversies regarding diagnostic and therapeutic modalities, their effectiveness and complications in the treatment of AP. The main reason being the fact, that the pathophysiologic mechanisms of AP have not been fully elucidated and need to be studied further. In this editorial article, we discuss the efficacy of the existing diagnostic and therapeutic modalities, complications and treatment failure in the management of AP.

Comparison of early and late intervention for necrotizing pancreatitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

Postponed open necrosectomy or minimally invasive intervention has become the treatment option for necrotizing pancreatitis. Nevertheless, several studies point to the safety and efficacy of early intervention for necrotizing pancreatitis. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare clinical outcomes of acute necrotizing pancreatitis between early and late intervention.

METHODS

Literature search was performed in multiple databases for articles that compared the safety and clinical outcomes of early (<4 weeks from the onset of pancreatitis) versus late intervention (≥4 weeks from the onset of pancreatitis) for necrotizing pancreatitis published up to August 31, 2022. The meta-analysis was performed to determine pooled odds ratio (OR) of mortality rate and procedure-related complications.

RESULTS

Fourteen studies were included in the final analysis. For open necrosectomy intervention, the overall pooled OR of mortality rate with the late intervention compared with early intervention was 7.09 (95% confidence interval [CI] 2.33-21.60; I2  = 54%; P = 0.0006). For minimally invasive intervention, the overall pooled OR of mortality rate with the late intervention compared with early intervention was 1.56 (95% CI 1.11-2.20; I2  = 0%; P = 0.01). The overall pooled OR of pancreatic fistula with the late minimally invasive intervention compared with early intervention was 2.49 (95% CI 1.75-3.52; I2  = 0%; P < 0.00001).

CONCLUSION

These results showed the benefit of late interventions in patients with necrotizing pancreatitis in both minimally invasive procedures and open necrosectomy. Late intervention is preferred in the management of necrotizing pancreatitis.

Controversies in the management of acute pancreatitis: An update

This review summarized the current controversies in the management of acute pancreatitis (AP). The controversies in management range from issues involving fluid resuscitation, nutrition, the role of antibiotics and antifungals, which analgesic to use, role of anticoagulation and intervention for complications in AP. The interventions vary from percutaneous drainage, endoscopy or surgery. Active research and emerging data are helping to formulate better guidelines. The available evidence favors crystalloids, although the choice and type of fluid resuscitation is an area of dynamic research. The nutrition aspect does not have controversy as of now as early enteral feeding is preferred most often than not. The empirical use of antibiotics and antifungals are gray zones, and more data is needed for conclusive guidelines. The choice of analgesic is being studied, and the recommendations are still evolving. The position of using anticoagulation is still awaiting consensus. The role of intervention is well established, although the modality is constantly changing and favoring endoscopy or percutaneous drainage rather than surgery. It is evident that more multicenter randomized controlled trials are required for establishing the standard of care in these crucial management issues of AP to improve the morbidity and mortality worldwide.

Management of Pancreatic Fluid Collections: An Evidence-based Approach

Managing pancreatic fluid collections (PFCs) remains a challenge for many clinicians. Recently, significant progress has been made in the therapy of PFCs, including improvements in technology and devices, as well as in the development of minimally invasive endoscopic techniques, many of which are proven less traumatic when compared with surgical options and more efficacious when compared with percutaneous techniques. This review will explore latest developments in the management of PFCs and how they incorporate into the current treatment algorithm.

Endoscopic transluminal drainage and necrosectomy for infected necrotizing pancreatitis: Progress and challenges

Infected necrotizing pancreatitis (INP) represents a severe condition in patients with acute pancreatitis. Invasive interventions are recommended in symptomatic INP. Growing evidence has suggested interventional strategies of INP evolving from traditional surgery to minimally invasive step-up endoscopic procedures. However, there is still no standardized protocol for endoscopic interventions. Recently, various studies have been published about the endoscopic management of INP. This article reviews published articles and guidelines to present the progress and challenges of endoscopic transluminal drainage and necrosectomy in INP.

