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

Necrosectomy and its timing in relation to clinical outcomes of EUS-guided treatment of walled-off pancreatic necrosis: a multicenter study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

EUS-guided transmural drainage with on-demand endoscopic necrosectomy (EN) is increasingly used to manage walled-off necrosis (WON). It has not been fully elucidated how EN and its timing are correlated with treatment outcomes compared with the drainage-based approach.

METHODS

Within a multi-institutional cohort of 423 patients with pancreatic fluid collections, including 227 patients with WON, 153 patients were identified who received the step-up treatment after the initial EUS-guided drainage of symptomatic WON; this included 102 EN patients and 51 non-EN (drainage) patients. Using the competing-risks multivariable proportional hazards regression model with adjustment for potential confounders, we calculated subdistribution hazard ratios (SHRs) for clinical treatment success (WON resolution) according to use of EN and its timing.

RESULTS

Compared with drainage alone, the EN-based treatment was associated with a shorter time to clinical success with a multivariable SHR of 1.66 (95% confidence interval, 1.12-2.46). Despite a higher risk of procedure-related bleeding in the EN group, there were no differences in the rates of severe adverse events (7.8% vs 5.9% in the EN and non-EN groups, respectively) or mortality (6.9% vs 9.8%). In the EN-treated patients, the timing of EN was not statistically significantly associated with the time to clinical success (Ptrend = .34).

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients receiving EUS-guided treatment of symptomatic WON, the use of EN in addition to drainage procedures was associated with earlier disease resolution. Further research is desired to determine the optimal timing of initiating EN considering a risk-benefit balance and cost-effectiveness.

Comorbidity burden and outcomes of endoscopic ultrasound-guided treatment of pancreatic fluid collections: Multicenter study with nationwide data-based validation

OBJECTIVES

The appropriate holistic management is mandatory for successful endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided treatment of pancreatic fluid collections (PFCs). However, comorbidity status has not been fully examined in relation to clinical outcomes of this treatment.

METHODS

Using a multi-institutional cohort of 406 patients receiving EUS-guided treatment of PFCs in 2010-2020, we examined the associations of Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) with in-hospital mortality and other clinical outcomes. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was conducted with adjustment for potential confounders. The findings were validated using a Japanese nationwide inpatient database including 4053 patients treated at 486 hospitals in 2010-2020.

RESULTS

In the clinical multi-institutional cohort, CCI was positively associated with the risk of in-hospital mortality (Ptrend < 0.001). Compared to patients with CCI = 0, patients with CCI of 1-2, 3-5, and ≥6 had adjusted odds ratios (95% confidence intervals) of 0.76 (0.22-2.54), 5.39 (1.74-16.7), and 8.77 (2.36-32.6), respectively. In the nationwide validation cohort, a similar positive association was observed; the corresponding odds ratios (95% confidence interval) were 1.21 (0.90-1.64), 1.52 (0.92-2.49), and 4.84 (2.63-8.88), respectively (Ptrend < 0.001). The association of higher CCI with longer length of stay was observed in the nationwide cohort (Ptrend < 0.001), but not in the clinical cohort (Ptrend = 0.18). CCI was not associated with the risk of procedure-related adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

Higher levels of CCI were associated with a higher risk of in-hospital mortality among patients receiving EUS-guided treatment of PFCs, suggesting the potential of CCI in stratifying the periprocedural mortality risk.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The research based on the clinical data from the WONDERFUL cohort was registered with UMIN-CTR (registration number UMIN000044130).

Efficacy of Metal Stents Versus Plastic Stents for Treatment of Walled-Off Pancreatic Necrosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background

Walled-off necrosis (WON) is a potentially fatal condition best treated endoscopically with metal or plastic stents. This study compares the clinical outcomes of these stents.

Methods

PubMed and Cochrane were searched for trials comparing metal and plastic stents for WON. Primary outcomes were clinical and technical success.

Results

Seven studies with 230 metal stent patients and 226 plastic stent patients were included. Metal stents showed significantly shorter procedure times (SMD -0.80, 95% CI: -1.25 to -0.34), better 4-week clinical success (OR 1.94, 95% CI: 1.00 to 3.77), and higher procedure costs (SMD 1.38, 95% CI: 0.56 to 2.20). No significant differences were observed in hospital stay (SMD -0.05, 95% CI: -0.35 to 0.25), technical success (OR 1.45, 95% CI: 0.22 to 9.43), clinical success (OR 1.13, 95% CI: 0.54 to 2.39), interventions (SMD -0.02, 95% CI: -0.34 to 0.29), need for necrosectomy (RR 1.10, 95% CI: 0.59 to 2.04), necrosectomy sessions (SMD 0.35, 95% CI: -0.42 to 1.11), need for percutaneous drainage (RR 0.82, 95% CI: 0.36 to 1.85), stent migration (RR 0.88, 95% CI: 0.29 to 2.66), bleeding (RR 0.97, 95% CI: 0.53 to 1.75), WON recurrence (RR 1.66, 95% CI: 0.70 to 3.92), treatment failure (death) (RR 0.75, 95% CI: 0.37 to 1.53), disconnected pancreatic duct (RR 0.93, 95% CI: 0.79 to 1.11), and total cost (SMD -0.02, 95% CI: -0.29 to 0.26).

