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.

Treatment Targets in Inflammatory Bowel Disease: Current Status in Daily Practice

Background & Aims: Recently, treatment goals in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) in clinical trials have shifted from mainly symptom-based to more mucosa-driven. Real world data on treatment priorities are lacking. We aimed to investigate the current practice and most commonly used definitions of IBD treatment targets among Dutch gastroenterologists. Methods: Dutch gastroenterologists were asked to participate in a computer-based nation-wide survey. We asked questions on demographics, opinion and current practice regarding IBD treatment targets. Results: Twenty-four percent (134/556) of the respondents completed the survey. For both Crohn’s disease (CD) (47.3%, 61/129) and ulcerative colitis (UC)(45%, 58/129) the main treatment goal was to achieve and maintain deep remission, defined as clinical, biochemical and endoscopic remission. Seventy-six percent of the participants use mucosal healing (MH) as a potential treatment target for IBD, whereas 22.6% use histological remission. There is no single definition for MH in IBD. The majority use Mayo score ≤ 1 in UC (52%) and ‘macroscopic normal mucosa’ in CD (66%). Conclusion: More stringent and mucosa-driven treatment targets as ‘deep remission’ and ‘mucosal healing’ have found traction in clinical practice. The most commonly used definition for MH in routine practice is endoscopic MAYO score ≤ 1 in UC and ‘macroscopic normal mucosa’ in CD. Abbreviations: CD: Crohn’s disease; CDEIS: Crohn‘s Disease Endoscopic Index of Severity; IBD: Inflammatory Bowel Disease; IBDU: IBD unclassified; IOIBD: International Organization for the Study of Inflammatory Bowel Diseases; MH: Mucosal healing; MMH: Microscopic mucosal healing; PROMS: Patient reported outcome measures; SES-CD: Simple endoscopic score for Crohn’s disease; UC: ulcerative colitis; UCEIS: Ulcerative Colitis Endoscopic Index of Severity.