An endoscopic or minimally invasive surgical approach for infected necrotizing pancreatitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Invasive intervention timing for infected necrotizing pancreatitis: Late invasive intervention is not late for collection

With the advance of invasive interventions, the treatment model for infected necrotizing pancreatitis (INP) has shifted from open surgery to the step-up minimally invasive treatment. Late intervention, originating from the open surgery era, has been questioned in the minimally invasive period. With the emergence of new high-quality evidence about the timing for intervention, it seems to be increasingly apparent that, even in the age of minimal invasiveness, “late intervention” waiting for the necrotic collections to be encapsulated is still necessary. This opinion review mainly discusses the intervention timing for INP.

Is endoscopic drainage better than percutaneous drainage for patients with pancreatic fluid collections? A comparative meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

though endoscopic and percutaneous drainage have emerged as the most common minimally invasive treatments for pancreatic fluid collections (PFCs), estimates of therapeutic superiority for either treatment have yielded inconsistent results.

METHODS

we retrieved studies comparing the efficacy and safety of these two approaches in PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library. Primary outcomes were differences in technical success, clinical success, and adverse events, and secondary outcomes included differences in reintervention, need for surgical intervention, mortality, recurrence rate, and length of hospital stay.

RESULTS

there were nonsignificant differences in technical success rate (OR 0.54; CI: 0.15-1.86), clinical success rate (OR 1.39; CI: 0.82-2.37), adverse events rate (OR 1.21; CI: 0.70-2.11), mortality rate (OR 0.81; CI: 0.30-2.16), and recurrence rate (OR 1.94; CI 0.74-5.07) between the two groups. Reintervention rate (OR 0.19; CI: 0.08-0.45) and percentage of need for surgical intervention (OR 0.08; CI: 0.02-0.39) in the endoscopic drainage group were much lower than in the percutaneous drainage group. Total length of hospital stay (standard mean difference [SMD] -0.60; CI: -0.84 to -0.36) in the endoscopic drainage group was shorter; however, there was a nonsignificant difference in the length of post-procedure hospital stay (SMD: -0.30; CI: -1.05-0.44) between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

endoscopic drainage is effective for PFCs, and superior in terms of lower reintervention and need for surgery rates over traditional percutaneous drainage, despite a similar clinical efficacy and safety compared with traditional percutaneous drainage.

Compositional and drug-resistance profiling of pathogens in patients with severe acute pancreatitis: a retrospective study

Background

Infection is one of the important causes of death in patients with severe acute pancreatitis (SAP), but the bacterial spectrum and antibiotic resistance are constantly changing. Making good use of antibiotics and controlling multi-drug-resistant (MDR) bacterial infections are of vital importance in improving the cure rate of SAP. We conducted a retrospective study in the hope of providing references for antibiotic selection and control of drug-resistant bacteria.

Methods

Retrospective analysis was performed on the data of patients hospitalized in our hospital due to acute pancreatitis (AP) in the past 5 years. General data were classified and statistically analyzed. Subsequently, the bacterial spectrum characteristics and the data related to drug-resistant bacterial infection of 569 AP patients were analyzed. Finally, unconditional logistic regression analysis was conducted to analyze the risk factors of MDR infection.

Results

A total of 398 patients were enrolled in this study and the hospitalization data and associated results were analyzed. A total of 461 strains of pathogenic bacteria were detected, including 223 (48.4%) gram-negative bacterial strains, 190 (41.2%) gram-positive bacterial strains and 48 (10.4%) fungal strains. The detection rates of resistance in gram-negative and gram-positive bacterial strains were 48.0% (107/223) and 25.3% (48/190), respectively. There were significant differences between the MDR group and the non-MDR group for the factors of precautionary antibiotic use, kinds of antibiotics used, receipt of carbapenem, tracheal intubation, hemofiltration and number of hospitalization days in the intensive care unit. Unconditional logistic regression revealed 2 risk factors for MDR bacterial infection.

Conclusions

Our results illustrate that gram-negative bacteria were the most common pathogens in SAP infection, and the proportion of gram-positive bacteria increased notably. The rate of antibiotic resistance was higher than previously reported. Unconditional logistic regression analysis showed that using more types of antibiotics and the number of hospitalization days in the ICU were the risk factors associated with MDR bacterial infection.

Efficacy and safety of endoscopic vs surgical management of necrotizing pancreatitis: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Endoscopy and surgery are the two major invasive interventions for necrotizing pancreatitis. However, studies comparing their efficacy and safety are lacking.

AIM

To systemically compare the efficacy and safety of endoscopic and surgical interventions for necrotizing pancreatitis.

METHODS

PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, CNKI, Wanfang database, and Sino Med were searched to identify all randomized control trials (RCT) and cohort studies comparing the efficacy and safety of endoscopic vs surgical management of necrotizing pancreatitis from January 2000 to June 2019. Revman 5.3 was used for statistical analysis.

RESULTS

A total of eight studies were included, with three RCT and five cohort studies. The total number of patients involved was 366, with 167 in the endoscopy group and 199 in the surgery group. Meta-analysis showed no significant difference between the two groups in clinical remission (odds ratio [OR] = 1.3, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.58-2.92, P = 0.52), primary composite endpoint (relative risk [RR] = 0.46, 95%CI: 0.17-1.27, P = 0.14), or mortality (OR = 0.78, 95%CI: 0.37-1.56, P = 0.52). Compared to surgery, endoscopic therapy significantly reduced the rates of postoperative complications including new-onset organ failure (OR = 0.40, 95%CI: 0.18-0.90, P = 0.03), enterocutaneous fistula or perforation of a visceral organ (OR = 0.46, 95%CI: 0.23-0.91, P = 0.02), and pancreatic fistula (OR = 0.09, 95%CI: 0.03-0.24, P < 0.00001).

CONCLUSION

Endoscopic treatment, as compared to surgery, significantly reduces complications in patients with necrotizing pancreatitis.