Conclusion

Metal stents offer shorter procedure time and better 4-week clinical success, although at a higher cost, with most clinical outcomes showing no significant differences between stent types.

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.

Disconnected pancreatic duct syndrome: diagnostic and therapeutic challenges and future directions

INTRODUCTION

Disconnected pancreatic duct syndrome (DPDS) is a pathological condition that causes various symptoms due to the continuous secretion of pancreatic enzymes from the pancreas upstream, which has been separated due to disconnection of the pancreatic duct (DPD) for various reasons.Acute necrotizing pancreatitis includes a certain probability of DPDS appearance, which makes it necessary to provide various treatments for DPDS. Furthermore, DPDS can impact long-term results, such as recurrence and impaired pancreatic function. Although the development of various modalities has contributed to diagnosis and treatment, especially less invasive endoscopic therapy, DPDS is often overlooked, and the diagnosis can be delayed due to the lack of consensus on its definition and classification. This review summarizes the current knowledge and challenges of DPDS and discusses the optimal strategy for its diagnosis and treatment, as well as future perspectives.

AREAS COVERED

Given the lack of established definition, diagnosis, and treatment of DPDS, we conducted a thorough review of the existing literature.

EXPERT OPINION

It is emphasized that a standardized definition and classification of DPDS is essential for designing and conducting clinical studies to address current unmet needs in managing patients with DPDS.

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.

WONDER-02: plastic stent vs. lumen-apposing metal stent for endoscopic ultrasound-guided drainage of pancreatic pseudocysts-study protocol for a multicentre randomised non-inferiority trial

BACKGROUND

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided transluminal drainage has become a first-line treatment modality for symptomatic pancreatic pseudocysts. Despite the increasing popularity of lumen-apposing metal stents (LAMSs), plastic stents may resolve non-necrotic fluid collections effectively with lower costs and no LAMS-specific adverse events. To date, there has been a paucity of data on the appropriate stent type in this setting. This trial aims to assess the non-inferiority of plastic stents to a LAMS for the initial EUS-guided drainage of pseudocysts.

METHODS

The WONDER-02 trial is a multicentre, open-label, non-inferiority, randomised controlled trial, which will enrol pancreatic pseudocyst patients requiring EUS-guided treatment in 26 centres in Japan. This trial plans to enrol 80 patients who will be randomised at a 1:1 ratio to receive either plastic stents or a LAMS (40 patients per arm). In the plastic stent group, EUS-guided drainage will be performed using two 7-Fr double pigtail stents. In the LAMS group, the treatment will be performed in the same way except for LAMS use. The step-up treatment will be performed via endoscopic and/or percutaneous procedures at the trial investigator's discretion. The primary endpoint is clinical success, which is defined as a decrease in a pseudocyst size to ≤ 2 cm and an improvement in inflammatory indicators (i.e. body temperature, white blood cell count, and serum C-reactive protein). Secondary endpoints include technical success, adverse events including mortality, pseudocyst recurrence, and medical costs.

DISCUSSION

The WONDER-02 trial will investigate the efficacy and safety of plastic stents compared to a LAMS in EUS-guided treatment of symptomatic pancreatic pseudocysts with a particular focus on the non-inferior efficacy of plastic stents. The findings will help establish a new treatment algorithm for this population.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT06133023 registered on 9 November 2023. UMIN000052647 registered on 30 October 2023. jRCT1032230444 registered on 7 November 2023.

Risk factors for adverse outcomes at various phases of endoscopic ultrasound-guided treatment of pancreatic fluid collections: Data from a multi-institutional consortium

OBJECTIVES

No comprehensive study has examined short- and long-term adverse outcomes of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided treatment of pancreatic fluid collections (PFCs) including walled-off necrosis (WON) and pseudocysts.

METHODS

In a multi-institutional cohort of 357 patients receiving EUS-guided treatment of PFCs (228 with WON and 129 with pseudocysts), we examined PFC type-specific risk factors for procedure-related adverse events (AEs), clinical failure, and recurrence. Odds ratios (ORs) and hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were computed using the logistic and Cox regression models, respectively, adjusting for potential confounders.

RESULTS

Adverse events were observed predominantly in WON, and risk factors were WON extension to the pelvis (OR 2.49; 95% CI 1.00-6.19) and endoscopic necrosectomy (OR 5.15; 95% CI 1.61-16.5). Risk factors for clinical failure in WON treatment included higher Charlson Comorbidity Index (OR for ≥3 vs. ≤2, 2.58; 95% CI 1.05-6.35), extension to the pelvis (OR 3.63; 95% CI 1.57-8.43), nonuse of a lumen-apposing metal stent (OR 2.88; 95% CI 1.10-7.54), and percutaneous drainage (OR 3.73; 95% CI 1.27-10.9). Patients with pseudocysts extending to the paracolic gutter and the need for more than two endoscopic/percutaneous procedures had ORs for clinical failure of 5.28 (95% CI 1.10-25.3) and 5.52 (95% CI 1.61-18.9), respectively. Pseudocysts requiring the multigateway approach were associated with a high risk of recurrence (HR 4.00; 95% CI 1.11-11.6).

CONCLUSION

The adverse outcomes at various phases of EUS-guided PFC treatment may be predictable based on clinical parameters. Further research is warranted to optimize treatment strategies for high-risk patients.