Clinical Outcomes of the Endoscopic Step-Up Approach with or without Radiology-Guided Percutaneous Drainage for Symptomatic Walled-Off Pancreatic Necrosis

Background and objectives: Symptomatic walled-off pancreatic necrosis is a serious local complication of acute necrotising pancreatitis. The endoscopic step-up approach is the standard treatment for symptomatic walled-off pancreatic necrosis; however, adjunctive radiologic percutaneous drainage for this condition is controversial. This study compared the clinical and radiologic resolution of walled-off pancreatic necrosis achieved with the endoscopic step-up approach with or without radiology-guided percutaneous drainage. Material and Methods: This retrospective, single-centre cohort study enrolled patients with symptomatic walled-off pancreatic necrosis who underwent endoscopic transmural drainage (ETD) followed by directed endoscopic necrosectomy (DEN) with or without radiology-guided drainage. A total of 34 patients (endoscopic approach, n = 22; combined modality approach, n = 12) underwent the endoscopic step-up approach (ETD followed by DEN). Baseline characteristics, clinical success, and resolution of necrosis were compared between groups. Results: All patients achieved symptom resolution from walled-off pancreatic necrosis. The mean patient age was 58.4 years, and 21 (61.8%) were men. Following treatment with the endoscopic approach and combined modality approach, clinical success was achieved in 90.9% of patients within 11.5 days, and 66.7% of patients within 16.5 days, respectively. Both length of hospital stay (55 days vs. 71 days; p = 0.071) and time to complete radiologic resolution were shorter (93 days vs. 124 days; p = 0.23) in the endoscopic approach group. Conclusion: Both the endoscopic step-up approach and the CMD approach resulted in a favourably high clinical resolution rates in patients with symptomatic WON. However, clinical success rates seemed to be higher, and the length of hospital stay tended to be shorter in the endoscopic approach than in the CMD approach, as well as the significantly shorter necrosectomy time in each procedure was observed. Of note, these findings might be from some inherited differences in baseline characteristics of the patients between the two groups, and a randomized controlled trial with a larger sample size to verify these results is warranted.

Early (<4 weeks) versus standard (≥4 weeks) endoscopic drainage of pancreatic walled-off fluid collections: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Previous studies have demonstrated that the ideal time for drainage of walled-off pancreatic fluid collections is 4 to 6 weeks after their development. However, some pancreatic collections, notably infected pancreatic fluid collections, require earlier drainage. Nevertheless, the optimal timing of the first intervention is unclear, and consensus data are sparse. The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of EUS-guided drainage of pancreatic fluid collections <4 weeks after development compared with ≥4 weeks after development.

METHODS

Search strategies were developed for PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases from inception. Outcomes of interest were technical success, defined as successful endoscopic placement of a lumen-apposing metal stent; clinical success, defined as a reduction in cystic collection size; and procedure-related adverse events. A random-effects model was used for analysis, and results are expressed as odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI).

RESULTS

Six studies (630 patients) were included in our final analysis, in which 182 patients (28.9%) were enrolled in the early drainage cohort and 448 patients (71.1%) in the standard drainage cohort. The mean fluid collection size was 143.4 ± 18.8 mm for the early cohort versus 128 ± 19.7 mm for the standard cohort. Overall, technical success was equal in both cohorts. Clinical success did not favor either standard drainage or early drainage (OR, .39; 95% CI, .13-1.22; P = .11). No statistically significant differences were found in overall adverse events (OR, 1.67; 95% CI, .63-4.45; P = .31) or mortality (OR, 1.14; 95% CI, .29-4.48; P = .85). Hospital stay was longer for patients undergoing early drainage compared with standard drainage (23.7 vs 16.0 days, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Both early (<4 weeks) and standard (≥4 weeks) drainage of walled-off pancreatic fluid collections offer similar technical and clinical outcomes. Patients requiring endoscopic drainage should not be delayed for 4 weeks.

Timing of minimally invasive step-up intervention for symptomatic pancreatic necrotic fluid collections: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Minimally invasive step-up interventions are now the standard treatment recommended by current guidelines for symptomatic pancreatic necrotic fluid collections (PNFC); however, it is controversial whether delayed treatment after four weeks should always be used in patients who have failed conservative treatment and whose condition has not improved or worsened. The aim of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the impacts of the different timing of interventions on the clinical outcomes and prognosis of patients with symptomatic PNEC requiring intervention.

METHODS

We searched Embase, Cochrane Library, PubMed and Web of Science databases to identify comparative studies assessing the safety and efficacy of early and postponed interventions in treating symptomatic PNFC.

PRIMARY OUTCOME

Mortality. Secondary outcomes included some major complications, need for further minimally invasive necrosectomy and length of hospital stay.

RESULTS

This meta-analysis included ten studies (2 RCTs and 8 observational studies) with a total of 1178 symptomatic PNFC patients who required intervention. Pooled results showed that there was no significant difference between early minimally invasive intervention and postponed intervention in mortality(OR 1.41, 95%CI 0.93-2.12;p = 0.10) and the incidence of early and late complications, but the early intervention group had a significantly increased need for further minimally invasive necrosectomy compared with postponed intervention (OR 2.04,95%CI 1.04-4.03; p = 0.04). There was no increase in length of stay for patients who received early intervention compared to postponed drainage (MD 3.53, 95% CI -4.20, 11.27; p = 0.37).

CONCLUSION

Intervention before four weeks should be considered for patients with PNFC complicated by persistent organ failure or infections, who have been treated conservatively to the maximum extent possible.

Minimal-access video-assisted retroperitoneal and/or transperitoneal debridement (VARTD) in the management of infected walled-off pancreatic necrosis with deep extension: initial experience from a prospective single-arm study

BACKGROUND

The currently preferred minimally invasive approaches have substantially improved outcomes of infected walled-off pancreatic necrosis (iWON). However, iWON with deep extension (iWONde) still poses a tricky challenge for sufficient necrosis evacuation by one stand-alone approach, often requiring repeated interventions. The aim of this study was to assess the effectiveness and safety of a minimal-access video-assisted retroperitoneal and/or transperitoneal debridement (hereafter called VARTD) in the management of iWONde.

METHODS

Patients who had developed an iWONde were recruited to receive the VARTD in this prospective single-arm study. The primary efficacy endpoint was clinical improvement up to day 28 after the VARTD, defined as a ≥ 75% reduction in size of necrotic collection (in any axis) on CT and clinical resolution of sepsis or organ dysfunction. The primary safety endpoint was a composite of major complications or death during follow-up. Six-month postdischarge follow-up was available.

RESULTS

Between July 18, 2018, and November 12, 2020, we screened 95 patients with necrotizing pancreatitis; of these, 21 iWONde patients (mean [SD] age, 42.9 [11.7] years; 10 [48%] women) were finally enrolled. The primary efficacy endpoint was achieved by most participants (14/21, 67%). No participants required repeated interventions. The primary safety endpoint occurred in six patients (29%). Except one in-hospital death attributable to repeated intra-abdominal hemorrhage, others were discharged without any major complication.

CONCLUSIONS

The VARTD approach appears to have a reasonable efficacy with acceptable complication rates and thus might be an option for improving clinical management of iWONde.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This study is registered with Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (chictr.org.cn number, ChiCTR1800016950).

Safety and clinical outcomes of early dual modality drainage (< 28 days) compared to later drainage of pancreatic necrotic fluid collections: a propensity score-matched study

BACKGROUND

Necrotizing pancreatitis can be complicated by Necrotic Fluid Collections (NFC). Guidelines recommend waiting for 4 weeks from the onset of acute pancreatitis (AP) before considering endoscopic drainage. We aimed to compare outcomes and safety in patients undergoing early versus late drainage of NFC.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective review of all patients who underwent Dual Modality Drainage (DMD) [combined endoscopic and percutaneous drainage] for NFC from January 2007 to December 2020. Patients were stratified into the "early" group (DMD < 28 days from AP onset) and were matched to "late" (DMD ≥ 28 days) drainage group using propensity- core-matching. Primary outcomes of interest were technical success and adverse events. Secondary outcomes included clinical success, late complication rates, and mortality.

RESULTS

We identified 278 patients who underwent DMD for NFC. Thirty-nine belonged to the early group and were matched to 174 patients from the late group. Technical success was similar in both early and late groups (97.4% vs 99.4%: P = 0.244) as were the procedural and early post-procedural (< 14 days) adverse events rates (23.1% vs 27.6%: P = 0.565). Clinical success (92.3% vs 93.1%; P = 0.861) and late complication rates (23.1% vs 31.6%; P = 0.294) were similar. There were 2 deaths (5.7%) in the early vs. 9 (5.2%) in the late group, P = 0.991.

CONCLUSIONS

When performed in a tertiary care center with expertise in therapeutic endoscopic ultrasound, early drainage of NFC appears to be feasible and safe. Further studies are needed to validate our results.